header-logo header-logo

Equality for parents at the Bar

30 May 2017
Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has backed a rule-change to allow self-employed barristers to take parental leave.

The proposed change, which was the subject of BSB consultation that closed in February, is yet to be approved by the Legal Services Board.

If approved, however, chambers would have to offer at least one year’s leave from practice to any member who becomes a parent or carer of a child through birth or adoption. It would apply to mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents, as well as the married, civil, and de facto partners of biological or adoptive parents. Moreover, each parent would have their own parental leave rights regardless of their partner’s employment status or parental leave rights.

BSB Director of Strategy and Policy Ewen MacLeod said: ‘We think this could help the Bar to retain those with parental responsibilities by making it easier for self-employed barristers to combine work and family life. This could help with efforts to encourage more gender diversity within the profession, especially at the senior end.’

Barristers would not be obliged to take the full entitlement, and would be able to take their leave flexibly so they can maintain their practice and support their income.

Andrew Langdon QC, Chair of the Bar, hailed the rule-change as ‘a culture shift’ at the Bar.

‘This is a watershed moment which challenges the assumption that one parent should have to take more time out of their career, and take on more caring responsibilities, than the other,’ he said.  

‘The Bar Council has been lobbying for rule changes since the introduction of Shared Parental Leave in 2015 because we want parents to have a more equal role and because we want to see more equal numbers of men and women at the Bar. We know that women who leave the Bar for extended periods of time, such as for maternity, find it hard to come back. This move will help to place both parents on a more equal footing.’

Sam Mercer, Bar Council Head of Policy for Equality and Diversity, said: ‘The Bar is serious about supporting parents in the profession.

‘This is an important moment in the journey towards a more equal profession and society. The Bar Council will provide full support to chambers to ensure this change is managed effectively. New guidance will be issued shortly.’

Issue: 7748 / Categories: Legal News
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