*/
As Baroness Harman identified in her review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar, the structure of barristers’ chambers can give rise to challenges in handling complaints against barristers and senior staff. Most chambers operate as unincorporated associations governed by a constitution. As there is no model or default constitution, the mechanisms for handling disciplinary matters vary widely between chambers and in many cases the constitutional arrangements do not provide a sufficiently robust framework for dealing with complaints or imposing sanctions on members.
The Harman Report makes a number of recommendations to address these concerns. For many chambers this is likely to require a review and updating of their constitutions to ensure compliance. The relevant recommendations are considered further below.
The Report recommends that chambers’ constitutions, and relevant employee policies, should set out clearly the range of sanctions available for findings of serious misconduct. In my experience, most constitutions do not make provision for sanctions, other than expulsion in cases of serious misconduct. However, clearly setting out the range of sanctions available provides useful clarity both to the chambers concerned and to any member facing a complaint.
The range of sanctions available will be a matter for each set of chambers to consider. These may include recommendations as to future conduct, a requirement to undertake training, written warnings, fines or expulsion. The Report refers to the ability to prohibit members from attendance at events or holding positions within chambers. In addition, chambers may wish to build in some flexibility by providing the relevant committee with a discretion to impose sanctions not expressly specified in the constitution.
The Report specifies that sanctions must include a power to expel or suspend a member where the seriousness of the conduct warrants such action.
The Report recommends that the constitution should expressly provide that:
It is prudent for constitutions to include a right to suspend a member, although few chambers’ constitutions currently provide for this. While there are legitimate concerns around temporarily depriving a member of their ability to earn a living, those concerns must be balanced against the interests of complainants. The ability to suspend a member pending the outcome of a disciplinary process enables chambers to investigate complaints in a measured and proportionate way and may help avoid a knee-jerk response to a complaint where expulsion is the only other option provided for in the constitution.
A power of suspension can be nuanced and provide for the restriction of specific rights of the relevant member, rather than a blanket prohibition on working through chambers. Such a provision might, for example, permit the member to continue to practice while being clerked remotely and/or restrict their attendance at chambers’ events or their contact with specified members, employees or clients.
Suspension may also be included as a possible sanction in the event of a finding of misconduct.
Most constitutions require decisions to expel a member to be taken by the membership as a whole, at a chambers’ meeting. These decisions commonly require an enhanced majority of members to vote in favour, often two thirds or 75% of members (and commonly this is set as a percentage of all members and not simply those attending and voting at the meeting). This can make it extremely difficult to expel members and also raises concerns around the fairness of the process.
The Harman Report recommends that the power to expel or suspend should be exercisable by a trusted committee within chambers comprising of members and senior employees. This will represent a significant change of approach for many chambers and the involvement of senior employees in the decision-making process may prove controversial.
Chambers may conclude that the Management Committee is an appropriate body to exercise these powers. Alternatively, chambers may wish to establish a Disciplinary Committee, in which case the constitution will also need to address matters such as the committee’s composition, the process for the election or nomination of its members and the manner in which its terms of reference and procedural rules are to be determined.
Consideration will also need to be given to the handling of appeals. This may involve the formation of an appeals committee or alternatively appeals against the finding of a disciplinary committee could be determined by the management committee.
It is not uncommon for constitutions to specify that the termination of the employment of the senior clerk (or other senior employees) requires the approval of the members at a chambers’ meeting, often with an enhanced majority. As discussed in relation to the expulsion of members, this can make it difficult to remove senior employees, even in cases of serious misconduct, particularly where members are reliant on the senior clerk for their work.
It is recommended that any provisions relating to the termination of the employment of staff are removed from the constitution altogether and are dealt with under the disciplinary and grievance policies of chambers relating to staff.
A number of other amendments to the constitution may also be required in order to give effect to the recommendations, including the following:
Quite understandably, a review of the constitution is often low on the list of chambers’ priorities. However, quite apart from regulatory requirements, both existing and prospective members will expect chambers’ policies and procedures to reflect best practice in relation to bullying and harassment and the publication of the Harman Report should provide impetus for chambers to review and update their constitutional arrangements accordingly.
While the recommendations themselves are clear, a number of issues remain open to debate, including the range of sanctions available to chambers and the identity of the committee or body responsible for conducting disciplinary procedures and imposing sanctions. With this in mind, early engagement with these issues is essential.
‘Making your chambers constitution fit for purpose’, Scott Leonard and Clare Kelly, Counsel, July 2025
Scott Leonard is a partner at Bates Wells who regularly advises barristers chambers on a wide range of issues, including their constitutional arrangements.
