One reform too far

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, has just had a pay rise. As of 1 November, he is £2,025 a year better off, his salary having jumped by just under 1% to £230,400, representing the second stage of a review worth an average of 2.4% for the judiciary. Both the quantity and the rise are drops in the ocean compared to the pay packages partners at the leading firms have been awarding themselves in recent years.

Paltry judicial pay – at least compared to what is on offer at the leading City firms – was cited by some as one reason why the plan by the last Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, to allow judges to return to private practice was a good idea, as Clifford Chance litigator Simon Davis agreed.

But the Judges’ Council saw it very differently. In a letter to Lord Falconer, Phillips - the body’s chairman - warned that the proposals were “unworkable”, potentially “unlawful” and “would have a serious impact on the standing and status of the judiciary”.

As for Falconer’s assertion that the change would boost diversity on the bench, Phillips said there was no “adequate” evidence the scheme would have any effect on increasing diversity.

Strong stuff indeed, when you consider that the Lord Chancellor has historically been regarded as the judges’ staunchest ally. And yesterday Falconer’s successor, Jack Straw, bowed to the inevitable and rejected the plans, a move which, incidentally, closes off one avenue of future employment for his predecessor.

Recent years have seen the judiciary bombarded with a succession of reforms. Centuries of tradition have been swept away, much of it for the good. But it would seem this proposal – and, just as importantly, the manner of its announcement, as a virtual fait accompli – was a reform too far for the embattled judges.

john.malpas@legalweek.com