Barometer Report 2012: A culture of the status quo

This week saw the release of the second annual Barometer Report. There a few encouraging signs but over-all change is proving slow. The statistics on race and gender are consistent with Lord Sumption’s gloomy forecast at the Annual Law Reform Lecture last week.  However, there are also other issues that did not feature in that speech but that can be seen in this report that should stimulate a further debate about the culture of the Bar that should be just as evocative.

I Background

The report was commissioned by the Bar Council as part of the recommendations that followed Lord Neuberger’s “The Bar is Open to All” initiative- which itself aimed to ensure  that “those from less privileged backgrounds should be better able to make an informed decision about whether they wish to aspire to a career as a barrister.” The purpose of the report is to provide statistical information about the profile of the Bar as a whole, from the number of practitioners, their gender and ethnicity breakdown, to the number of pupillages available to train the thousands of practitioners-in-waiting. These statistics focus on the year 2010/11, looking at employed and self-employed bar, including sole practitioners. The information is also analysed against information from previous years in order to isolate any particular trends and looking at both the self-employed and the employed Bar.

II - The results – when you say nothing at all

In good news, the practising profession has grown by 1.2%, which translates to 194 additional practitioners. This is also the largest single period of growth in the last 5 years and up on the average of 0.9% for that time-frame. Of those, 109 were women, although that did little to challenge the male hegemony of 10,117 (66%) of the total 15,581 practitioners, 1,310 of whom held Silk compared with just 176 women. The number of BME practitioners was also up 1,594 an increase of 0.4% on last year to 10.2%, though it is still someway behind the national average of just under 17%.  It is worth noting that of these, 79 practitioners held silk but only 1 of these came from the self-employed Bar.

This is clearly a small but representative sample of the results and it is clear that progress in diversifying the profession is painfully slow.  Indeed, the absence of data is perhaps just as significant.

I was struck that 99.5% of those who were surveyed chose not to disclose whether or not that had a disability. Obviously, that is the prerogative of the particular respondent, but one might well ask why respondents are generally happier to disclose information about their gender and ethnicity. Typically, this is not an issue that is unique to the Bar but is perhaps more acute there. Whilst always sensitive, there is a degree of familiarity in the predominance of race and gender (as well as socio-economic) issues in the discourse on accessibility which is not enjoyed when it comes to disability (or sexuality) issues. In my view, there is a level of discomfort that pervades this issue, which inhibits an equally robust debate.

III – Practitioners-in-waiting

Maybe it is because the statistics cover my year at Bar school and because I am still looking for pupillage but there were a results that again made me “LOL” (Lament Out Loud).

“There were 3,099 applications to study for the BPTC [Bar Professional Training Course, formerly Bar Vocational Course] commencing in 2010/11, an increase of 16.6% (442) on the previous year” – emphasis added

If that isn’t enough to make your eyes water, consider this. Over the same period:

         

   “446 First Six pupillages were registered….a decrease of 3.1% (460 in 2009/10)

            477 Second six pupillages were registered, a decrease of 3.6%”

In other words, the increase alone is almost equal to the total number of First Six pupillages available. Clearly, the intensity of competition amongst aspirant barristers shows no signs of abating. Again, there is nothing new in that. But what the statistics don’t cover is the continuing increase in Bar school fees . Bar students are paying more for a course which delivers a decreasing likelihood of obtaining pupillage and which commands a questionable level of confidence within the profession that it is supposed to prepare you to join. 

This usually gives rise to a familiar refrain: “if you want it enough you will do and pay whatever it takes.” To an extent that’s true, if you want to be successful at the Bar, you have to be committed, hardworking, resilient and resourceful. However, the refrain is repeated almost belligerently against any criticism of access to the Bar or life as a practitioner. In that sense, it ignores reality. The financial demands of the Bar are huge – albeit that for a lucky few  (of which I was one) this can be cushioned and in some cases covered entirely by the scholarships offered by the Inns of Court and those course providers who introduced scholarships for this academic year. In some cases, this means that otherwise perfectly able candidates do not consider joining the Bar at all. For those that are called to the Bar and obtain pupillage later find that the accumulated training debts and financial instability of the Bar, particularly at the Junior end see people leaving the profession within a few years of practice – neither of which benefits the profession.

The Bar Council is evidently conscious of the financial burden that the Bar inevitably imposes given their vocal opposition to the increase in undergraduate tuition fees and the knock-on effect for the legal profession. Indeed, it was on this very topic that the then chairman of the Bar Council, Peter Lodder QC, led his speech at the launch of the “Bar is Open to All” film series. The fact that similar criticism has not been levelled against BPTC Course providers and their fee levels makes for a disappointing and in my view, unjustifiable paradox.

III – What next?

The 2012 Barometer Report clearly suggests the immediate future of the Bar will be reflecting the status quo. Those in search of a more immediate improvement in the diversity of the profession will doubtless be left unsurprised and unsatisfied. Effecting change is inherently more difficult in a self-employed and comparatively more disparate profession where the same people are trying to deal simultaneously with recruitment and managing caseloads. Moreover, if I didn’t believe that it had much to be proud of I wouldn’t be where I am - but more has to done. A failure to engage practically and not just rhetorically with these issues, will be just as damaging to the ultimate reputation of the profession as it is for the the judiciary whose membership it provides. For that to be avoided there has to a cultural shift. For both branches, the question is whether there is the collective will to bring it about. 

Maybe next year’s report will give us more of a clue.