header-logo header-logo

Extent of pandemic damage to Bar revealed

26 July 2020
Issue: 7897 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
Barristers are considering leaving the profession due to the financial impact of COVID-19, with publicly funded, criminal and young practitioners hardest hit, research has found

The results of a Bar Council survey between 16 June and 6 July are bleak―16% of self-employed barristers actively want to leave as a result of the pandemic (for 20 years, this has been no more than 4% yearly). Court closures and interrupted cases have left self-employed barristers working half their normal hours, with fee income reduced by 59% (69% for publicly funded barristers who do crime, immigration, housing and family law).

Long-term sustainability is a major problem. Half of those who mainly do publicly funded work say they are already suffering financial hardship, and a further 41% expect to, while 29% are uncertain whether they will renew their practising certificate next year (rising to 36% of immigration practitioners). A mere one in five expect to be practising from their current chambers in a year.

However, the impact is widely felt, with 9% of commercial, 10% of chancery and 18% of personal injury barristers uncertain if they will renew their practising certificate in 2021.

Government support has had a limited impact―of the 16% of barristers who applied to the Bounce Back Loan Scheme, only 57% were successful, and only 21% of barristers have benefited from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme.

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar (pictured) said: ‘We had hoped to see some green shoots by now, but this shocking evidence suggests the opposite.

‘The justice system won’t last much longer unless those essential to it are supported, just like others working in the public sector and playing a crucial role in society. Recovery looks a long way off and, when barristers cannot afford to stay in their profession, the public will lose out on vital help. The government cannot avoid intervening any longer.’

View the survey results at: bit.ly/3hEdqOs.

Issue: 7897 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll