header-logo header-logo

12 May 2023
Issue: 8025 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Career focus , Diversity
printer mail-detail

History made as senior judicial roles opened up to CILEX lawyers

CILEX lawyers with at least seven years’ experience will be eligible to become recorders, judges of the Upper Tribunal and deputy judges of the Upper Tribunal, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed.

The rule-change, made by statutory instrument this week and due to take effect immediately following parliamentary approval, will make these three judicial roles available to a further 4,500 more lawyers. Previously, only solicitors and barristers could apply.

Recorders preside over cases in the Crown Court, sentencing some of the most serious offenders, as well as hearing complex civil and family cases in the county court. The Upper Tribunal hears appeals on a wide range of issues such as immigration and tax.

The move is likely to make the judiciary more representative of society—just 6% of CILEX lawyers attended a fee-paying school compared to a third of barristers and 45% of recorders, and women make up 77% of CILEX lawyers compared to 41% of judges. One reason for this may be that CILEX lawyers are able to train while working, making this branch of the profession more attractive to people switching careers, joining after a break, or who need to earn while they learn.

In 2010, deputy district judge Ian Ashley-Smith became the first CILEX lawyer to be appointed to the judiciary, two years after restrictions to selected judicial roles were dropped. This week’s rule-change adds to the list of judicial roles open to CILEX lawyers—district judge, district judge (magistrates’ courts), deputy district judge, deputy district judge (magistrates’ courts), judge of the First-tier Tribunal, employment judge, road user charging adjudicator and parking adjudicators. CILEX lawyers can also become a circuit judge after serving two years as a district judge.

CILEX chair Professor Chris Bones said: ‘To promote confidence in the rule of law, we need a judiciary that is representative of the society we live in, and as one of the most diverse parts of the legal profession, CILEX is a key solution to accessing talent of greater diversity.

‘All lawyers regardless of their professional title should be able to apply for all judicial roles they are trained and competent to perform. The trailblazing judges among the ranks of CILEX lawyers have shown they are more than up to the job.’

Also welcoming the news, Nick Vineall KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘Judges should be, and are, appointed on merit. If candidates for judicial appointment can demonstrate the skills and experience required for the role, it should not matter in which branch of the legal profession those skills and experience were acquired.’

Issue: 8025 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Career focus , Diversity
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll