How do we find a representative judiciary?

Lord Sumption's controversial statements earlier this week certainly relit the debate on gender equality in the legal profession, just as the dual furores of Charlotte Proudman's 'stunning' LinkedIn profile photo and Amal Clooney's career-defining marriage were beginning to subside.

Our judiciary is by no means perfect. It lacks diversity in gender, ethnicity, and social class. It remains too white, too male, too middle-class, and too Oxbridge. It is a throwback to a bygone era that no longer reflects the legal profession from which it draws its members and has never reflected the rest of the nation.

There will always be headlines waiting to be written about a judge's 'unduly' lenient sentence, or inappropriate comments made to a victim, or ill-timed email complaints to the chairman of an airline. There will always be some jurists out of touch with modern thinking and who refuse to accept when society has changed around them.

Also, our jurists are, by and large, far from the bravest souls. They have a tendency to be too passive, unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet and fight for a justice system which is increasingly threatened in austerity Britain, lest they be accused of judicial activism - a heinous crime that sees politicians weep in parliament.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Just last week the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, called on his brethren to engage in politics so as to preserve the rule of law. Only time will tell if they heed his call instead of merely continuing to grumble to each other and reminisce about the good-old days behind the locked doors of chambers.

Yet, having said all that, we still have some of the greatest judicial minds of any jurisdiction. Our legal system is, for now at least, the envy of the world, even in spite of the Supreme Court justice's inflammatory remarks.

Yes, the appointment system needs to be reformed, and in the media maelstrom that has swirled since Sumption's remarks were made public, several ideas have been floated: Selection panels for senior judiciary be split 50/50 between male and female; direct appointments of women to the bench until parity is reached; a strict quota system for silks and judges; and, most amusingly, letting the public elect its justices.

A recent investigation by Reuters found that a judiciary chosen by voters tends to reverse death penalties at less than half the rate of those who are appointed to the bench. A review of 2,102 US state supreme court rulings on death penalty appeals from across 37 states found a correlation between the results in those cases and the way each state chose its judges.

Turning UK judges into elected politicians, whose decision making would sway in the political breeze and be affected by public opinion during an election year, is no way to reform the system for the better. If the current ranks of the junior Bar and solicitor profession is any barometer of the future of the judiciary, then a more diverse, meritocratic, and activist judicature is on the horizon.

Whether that can be sped up through the use of quotas or otherwise is open to debate, but I think it is safe to say that electing our judges is not the solution.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal