header-logo header-logo

26 July 2020
Issue: 7897 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

Extent of pandemic damage to Bar revealed

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll