Neither the generalisation nor the perception are entirely fair.
In fact, more than a third of the self-employed Bar’s members are women and 10.5% are black and minority ethnic (BME), compared to a national percentage of about 8%. Trainee barristers/pupils are roughly 50:50 male and female and around 15% are from BME backgrounds. These statistics, although encouraging, leave no room for complacency. Increasingly, the Bar Council, in common with other public bodies, talks of the need for ‘diversity’ among its members - that the Bar should reflect the society it serves.
There has long been a prohibition on discrimination in one form or another: since 1975 on grounds of gender; since 1976 on grounds of race; since 1995 on grounds of disability; and, more recently, since 2006 on grounds of age. And there have been ever-increasing obligations imposed by statute on the Bar Council, as a public authority, to promote racial equality and gender equality.
However, a prohibition against discrimination is not the flip side of the promotion of diversity. Should the Bar itself, as distinct from the Bar Council, be promoting diversity?
Lord Neuberger’s Working Party, which was set up under the aegis of the Bar Council, suggested that the Bar can only flourish and retain public
confidence if it is a diverse and inclusive profession - I agree. The Chancery Bar Association (ChBA) is committed to fostering an inclusive and diverse membership, plus increasing diversity across all levels of the Bar without regard to gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age or disability. The association intends to achieve this through initiatives directed at recruitment, retention and recognition.
The ChBA has already established a student information line and, this spring, will be producing a new information booklet providing information about the Chancery Bar and the breadth of the work undertaken by it, with a view to attracting applicants of the highest quality from the widest possible pool. That booklet, it is intended, will be available in careers offices and may also be obtained directly from the ChBA.
It was noted by Lord Neuberger’s Working Party, that there is little point in improving equality and diversity on entry to the Bar if a disproportionate number of practitioners from disadvantaged or other groups are lost to the Bar in their early years of practice. A focus on ‘retention’ is therefore a key factor.
But a problem with retention is the paucity of available data. Important steps are being taken to remedy that situation by the Bar Council. It has recently completed a survey to establish the profile of the self-employed Bar and it monitors, so far as it is able, barristers leaving practice by reference to gender, ethnicity and disability.
The statistics available, such as they are, show certain groups are more likely to leave the self-employed Bar in their early years of practice and, of those groups, women are the most likely to leave. What is not readily available, however, is reliable data as to the reasons for their departures.
Over this summer, the ChBA is intending to establish a mentoring scheme directed at women, with the aim of providing a mentor for every female who wishes to participate. It will also provide an ‘emergency’ mentoring service for women who need particular assistance, for example, in considering whether or not to return to practice after maternity leave.
By ‘recognition’ I am referring to awareness of the appreciation of talent which may be manifested in different ways by different members of the profession; by the diversity of the practitioners at the Bar; of the barriers and problems faced by particular practitioners; and of the means available to us to ensure a more diverse profession.
For the Chancery Bar, diversity is not an end in itself. Nor should it be. Diversity is a means to securing the services of the best candidates on grounds of merit. Widen the pool and we increase the choices available to us in selecting and retaining the best.
Internationally, there are now a number of companies that insist on applying diversity criteria to the team of people engaged on their behalf at the law firms they retain.
Similarly, many of the major law firms have adopted corporate and social responsibility (CSR) programmes and herald their commitment to diversity as a cornerstone of such programmes and, in some cases, even as a business imperative. No doubt it will be suggested by some that such commitment to CSR is nothing but a cynical response to the requirements of their clients. To others it will be seen as a search for the most talented people.
So far as the Chancery Bar is concerned, we are committed to maintaining and enhancing the standard of excellence in legal advice and representation for which the Chancery Bar has an international reputation.
The aim of the Chancery Bar is to attract and retain people of the highest quality; that is, excellence. It is upon that excellence that public confidence in the Chancery Bar, and the services it provides, can properly and justifiably be built and maintained. Diversity is the means to maintain and enhance that excellence. The key is equality of opportunity; the removal of barriers irrelevant to the ability of people to practise at the Chancery Bar and to perform the services required is essential.
In that regard the Chancery Bar is neither out of step with public sentiment nor with the rest of the profession.
Michael Todd QC is chairman of the Chancery Bar Association.