*/
The Lords Constitution Committee has heard evidence from the former Lord Chief Justice on the Office of Lord Chancellor.
Lord Judge, who has worked with three Lord Chancellors and two Attorneys General during his time in office, told the Inquiry Committee: “I am quite prepared to tell you that when I heard that Mr Grayling was going to be the next Lord Chancellor, I rushed off to see whether he was qualified.
I was reminded of how worried I was about the breadth of the statutory definition that would apply to anyone holding this office. I remain extremely concerned about it, but at least there is some limit...”
He continued: “I would be much happier if there was a statutory provision that required the Lord Chancellor and therefore the minister to have some legal qualification.”
Supporting mechanisms were also key. “A few years in practice at the Bar in the 1970s tells you very little about the constitutional difficulties, arrangements, dangers and so on that have overtaken your life when you come to be Lord Chancellor at the end of your political career.
That is not directed at Mr Grayling; it is the same with every Lord Chancellor. He needs good legal advisers. I doubt that the Ministry of Justice is filled with lawyers who understand the constitutional subtleties,” he added.
However, “we have the system that we have” and “should keep the Lord Chancellor, provided that we keep him with a heavy department, and provided that he continues to hold by the oath of office that he takes”.
Turning to the role of the Attorney General, which had “assumed greater importance since the constitutional changes”, Lord Judge said: “The objective is to have an individual of impeccable moral courage. The function of the Attorney General is to tell the Prime Minister, the cabinet and for that matter the House of Commons, how he sees it, and that may be diametrically opposed to the views and wishes of those he is advising. So long as he retains this function, and is able to perform it, he is performing a crucial role in our constitution.”
He added that “the last 10 to 12 years or so rather demonstrates that there is no deep political understanding of the niceties of our constitution. I think that [the Lords Constitution Committee] has a heavy responsibility to ensure that someone, at any rate, is made alert to that”.
The committee plans to publish its report in the autumn.
I was reminded of how worried I was about the breadth of the statutory definition that would apply to anyone holding this office. I remain extremely concerned about it, but at least there is some limit...”
He continued: “I would be much happier if there was a statutory provision that required the Lord Chancellor and therefore the minister to have some legal qualification.”
Supporting mechanisms were also key. “A few years in practice at the Bar in the 1970s tells you very little about the constitutional difficulties, arrangements, dangers and so on that have overtaken your life when you come to be Lord Chancellor at the end of your political career.
That is not directed at Mr Grayling; it is the same with every Lord Chancellor. He needs good legal advisers. I doubt that the Ministry of Justice is filled with lawyers who understand the constitutional subtleties,” he added.
However, “we have the system that we have” and “should keep the Lord Chancellor, provided that we keep him with a heavy department, and provided that he continues to hold by the oath of office that he takes”.
Turning to the role of the Attorney General, which had “assumed greater importance since the constitutional changes”, Lord Judge said: “The objective is to have an individual of impeccable moral courage. The function of the Attorney General is to tell the Prime Minister, the cabinet and for that matter the House of Commons, how he sees it, and that may be diametrically opposed to the views and wishes of those he is advising. So long as he retains this function, and is able to perform it, he is performing a crucial role in our constitution.”
He added that “the last 10 to 12 years or so rather demonstrates that there is no deep political understanding of the niceties of our constitution. I think that [the Lords Constitution Committee] has a heavy responsibility to ensure that someone, at any rate, is made alert to that”.
The committee plans to publish its report in the autumn.
The Lords Constitution Committee has heard evidence from the former Lord Chief Justice on the Office of Lord Chancellor.
Lord Judge, who has worked with three Lord Chancellors and two Attorneys General during his time in office, told the Inquiry Committee: “I am quite prepared to tell you that when I heard that Mr Grayling was going to be the next Lord Chancellor, I rushed off to see whether he was qualified.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
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
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
