header-logo header-logo

30 June 2020
Issue: 7893 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

Chambers under pressure

Barristers suffering financially by the reduction in court work during the COVID-19 crisis have complained that cases are being adjourned unnecessarily

A Bar Council survey of heads of chambers concluded this week that ‘many adjournments were unnecessary, exacerbating the unacceptably high backlog of court work’. Nearly three-quarters of respondents felt that more than a quarter of all hearings and trials listed during the preceding six weeks that had been adjourned could have gone ahead entirely or partly remotely.

Nearly all chambers are seeing a considerable reduction in work, with 75% of chambers finding court work at least halved.

According to the survey, even with current government support, 29% of chambers do not think they will survive more than three to six months, and 58% of chambers will not last six months to a year.

Criminal and family sets are hardest hit―86% of criminal chambers and 69% of family chambers where the majority of income is from publicly funded work, predict they will go under within a year.

The impact is felt more strongly outside of London, where 31% of chambers (compared to 16% of London sets) think they will go under within six months.

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘These findings show that some barristers, especially those doing vital publicly funded work, face an uncertain future and that many do not expect their practices to survive.

‘Like many others who are self-employed, a lot of barristers do not qualify for government support. Add to that the drastic decline in court work, where barristers play such an important role, and it is no surprise that so many are expecting the worst. Unless the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury act now, who will be there to represent victims and defendants whose cases the government slung in the “backlog corner” long before COVID-19?’ 

Issue: 7893 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll