header-logo header-logo

26 April 2020
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Half of barristers’ businesses could collapse in six months without financial assistance

An alarming 30% of barristers say they are experiencing financial hardship due to COVID-19, and more than half expect to in future, according to the latest Bar Council research

An alarming 30% of barristers say they are experiencing financial hardship due to COVID-19, and more than half expect to in future, according to the latest Bar Council research

Although the courts are conducting hearings remotely where possible and continuing to hold essential hearings in person, practitioners have experienced a major drop-off in hearings and other work, the Bar Council said. 3,470 barristers (20% of the total) responded to its survey, published this week.

The survey found 65% of self-employed barristers have seen a reduction in work―the typical barrister has gone from working more than 50 hours to fewer than 18 hours per week.

However, only 14% of the self-employed bar are applying for the government’s rescue scheme (the self-employed income support scheme (SEISS)), and only five per cent said they would apply for the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme. Regarding the loan scheme, the survey reported ‘considerable reluctance to take on further debt when it is unclear when and how it can be paid back. Those who become bankrupt are prohibited from practising at the Bar’.

Applicants for SEISS grants must have filed a 2018/19 tax return, been self-employed before 6 April 2019, earn more than 50% of income through self-employment and have an annual trading profit of less than £50,000.

In terms of business sustainability, 53% of self-employed say they can’t survive six months under current conditions without financial aid of some sort, and 74% can’t survive a year. The situation is worse for the criminal bar, where 31% of barristers say they would not last three months without financial aid, 69% would not last six months and 88% would no longer be practising within a year.

Barristers in the first seven years of practice are the most vulnerable―83% say they can’t survive a year under current conditions without financial aid.

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council (pictured), said: ‘Barristers and others involved in the justice system are rightly classed as key workers by the government, because they are essential to ensuring that justice continues to be delivered for the public, despite the pandemic.

‘A threat to the barristers’ profession survival is a threat to the future of our justice system… we might very well find there are no barristers left to help pick up the pieces of the justice system after the crisis subsides.’

The Bar Council has called on the Treasury to expand its rescue scheme to increase the threshold above £50,000 trading profit for self-employed barristers so that more of the junior bar will be eligible, and to allow different types of evidence for the self-employed scheme so that those without 2018/19 tax returns can apply. It is also calling for an urgent rescue package for those at the publicly funded bar who are ineligible for the self-employed scheme.

Issue: 7884 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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