header-logo header-logo

Bullying & harassment at the Bar

10 September 2025
Issue: 8130 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
The Bar has a culture of ‘impunity’ and ‘collusive bystanding’ in which making a complaint is deemed career-ending due to a ‘cohort of untouchables’ at the top, Baroness Harriet Harman KC has found

Harman’s explosive ‘Independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar’, published this week, draws on the experience of hundreds of professionals, including those who have been groped, propositioned, shouted at in court and left feeling ‘completely isolated’. Most victims did not report their experience because they feared being labelled a ‘troublemaker’.

‘Bullying, harassment and sexual harassment is a problem at the Bar and on the Bench, within chambers and courtrooms, in open court and behind robing room doors,’ Harman said.

Her review makes 36 recommendations for reform, including proscribing as misconduct any sexual relations between barristers and pupils, mini-pupils or people on work experience. It recommends mandatory anti-bullying and anti-harassment standards, policies and training across the profession, time limits for processing complaints, and the creation of a commissioner for conduct.

Harman’s review proposes abolishing the three-month limit for a barrister to make a complaint against a judge. It also suggests that sanctions decisions against judges are taken by the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor—to counter the perception that disciplinary action is too soft.

Examples given of judicial bullying included one first-tier tribunal judge with a reputation for bullying juniors, especially women, who is believed to have been spoken to by senior judiciary but with no effect. Harman’s review reports: ‘In a recent case, he refused to deal with female counsel and instead directed his questions to male counsel. He spoke to the female counsel in a negative tone, scoffing and rolling his eyes every time the female counsel spoke. This is apparently not uncommon.’

Bar Council chair Barbara Mills KC said the review made for ‘uncomfortable reading’ and it was ‘imperative that all barristers have a safe working environment’.

Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, said there are ‘too many examples of judicial bullying… We are currently reviewing the routes available to raise concerns and resolve issues and working to challenge and change unacceptable behaviour.’

Issue: 8130 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

NEWS
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
The Ministry of Justice is once again in the dock as access to justice continues to deteriorate. NLJ consultant editor David Greene warns in this week's issue that neither public legal aid nor private litigation funding looks set for a revival in 2026
Civil justice lurches onward with characteristic eccentricity. In his latest Civil Way column, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist, surveys a procedural landscape featuring 19-page bundle rules, digital possession claims, and rent laws he labels ‘bonkers’
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
back-to-top-scroll