Legal Village

Simon, your argument about signalling an arm’s-length relationship is interesting. Some questions occur to me. Why are the clerks still being called by their first names in this scenario? If formal titles are justified then surely they are justified on both sides. If not, then it looks as if unequal status is coming into it. And: why are the competing barristers, who also presumably need ‘distance’, not addressing each other formally? Also: what about the non-clerking staff, to whom the arm’s length argument doesn’t apply?

I think the hospital example is different. It’s a temporary relationship, and the use of formal titles here, if the patient wishes it, is about bolstering the patient’s self-respect when they are feeling vulnerable. Notice that the patient is offered the choice – unlike (I imagine) the clerks.

Something in your observation about ‘ascertain the level of respect between two people’ makes me uneasy and I’ve been trying to put my finger on it. I think my point is that you can INFLUENCE their relationship by how they perceive that the organisational culture expects them to address each other. And their behaviour towards each other – whether they are comfortable and relaxed – helps you to ASCERTAIN whether they really do feel that they are in a team. Does that make sense?

I’m sure we all agree that respect is built up in many ways and that you don’t build a team by talking about team spirit. I’ve tried to ensure that staff have a say in how the organisation is run and where it’s going, that equal opportunity and diversity policies are not just adopted and filed, but enforced, that bullying is dealt with, that successes are celebrated, and that staff and managers or barristers have the opportunity to meet together outside of office hours (and what should they call each other then?).

Posted by Christine Kings | 30/11/2007

As it happens I agree, although I am in a set of Chambers which does not. So, let me put the counter argument, which I am sure Christine and Paul both know. I do think that the failure to acknowledge that there is a counter-argument rather weakens the case made.

The Barrister/Clerk relationship is a professional one, in which the Clerk, whilst the employee, exercises a huge influence. At certain stages of a barrister's career - notably the beginning, any change in direction, at the start of silk and at the end - the clerk exercises more influence than the barrister.

The barrister is competing for work with other members of Chambers. New solicitors are often guided by the clerk. It is therefore in everyone's interests for the relationship between barrister and clerk to be at arms length. First names are inimical to that distance. That is not to say that a clerk needs to call a barrister 'sir' (and in my Chambers they do not). But clerks are habitually addressed by their first names and barristers as Mr/Ms.

This is not about superiority. It is about preserving a professional relationship. We are, as Christine observed, made by our habits. It is safer to habitually recognise the distance and the need for it than to take a chance. Both parties should be capable of recognising the reality of the relationship and the fact that it is a team effort. If a barrister needs to be reminded of that then, no matter what s/he calls his/her clerk it is a poor performance. Similarly, if a clerk needs to call a barrister by their first name in order to feel part of a team then Chambers is at fault.

So, there is the opposing point of view. I entirely agree about 'girls' and 'boys' and I have never heard it used in either of the Chambers where I was a pupil, by any other barrister or in my own Chambers. The difference is that such terminology expresses a determination to reduce the status of one party. I don't believe that is so by having to call a barrister Mr/Ms - when my father went into hospital recently he was offered precisely that choice and the nurses did not seem to underperform or feel undervalued because they called him Mr Myerson.

Whatever side you are on, I entirely disagree that one can ascertain the level of respect between two people by whether they address each other by their first name or whether one uses Mr. That confuses form with function - which in turn serves to diminish substantive respect by making it look as if those demanding it are concerned about trifles. It just isn't that important, one way or the other.

Posted by Simon Myerson | 18/11/2007

I agree entirely with Christine's comments. It has been part of our ethos to be on first name terms for the past 20 years. It helps to enforce the view that we are all part of the same team and has contributed to the success of these chambers.

Paul Shrubsall
Senior Clerk
One Essex Court

Posted by Paul Shrubsall | 15/11/2007

"What's in a name"...

Thanks so much for reminding us that the way we call each other is meaningful and that there is more to it than a mere convention.

And this is not only a question of political correctness: replacing 'ethnic minority' by 'minority ethnic' indeed reminds us that even whites are 'ethnic' and that it's only a question of proportion.

In French, the 'Mademoiselle' and 'Madame' have been sign-posting since Napoleon that a woman belongs either to her father or to her husband. Isn't it time that the way women are called does not depend on their marital status? As far as I know, men are 'Monsieur' from the day they are born until the day they die, irrespective of their marital status! 'Ms' ought to be the only way of calling a woman in English, and 'Madame' in French...

I also dream of the day when men will stop calling us 'love', 'dear' or 'darling' in shops and at receptions: for them it might sound friendly and welcoming, for us it's simply humiliating!

Adieu 'Sir and Miss', 'boys and girls', and 'babies' - Adieu indeed!

Posted by Alexandrine Guyard-Nedelec | 15/11/2007