header-logo header-logo

Bullying, harassment & discrimination at the Bar

13 December 2023
Issue: 8053 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
Inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour, bullying, harassment and discrimination at the Bar is a ‘systemic issue’, the Bar Council has said, after research uncovered shocking levels of abuse at work

The poor behaviour ranged across the profession and involved judges, barristers, chambers’ staff, solicitors and court staff. Incidents ranged from pejorative or demeaning language to intimidating or bullying behaviour, unwanted attention, unwanted physical contact, sexual harassment and serious abuse, inappropriate comments, online abuse, and sexist, racist and ableist behaviours.

Bar Council research published last week, ‘Bullying, harassment and discrimination at the Bar 2023’, found 44% of respondents have experienced or observed such behaviour while working either in person or online (up from 38% in 2021 and 31% in 2017).

Of the 1,233 barristers who reported experiencing or observing bullying and/or harassment, the majority (53%) reported a member of the judiciary as the person responsible, followed by a more senior barrister (31%) or a barrister at the same level (14%).

Women, people of colour, younger and more junior members of the Bar were most affected by bullying, harassment and discrimination. Barristers with caring responsibilities or a disability also reported being disproportionately affected.

The perpetrators of bad behaviour were generally in a position of power or influence, and included judges, more senior barristers, senior clerks and practice managers. Fear of repercussions was the primary reason given for not reporting incidents. In particular, some people were told that if they complained they would never work at the Bar again.

The data was drawn from the biennial survey, Barristers’ working lives, as well as from reports to Talk to Spot and calls to the Bar’s helplines.

Nick Vineall KC, Chair of the Bar Council, said the Bar Council was committed to addressing the problems and has commissioned a review, to be established by spring 2024 and report back by spring 2025, to identify strategies to curb the abuse.

Sam Townend KC, Chair-Elect of the Bar Council, said: ‘The Bar Council identifies bullying, harassment and discrimination as a systemic issue and we hope the judiciary, clerks, chambers professionals and the Inns will work together with us to facilitate meaningful change.’

Issue: 8053 / 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