header-logo header-logo

20 February 2019
Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Diverse judiciary depends on diverse profession

The way to make the judiciary more diverse is to increase the number of women and black and minority ethnic (BAME) law firm partners, Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, has said.

And while sex and ethnicity are visible characteristics, the socio-economic background of candidates is often less obvious. Delivering the Treasurer’s Lecture 2019 this week at Middle Temple, Lord Burnett said: ‘It is of great concern that the legal profession appears to be over populated, particularly at the upper reaches, with people from economically privileged backgrounds. Social diversity matters too.’

He recalled that, as recently as 1991, there was a policy in the Lord Chancellor’s department of not appointing ‘openly gay judges’.

However, judges are drawn from the ranks of successful practitioners, he said, therefore diversity in the judiciary is dependent on diversity in the profession. Currently, only about a third of partners in law firms are female, and they are disproportionately situated at smaller firms. About a third of senior junior barristers of more than 15 years’ call are female, but only 15% of QCs are female.

In 2018, there were no ethnic minority judges in the Supreme Court, one judge (out of 39) in the Court of Appeal, and only three in the High Court. There were three women in the Supreme Court, nine in the Court of Appeal and 24 in the High Court.

Lord Burnett said: ‘Promoting diversity and appointing on the basis of merit are mutually reinforcing because the wider the pool the greater the availability of talent, the greater the competition for places and the greater the quality of appointments.’

Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , 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