SCOTLAND'S legal establishment is split over whether ''confidential soundings'' of candidates for the Bench should continue.

The division has emerged in an extensive response to a Scottish Executive consultation exercise into the manner in which the country's Supreme Court judges and sheriffs are appointed. The present system has been criticised for its ''old pals' act''.

One body of sheriffs, in its response, claims an open list of candidates would be likely to embarrass rather than assist the process of selecting the judiciary.

Another indicates that it is ''appalled'' at the suggestion there should be publication of names other than that of the successful candidate.

However, the Glasgow Bar Association maintains the present system ''reeks of patronage'' and is ''incestuous in its nature''. It also claims the procedure is ''wholly out-dated''.

The views come in response to the consultation paper ''Judicial Appointments: An Inclusive Approach''.

In April, Justice Minister Jim Wallace unveiled what he described as ''landmark'' proposals for appointing judges and sheriffs.

The cornerstone of the new system, it was indicated, was likely to be an independent appointments board to approve all candidates after the jobs had been advertised.

Such a system would see an end to the pivotal role of the Lord Advocate in appointments. There have been past criticisms of what has been perceived as Lord Advocates appointing themselves.

The system has also led to criticism that the selection of candidates is concentrated too narrowly on the Faculty of Advocates.

The Glasgow Bar Association claims the present system maintains senior appointments of the Judiciary ''within a very small circle''. The Lord Advocate's position cannot be sustained under it, it says. ''He is compromised wholly by his position in the Executive and the question of 'confidential soundings' is wholly out-dated.

''If someone is interested in applying to become a member of the senior judiciary, then the procedure should be well-established and open.

''It is for a candidate to consider whether the knowledge of his peers that he has applied for a judicial appointment and the risk he thereby takes, justifies any financial loss or loss of pride''.

The association says that everyone who was a potential candidate for a place on the Supreme Court bench should be given the opportunity to be considered when a vacancy arose and that eligibility should be considered on an objective and uniformed basis.

''The 'old pals' act applies. The only way to remove this justified perception is to advertise vacancies and have application to an independent Judicial Appointments Board.''

The Scottish Executive, it maintains, should not vet candidates, and Ministers, whether in exceptional circumstances or otherwise, and should have no place in suggesting ''names'' for the board to consider as this ran contrary to transparency.

The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, in its response, says the reliance on ''confidential soundings'' is outmoded in modern management.

However, the Council of the Sheriffs' Association says it can see no possible moral basis on which such soundings of people, who in the nature of the case had not put themselves forward as applicants, could be made other than confidentially, at least in the first instance.

It maintains that ''head hunting'' is widely accepted as being, in many situations, a useful means of securing the best candidates.

The Faculty of Advocates states it is essential that nominations or applications for judicial office should continue to be treated in the strictest confidence.