header-logo header-logo

BC reports on a tale of two Bars

31 May 2018
Issue: 7795 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_7795_news

Survey paints mixed picture of a barrister’s working life

A barrister’s life is a stressful one, according to a Bar Council report.

More than 4,000 barristers responded to a survey for the report, published last week, Barristers’ Working Lives 2017: Barristers’ attitudes towards their working lives. It reveals a picture of barristers struggling with a heavy workload, stress and a poor work-life balance. Barristers routinely work the equivalent of one or two days per week unpaid, while funding cuts are causing one in three criminal barristers to rethink their choice of career.

However, the report also tells a tale of two Bars—the emotionally drained and underpaid Criminal Bar, 62% of whom work at least one day a week unpaid; and the more positive Commercial and Chancery Bar.

Moreover, despite all the stress, 89% of barristers find their work interesting and 61% of barristers across all practice areas agreed that they feel enthusiastic about their work most days.

In terms of hours, 27% of criminal barristers and 33% of family barristers work more than 60 hours a week, compared to 16% in commercial and chancery, 17% in civil and an average of 22% across all practice areas, which is up from 13% in 2013.

Across the Bar, only 26% said they were not under too much work pressure (compared to 33% in 2013). 58% of criminal barristers and 66% of family barristers felt they were under too much work pressure.

Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar, said: ‘There is a notable difference between those practising in crime (and, to a degree, in family work) and the rest of the Bar. 

‘It should also be recognised that the survey was conducted in the summer of 2017, since when legal aid fees have been eroded further by inflation. The fact that many saw their workload, stress and work-life balance deteriorate yet further between 2013 and 2017 is a worrying trend. 

‘It shows that we must all maintain our efforts across the Bar to support those who are finding practice ever more difficult to sustain, both financially and in terms of maintaining and enjoying a healthy and fulfilling life both at work and at home.’

Issue: 7795 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll