*/
Do we need protection from data protection? asks David Taylor as he warns barristers of their duties under the Data Protection Act 1988 .
Barristers and their chambers can no longer be complacent about their duties under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and fines of up to £500,000 are now within the power of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Worse still: if you fight your corner in court, then unlimited fines and up to five years in prison are added to the armoury. If that weren’t incentive enough to keep your data safe, many breaches of the act are also criminal offences of strict liability.
There’s no doubt that we’ve enjoyed a honeymoon period while the ICO gave us all time to come to grips with our responsibilities under the act. This period of grace is now over, and 2011 saw action taken against barristers for what many might see as “blameless” breaches. One barrister left a case containing her papers on a train, and another had her papers stolen from a locked car. In November 2011, a QC had her unencrypted laptop stolen from her locked home - and only avoided a fine because the relevant breach occurred in 2010, before the ICO received its new powers.
All three were issued with undertakings from the ICO to improve their security measures. Although fines were avoided, damage to reputation is always very difficult to value. The Bar Council clearly recognises that practices must change, and the new and improved BARMARK standard due for launch in April puts a far greater emphasis on DPA compliance. Much of the personal data held by counsel is sensitive personal data, so the stakes are high.
In other sectors, fines of between £60,000 and £130,000 have been issued for breaches such as the loss of an unencrypted laptop, an email sent to the incorrect recipient, and a letter inadvertently collected from a shared printer and posted to the wrong recipient.
Individual barristers
For the individual barrister, the steps required to minimise your liability are straightforward.
Notification (registration) with the ICO is a legal requirement. The ICO has made notification easy with the template ‘N812 - Individual barrister’, and this will suffice for most. The two greatest risks of breach are loss of personal data and distribution of data to unauthorised persons.
You should assess the potential consequences of a breach by considering the sensitivity of the personal data you’re handling, and implement protective measures accordingly. Sensitive personal data (for example, your client’s social worker’s report) would warrant much greater security than their name and address, and the following steps should be in place:
When you no longer need to hold onto personal data
You cannot keep a client’s personal data indefinitely or, indeed, longer than necessary. You should have a system for deciding when data is destroyed or archived. When an electronic device comes to the end of its life, you must have all of the data securely destroyed. There are software products which can do this, but the best option is to use a company which will provide a certificate of secure destruction.
You are responsible for others’ actions
As the data controller, you’re entirely responsible for the personal data that you process - and which others (eg clerks) process on your behalf. So make sure everybody fully understands their responsibilities.
Chambers
Chambers have many of the same risks and responsibilities as the individual barrister, but with additional hazards.
Notification for chambers is more complex and depends on their administrative or commercial structure. For those chambers with the traditional model of a self-employed senior clerk taking a commission, the clerk is the data controller. However, the majority of chambers now employ all their staff, in which case the head of chambers is the data controller. Other business models may differ. The ICO website has a very helpful document: “The Data Protection Act 1998 Notification of Barristers’ Chambers”, which explains in detail which notification version applies to you.
Common notification errors are:
Governance
Make sure you have a robust information governance policy, and that everyone has read and understands it; the same goes for your data-breach and privacy policies. These documents form the foundation for data-protection training.
It is essential to have data processing contracts with any data processors you use (the most common would be an external accountant used for payroll). In the event of a breach, the ICO will prosecute you, not the accountant, even if it’s their fault! The data processing contract is a legal requirement under the act and provides you with, inter alia, warranties and guarantees should the data processor fail to comply.
IT
Avoiding common errors
Email and fax policies are critically important, and you should ensure that staff never stray from them:
Human resources
Human resources is a veritable rats’ nest of potential breaches!
Summary
The consequences of not complying with the act may be daunting, but making the necessary changes needn’t be. Having the appropriate systems in place (and following them) provides good mitigation when mistakes do happen.
David Taylor, Data Protection Consultancy Ltd.
There’s no doubt that we’ve enjoyed a honeymoon period while the ICO gave us all time to come to grips with our responsibilities under the act. This period of grace is now over, and 2011 saw action taken against barristers for what many might see as “blameless” breaches. One barrister left a case containing her papers on a train, and another had her papers stolen from a locked car. In November 2011, a QC had her unencrypted laptop stolen from her locked home - and only avoided a fine because the relevant breach occurred in 2010, before the ICO received its new powers.
All three were issued with undertakings from the ICO to improve their security measures. Although fines were avoided, damage to reputation is always very difficult to value. The Bar Council clearly recognises that practices must change, and the new and improved BARMARK standard due for launch in April puts a far greater emphasis on DPA compliance. Much of the personal data held by counsel is sensitive personal data, so the stakes are high.
In other sectors, fines of between £60,000 and £130,000 have been issued for breaches such as the loss of an unencrypted laptop, an email sent to the incorrect recipient, and a letter inadvertently collected from a shared printer and posted to the wrong recipient.
Individual barristers
For the individual barrister, the steps required to minimise your liability are straightforward.
Notification (registration) with the ICO is a legal requirement. The ICO has made notification easy with the template ‘N812 - Individual barrister’, and this will suffice for most. The two greatest risks of breach are loss of personal data and distribution of data to unauthorised persons.
You should assess the potential consequences of a breach by considering the sensitivity of the personal data you’re handling, and implement protective measures accordingly. Sensitive personal data (for example, your client’s social worker’s report) would warrant much greater security than their name and address, and the following steps should be in place:
When you no longer need to hold onto personal data
You cannot keep a client’s personal data indefinitely or, indeed, longer than necessary. You should have a system for deciding when data is destroyed or archived. When an electronic device comes to the end of its life, you must have all of the data securely destroyed. There are software products which can do this, but the best option is to use a company which will provide a certificate of secure destruction.
You are responsible for others’ actions
As the data controller, you’re entirely responsible for the personal data that you process - and which others (eg clerks) process on your behalf. So make sure everybody fully understands their responsibilities.
Chambers
Chambers have many of the same risks and responsibilities as the individual barrister, but with additional hazards.
Notification for chambers is more complex and depends on their administrative or commercial structure. For those chambers with the traditional model of a self-employed senior clerk taking a commission, the clerk is the data controller. However, the majority of chambers now employ all their staff, in which case the head of chambers is the data controller. Other business models may differ. The ICO website has a very helpful document: “The Data Protection Act 1998 Notification of Barristers’ Chambers”, which explains in detail which notification version applies to you.
Common notification errors are:
Governance
Make sure you have a robust information governance policy, and that everyone has read and understands it; the same goes for your data-breach and privacy policies. These documents form the foundation for data-protection training.
It is essential to have data processing contracts with any data processors you use (the most common would be an external accountant used for payroll). In the event of a breach, the ICO will prosecute you, not the accountant, even if it’s their fault! The data processing contract is a legal requirement under the act and provides you with, inter alia, warranties and guarantees should the data processor fail to comply.
IT
Avoiding common errors
Email and fax policies are critically important, and you should ensure that staff never stray from them:
Human resources
Human resources is a veritable rats’ nest of potential breaches!
Summary
The consequences of not complying with the act may be daunting, but making the necessary changes needn’t be. Having the appropriate systems in place (and following them) provides good mitigation when mistakes do happen.
David Taylor, Data Protection Consultancy Ltd.
Do we need protection from data protection? asks David Taylor as he warns barristers of their duties under the Data Protection Act 1988.
Barristers and their chambers can no longer be complacent about their duties under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and fines of up to £500,000 are now within the power of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Worse still: if you fight your corner in court, then unlimited fines and up to five years in prison are added to the armoury. If that weren’t incentive enough to keep your data safe, many breaches of the act are also criminal offences of strict liability.
Far-ranging month for the Chair of the Bar
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the most recent data on alcohol misuse in the UK, and the implications for alcohol testing in family proceedings
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how tailored financial planning can help barristers take control of their finances and plan with confidence
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
In this wide-ranging interview, Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Family Law KC of the Year, talks to Anthony Inglese CB about the values that shaped her, the moment she found her vocation and, in an intensely personal call to arms, why time is running out for the legal aid Bar
Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office process fit for purpose? Women barristers’ experiences of bullying are not being reported or, if they are, they are not making it through the system, says Tana Adkin KC
Thomas Roe KC and Andrew O’Kola respond to an article by Dr Leonardo Raznovich (Counsel , October 2025) – ‘Privy Council colonialism? Piercing the constitutional veil’
Chair of the Bar reports back
The client’s best interests could be well-served by sharing the advocacy with junior counsel more often than you might think – Naomi Cunningham and Charlotte Eves explore some less orthodox ways to divide the speaking role