As Baroness Harman identified in her review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar, the structure of barristers’ chambers can give rise to challenges in handling complaints against barristers and senior staff. Most chambers operate as unincorporated associations governed by a constitution. As there is no model or default constitution, the mechanisms for handling disciplinary matters vary widely between chambers and in many cases the constitutional arrangements do not provide a sufficiently robust framework for dealing with complaints or imposing sanctions on members.
The Harman Report makes a number of recommendations to address these concerns. For many chambers this is likely to require a review and updating of their constitutions to ensure compliance. The relevant recommendations are considered further below.
The Report recommends that chambers’ constitutions, and relevant employee policies, should set out clearly the range of sanctions available for findings of serious misconduct. In my experience, most constitutions do not make provision for sanctions, other than expulsion in cases of serious misconduct. However, clearly setting out the range of sanctions available provides useful clarity both to the chambers concerned and to any member facing a complaint.
The range of sanctions available will be a matter for each set of chambers to consider. These may include recommendations as to future conduct, a requirement to undertake training, written warnings, fines or expulsion. The Report refers to the ability to prohibit members from attendance at events or holding positions within chambers. In addition, chambers may wish to build in some flexibility by providing the relevant committee with a discretion to impose sanctions not expressly specified in the constitution.
The Report specifies that sanctions must include a power to expel or suspend a member where the seriousness of the conduct warrants such action.
The Report recommends that the constitution should expressly provide that:
It is prudent for constitutions to include a right to suspend a member, although few chambers’ constitutions currently provide for this. While there are legitimate concerns around temporarily depriving a member of their ability to earn a living, those concerns must be balanced against the interests of complainants. The ability to suspend a member pending the outcome of a disciplinary process enables chambers to investigate complaints in a measured and proportionate way and may help avoid a knee-jerk response to a complaint where expulsion is the only other option provided for in the constitution.
A power of suspension can be nuanced and provide for the restriction of specific rights of the relevant member, rather than a blanket prohibition on working through chambers. Such a provision might, for example, permit the member to continue to practice while being clerked remotely and/or restrict their attendance at chambers’ events or their contact with specified members, employees or clients.
Suspension may also be included as a possible sanction in the event of a finding of misconduct.
Most constitutions require decisions to expel a member to be taken by the membership as a whole, at a chambers’ meeting. These decisions commonly require an enhanced majority of members to vote in favour, often two thirds or 75% of members (and commonly this is set as a percentage of all members and not simply those attending and voting at the meeting). This can make it extremely difficult to expel members and also raises concerns around the fairness of the process.
The Harman Report recommends that the power to expel or suspend should be exercisable by a trusted committee within chambers comprising of members and senior employees. This will represent a significant change of approach for many chambers and the involvement of senior employees in the decision-making process may prove controversial.
Chambers may conclude that the Management Committee is an appropriate body to exercise these powers. Alternatively, chambers may wish to establish a Disciplinary Committee, in which case the constitution will also need to address matters such as the committee’s composition, the process for the election or nomination of its members and the manner in which its terms of reference and procedural rules are to be determined.
Consideration will also need to be given to the handling of appeals. This may involve the formation of an appeals committee or alternatively appeals against the finding of a disciplinary committee could be determined by the management committee.
It is not uncommon for constitutions to specify that the termination of the employment of the senior clerk (or other senior employees) requires the approval of the members at a chambers’ meeting, often with an enhanced majority. As discussed in relation to the expulsion of members, this can make it difficult to remove senior employees, even in cases of serious misconduct, particularly where members are reliant on the senior clerk for their work.
It is recommended that any provisions relating to the termination of the employment of staff are removed from the constitution altogether and are dealt with under the disciplinary and grievance policies of chambers relating to staff.
A number of other amendments to the constitution may also be required in order to give effect to the recommendations, including the following:
Quite understandably, a review of the constitution is often low on the list of chambers’ priorities. However, quite apart from regulatory requirements, both existing and prospective members will expect chambers’ policies and procedures to reflect best practice in relation to bullying and harassment and the publication of the Harman Report should provide impetus for chambers to review and update their constitutional arrangements accordingly.
While the recommendations themselves are clear, a number of issues remain open to debate, including the range of sanctions available to chambers and the identity of the committee or body responsible for conducting disciplinary procedures and imposing sanctions. With this in mind, early engagement with these issues is essential.
‘Making your chambers constitution fit for purpose’, Scott Leonard and Clare Kelly, Counsel, July 2025
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Developing a tech start-up demands a different definition of excellence to the Bar, says Saara Idelbi. The co-creator of Advocatr on entrepreneurship, AI advocacy training, and matching the thrill of a killer cross-examination
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
