Is judicial office more appealing?

Judicial office is becoming a more appealing prospect, according to extensive research among more than 4,000 solicitors, barristers and chartered legal executive fellows eligible for appointment.

However, many are still put off applying by the belief that they lack the right contacts, the right background, that their employer will not be supportive, or that judicial office will be isolated and judicial culture unwelcoming.

The survey, which builds on research undertaken in 2008, was carried out by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), Bar Council, Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx).

Respondents identified the most appealing aspects of a judicial career as interesting work (97%, up from 92% in 2008), making a difference to the law (93%, up from 85%) and undertaking public service (89%, unchanged).

Significantly more have considered applying (46%, up from 32%) and see being a judge as part of their career path (43%, up from 28%). 

The research also looked at differences in the “barriers” that stop lawyers from applying—as in 2008, all groups felt they were disadvantaged compared to others.

While four-fifths of barristers were confident they would receive the support of their employer—unsurprisingly for those barristers that are self-employed—only 43% of solicitors and 47% of chartered legal executives felt the same.

Women, black, asian and minority ethnic (BAME), and disabled lawyers expressed a strong belief that good contacts are required for appointment – 77% of women, 80% of BAME and 84% of disabled lawyers. Fewer men (63%), white (68%) and non-disabled lawyers (69%) shared this opinion.

BAME and disabled lawyers were twice as likely as other groups to express concerns that they may not find judicial culture welcoming, and were also more likely to believe there was prejudice in the selection process.

Men and barristers were more confident they had the skills and experience to make a good judge and felt they had the necessary information to consider judicial appointment, compared with women, solicitors and CILEx members.

More than two-thirds of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lawyers said they would be more likely to apply if there were more openly LGBT members of the judiciary.

Christopher Stephens, JAC chair, says: “It is encouraging to see judicial appointments becoming more appealing and the very high level of applications we receive supports this.  

“Clearly the perceived barriers to judicial appointment still exist, but we now have a clearer appreciation of where we need to target our work to overcome them.”

Nicholas Fluck, President of the Law Society, says: “I am disappointed to find that only 43% of the solicitors who participated in the survey feel that they would be supported by their employers. 

“This is something which the Law Society is tackling through the commitment to the promotion of judicial appointments to which 21 City firms have subscribed. We also need to review the information which the Society provides to its members as there is clearly a demand for further information not just on the selection process but more fundamentally on the nature of judicial office.”