*/
In Back to the Bar 2019, the Western Circuit’s Women’s Forum (WCWF) published evidence showing that two-thirds of those who left the Bar over a six-year period were women. Almost all the men who left became judges or retired after long careers. The vast majority of the women who left dropped out mid-career, citing the difficulty of balancing work and family life.
Today, COVID-19 working practices threaten further significant and disproportionate attrition of women from the Bar. Our concern focuses on the primary carers, who are disproportionately women. In this article, we highlight these risks and recommend practical steps to minimise them.
A key finding of our 2019 survey was that most women who left the Bar cited the difficulty of balancing work and family commitments as a factor in their decision to leave. It was overwhelmingly the case in the survey responses that female practitioners had primary care of their children, and primary responsibility for arranging childcare.
Initially, COVID-19 restrictions meant a dramatic loss of commercial and gratuitous childcare and patchy and part-time availability of schools. Many practitioners had to combine childcare and home-schooling responsibilities while also trying to keep meeting professional commitments and maintain some income. (While barristers are classed as ‘key workers’, we heard of many schools open only for children of ‘critical workers’; and where open, the school day was shorter than the court day.) As the rate of infection increases, requirements for self-isolation and local lockdowns will cause these issues to recur, this time unpredictably and at short notice.
In our paper about COVID, we recorded the concerns raised by members about the pressures of remote hearings and our concern that initial guidance issued by the Judiciary appeared to compound the problem. Our example was from the Guidance for the Conduct of Remote Costs Hearings [37] which failed to recognise the practical problems and threatened adverse costs:
‘In all remote hearing cases the parties must recognise that the hearings may not commence at the appointed time and/or conclude in the time estimate and must make themselves available well beyond the time allotted to allow for such contingencies which may include technical difficulties or cases running over. Legal representatives are reminded that it will not be appropriate for them to expect to be able to conduct multiple hearings in proximity of time as a consequence of these matters and costs orders may be made against them if they are unable to attend as required.’
We were heartened by the positive response by many courts to this.
Re-opening courts for more substantive hearings is welcomed, but may increase practical difficulties for those who are clinically vulnerable and who are shielding themselves or others, as well as primary carers until childcare has returned to normal.
There looks likely to be a significant risk over a prolonged period now to the practices of those with shielding and caring responsibilities who are unable to attend court. We are confident this risk can be minimised by clear judicial leadership and guidance as to the listing and conduct of cases, and our recommendation is to continue to ‘Consider the Carers’ and ‘Consider the Shielders’ at the point of clerking, listing, interim and full hearings.
In Back to the Bar 2019, the Western Circuit’s Women’s Forum (WCWF) published evidence showing that two-thirds of those who left the Bar over a six-year period were women. Almost all the men who left became judges or retired after long careers. The vast majority of the women who left dropped out mid-career, citing the difficulty of balancing work and family life.
Today, COVID-19 working practices threaten further significant and disproportionate attrition of women from the Bar. Our concern focuses on the primary carers, who are disproportionately women. In this article, we highlight these risks and recommend practical steps to minimise them.
A key finding of our 2019 survey was that most women who left the Bar cited the difficulty of balancing work and family commitments as a factor in their decision to leave. It was overwhelmingly the case in the survey responses that female practitioners had primary care of their children, and primary responsibility for arranging childcare.
Initially, COVID-19 restrictions meant a dramatic loss of commercial and gratuitous childcare and patchy and part-time availability of schools. Many practitioners had to combine childcare and home-schooling responsibilities while also trying to keep meeting professional commitments and maintain some income. (While barristers are classed as ‘key workers’, we heard of many schools open only for children of ‘critical workers’; and where open, the school day was shorter than the court day.) As the rate of infection increases, requirements for self-isolation and local lockdowns will cause these issues to recur, this time unpredictably and at short notice.
In our paper about COVID, we recorded the concerns raised by members about the pressures of remote hearings and our concern that initial guidance issued by the Judiciary appeared to compound the problem. Our example was from the Guidance for the Conduct of Remote Costs Hearings [37] which failed to recognise the practical problems and threatened adverse costs:
‘In all remote hearing cases the parties must recognise that the hearings may not commence at the appointed time and/or conclude in the time estimate and must make themselves available well beyond the time allotted to allow for such contingencies which may include technical difficulties or cases running over. Legal representatives are reminded that it will not be appropriate for them to expect to be able to conduct multiple hearings in proximity of time as a consequence of these matters and costs orders may be made against them if they are unable to attend as required.’
We were heartened by the positive response by many courts to this.
Re-opening courts for more substantive hearings is welcomed, but may increase practical difficulties for those who are clinically vulnerable and who are shielding themselves or others, as well as primary carers until childcare has returned to normal.
There looks likely to be a significant risk over a prolonged period now to the practices of those with shielding and caring responsibilities who are unable to attend court. We are confident this risk can be minimised by clear judicial leadership and guidance as to the listing and conduct of cases, and our recommendation is to continue to ‘Consider the Carers’ and ‘Consider the Shielders’ at the point of clerking, listing, interim and full hearings.
As we look ahead to Justice Week 2022, the sustainability of the Criminal Bar remains a critical issue for the government to address
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Fear of the collection and test process is a common factor among clients, especially among vulnerable adults in complex family law cases. Cansford Laboratories shares some tips to help the testing process run as smoothly as possible
Casey Randall explains how complex relationship DNA tests can best be used – and interpreted – by counsel
Casey Randall, Head of DNA at AlphaBiolabs, explores what barristers need to know about DNA testing for immigration, including when a client might wish to submit DNA evidence, and which relationship tests are best for immigration applications
Julian Morgan reminds barristers of the top five areas to consider before 5 April
The case ofR v Brecanihas complicated matters for defence lawyers. Emma Fielding talks to gang culture expert, Dr Simon Harding about County Lines, exploitation and modern slavery
Barristers are particularly at risk of burnout because of the nature of our work and our approach to it but it doesnt have to be this way. Jade Bucklow explores how culture, work and lifestyle changes can rejuvinate our mental health...
The Schools Consent Project (SCP) is educating tens of thousands of teenagers about the law around consent to challenge and change what is now endemic behaviour. Here, its founder, barrister Kate Parker talks to Chris Henley QC about SCPs work and its association with Jodie Comers West End playPrima Facie, in which she plays a criminal barrister who is sexually assaulted
Professionally embarrassed? The circumstances in which criminal barristers may return instructions to appear at trial have become clearer following the Court of Appeal judgment inR v Daniels By Abigail Bright
Following the launch of the Life at the Young Bar report and a nationwide listening exercise, Michael Polak and Michael Harwood outline the Young Barristers Committees raft of initiatives designed to address your issues of concern
