Editors' Blog

Join the Bar's diversity debate

Posted 19/04/2007 by John Malpas

"We'll know we've made it when we have as many mediocre women in top jobs as mediocre men."

This quote comes courtesy of one contributor to a lively debate about diversity that has been taking place on legalweek.com/talkback.

In fact, two debates have been taking place simultaneously on the issue - one thread in response to a Bar Council working party’s interim report on access to the Bar (see story); and another to an opinion piece by Jonathan Karas QC (see article), in which he contends that judging the success of the Bar by how it promotes diversity risks a dumbing down of quality.

Karas’ article has, unsurprisingly, generated some impassioned responses, including one from Christine Kings, chief executive of Doughty Street Chambers.

"If the law provides an objective code which is currently objectively applied, as Jonathan Karas QC argues," she contends, "why is it that disproportionate numbers of poor, black men are in the prison system? Why have judges such a bad reputation for handling rape cases? Why did Lord Denning turn down out of hand the 'appalling vista' that the police had framed the working class, Irish 'Birmingham six'?"

Another poster - a senior partner at a US firm - says Karas’ views are similar to the ones that were held by many partners at US firms back in the 1990s, when he was starting out. He says he recently bumped into one such partner who conceded he had since changed his tune.

"He admitted back then he 'didn't get it'. He saw the concept of diversity as a threat and not an opportunity. As a non-executive of a global corporation, he looks for diversity in the law firms the corporation uses not as a measure of its lack of quality, but an indication of its dynamism and excellence."

The responses to Legal Week’s news article on the Entry to the Bar Working Party’s interim report are in broad agreement that it would be a good idea to improve the Bar’s diversity record. It is just that there is little consensus as to the best way forward.

Lord Justice Neuberger was a brave man to take on the job of heading the working party, given that this is the sixth such taskforce since 1991. Despite these efforts, the interim report (politely) concludes that Bar falls short of its aim to be open to all "by some margin".

It divides the problems facing would-be barristers into two categories - social and economic - claiming that the Bar "is perceived in many quarters as predominantly populated by those educated at public schools and by Oxford graduates".

The economic problems stem from the £13,000 cost of attending a Bar Vocational Course (BVC) and the lack of available pupillages. Each year 1,800 people pass their BVC and yet there are only 550 pupillages available.

Unsurprisingly, given the plethora of investigations into the issue, few, if any, of the interim report’s suggestions are particularly original. Indeed, proposals for better information for schools on a career at the Bar by means of "improved websites and information" verge on the trivial.

But the report does set out its objectives and the options available to the Bar clearly and concisely. It also seeks to make a virtue of the fact that the working party itself is a large and representative one – it has 29 members -  with a remit that is "far wider" than that of previous task forces.

You get the sense that Neuberger, who was recently promoted to the Court of Appeal, is taking his job seriously and is dong his utmost not to come up with yet another damp squib.

In a Talkback Special, legalweek.com is encouraging readers to post their views on the Entry to the Bar Working Party’s proposals. Click here to join the debate.