http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-3757
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The Bar of England & Wales, like the wider legal profession, does not reflect the society it serves. The current data published by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) suggests a profile in relation to gender and ethnicity that gives serious cause for concern. As regards additional diversity characteristics, the BSB (and others) have accepted that the existing datasets are not wholly reliable because of poor response rates to associated diversity questionnaires. In 2011, the Legal Services Board (LSB) introduced mandatory guidance that obliged its daughter regulators to put into place rules that relate to diversity monitoring and reporting across the legal profession. This paper is concerned with how the BSB has operationalised that statutory guidance in respect of the Bar. Drawing on data gathered from the websites of 160 chambers, I show significant non-compliance with the reporting rule, and question both how the BSB itself reports on diversity data and the drafting of the reporting rule. I ask whether non-compliance is partly a function of the complexity seen in how the BSB has made operational the LSB’s reporting requirements. My data also suggests that the BSB should target its enforcement and educational approaches to the reporting rule to small and medium sized chambers.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to Greg Fagbo for his research assistance, and to Jo Lewis and Andre Moura for their help with some of the statistical analysis. Hilary Sommerlad and Marc Mason kindly provided comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.
Disclosure statement
The author confirms that there is no financial interest or benefit arising from the direct application of the research.
ORCID
Steven Vaughan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-3757
Notes
2. Those doing work for clients are, of course, regulated in other ways: for example, via consumer protection legislation, and the common law of contract.
4. This is the latest date for which numbers are available. See: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/research-and-statistics/statistics/practising-barrister-statistics/
5. This was removed via the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
6. The Legal Services Act 2007 permits the creation of Alternative Business Structures, which can see law firms owned and/or managed by non-lawyers.
7. A number of barristers are also employed, working for various organisations. The latest statistics show that around 20% of the bar is employed, by law firms, the government etc.; see: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/careers/practice-options/employed-bar/
9. For an account of the Handbook, see Mason (Citation2014). For a wider account of how the Legal Services Act 2007 has shaped the Bar, see Deech (Citation2011).
10. Barristers in the Australian state of Victoria trace their history back to, and are aligned with, the English Bar. This makes them a useful point of comparison.
12. See the data in the Law Society annual statistical reports, available at: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/research-trends/
16. Under Section 162 of the Legal Services Act 2007, the LSB has the power to issue guidance, among other matters, for the purpose of meeting the regulatory objectives.
19. Emails of 27 and 30 July 2015. Copy on file with the author.