The appointment of King’s Counsel (KC) represents one of the most significant milestones in a barrister’s career. Yet, for many disabled barristers, structural and procedural barriers remain deeply embedded in the selection process. While formal equality duties exist in law, the interplay of evaluation mechanisms, practical adjustments, and institutional culture create complex obstacles that demand scrutiny.

Legal obligations governing KCA

King’s Counsel Appointments (KCA) operates under a framework of legal duties, including:

  • Human Rights Act 1998: qualifying as a public authority under ss 6(3)(b), 2(1), 3(1), engaging Articles 3, 8 and 14;
  • Equality Act 2010: ss 19, 20, 29, 53, 57, and 101 concerning non-discrimination and reasonable adjustments;
  • Data Protection Act 2018: Sch 2, para 14(1), governing access to personal data;
  • Legal Services Act 2007: ss 125 and 128 concerning regulatory objectives; and
  • Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982: s 13, implying a duty of reasonable care and skill.

In March 2023, I submitted my second KC application. Despite the legal protections above, my experience exposes critical concerns regarding the process’s responsiveness to disability-related barriers.

Distinguishing panel from secretariat adjustments

A central distinction requires emphasis. The KCA Secretariat administers logistical adjustments (e.g., extending deadlines or modifying interview formats), while substantive evaluation rests with the independent Selection Panel. This separation is clear in the KCA’s own Guidance for Applicants. While the Secretariat generally accommodated my scheduling needs, the evaluation process itself failed to recognise how disabilities may limit opportunities to gather traditional forms of evidence (such as extensive third-party assessors) and courtroom experience.

In my case, I had disclosed under Section G the impact of my disability, which significantly restricts in-person court appearances and opportunities to conduct advocacy in complex hearings before High Court and appellate tribunals. Consequently, securing the standard volume of judicial, professional and client assessments becomes disproportionately difficult for disabled applicants. The KCA’s focus on ‘compelling evidence of excellence’ disproportionately disadvantages applicants whose impairments preclude traditional evidence-gathering opportunities.

Correspondence with KCA

In early 2024, I submitted detailed enquiries to KCA, seeking clarification on how Section G disclosures interact with the evaluation of evidence. Specifically, I asked:

  1. How does the Panel adjust its expectations of advocacy experience for those with restricted court access?
  2. Are alternative assessment methods (e.g., competency-based interviews, simulated exercises and panel advocacy assessments) available for such applicants?
  3. What data exist on the types and frequency of adjustments granted to previous disabled applicants?

The KCA declined to substantively answer these enquiries, asserting in July 2024 that it had fulfilled its Equality Act duties but declining further engagement. My subject access request was similarly refused, and this position was ultimately upheld by the Information Commissioner’s Office in March 2025.

Referral to the BSB and Bar Council

The Bar Standards Board (BSB), which regulates barristers but not KCA, acknowledged its lack of jurisdiction. BSB Director Mark Neale encouraged dialogue with the Bar Council’s current Disability Panel, chaired by Mark Henderson, but no engagement has been pursued by me due to my own previous disappointing experience of the Bar Council’s (old) Disability Sub-Committee (of which I was a member for approximately ten years).

Comparison between KCA and BSB data

KCA’s supplied data for 2021-24 indicate, at face value, that disabled applicants* who reach application stage have a higher success rate than non-disabled applicants:

However, the BSB’s broader data (Diversity at the Bar 2024) demonstrates a growing representational gap at senior levels:

While disabled juniors comprise nearly 9% of the Bar, only 5.1% of KCs declare a disability. This suggests that systemic barriers disproportionately operate before application – in opportunities to gain KC-qualifying experience – rather than at the final evaluation stage alone. As Sir Paul Morgan, outgoing member of the KC Selection Panel noted in an article for this magazine: ‘the pool of eligible candidates is inevitably shaped by prior career pathways’ (Counsel 2025).

Structural barriers identified by SCA and LSB

The Social Change Agency’s March 2024 report for the Legal Services Board (LSB), Mapping Systemic Barriers to Equality Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Professions (SCA 2024) and the LSB’s own 2021 report Reshaping Legal Services (LSB 2021) both highlight structural disadvantage in legal career progression. These reports identify:

  1. Inaccessible selection mechanisms – Reliance on courtroom advocacy disproportionately affects those whose disabilities restrict physical court attendance or sustained oral advocacy: ‘[a]t the heart of this issue lies the entrenched culture which values “talent”, “health”, and “resilience” while sidestepping the broader issues of workplace inflexibility. Forster & Hirst (2022) elaborate that this culture centralises disability as an individual problem rather than addressing systemic barriers.’ (SCA 2024, p 25).
  2. Inconsistent adjustment practices – Lack of clear, published guidelines for adjustments leads to ad hoc, discretionary implementation: ‘Despite legal provisions such as the Equality Act 2010, which grants the right to request reasonable adjustments, the Bar Council report on bullying, harassment, and discrimination suggests through contacts made through its helpline that disabled barristers are not getting the reasonable adjustments they need... those who did submit requests had largely negative experiences (Legally Disabled?, 2020)’ (SCA 2024, p 25). And, as highlighted by the LSB: ‘More broadly, the sector needs to be more inclusive in the way that it develops policy and does this transparently so that it can be held to account. Demonstrating analysis of the effect of activities on the protected characteristics is a legal requirement under the Equality Act, not just a matter of good practice. As noted above, equality impact assessments can assist with this, but their use is patchy, and standards of analysis could be improved.’ (LSB 2021, p 15).
  3. Normative biases in evaluation: Traditional conceptions of excellence unconsciously privilege able-bodied norms of stamina, voice projection, and sustained advocacy – ‘From rigid working practices to physical barriers within courtrooms, such as inadequate hearing loop systems, everyday hurdles hinder full participation for individuals with disabilities.’ (SCA 2024, p 25).
  4. Accountability gaps: Absence of external oversight of KCA’s discretionary judgements limits transparency and challenge mechanisms. As recommended by SCA – ‘The LSB, as an oversight body, could work with regulators and professional bodies to model some of this practice, creating systems of accountability and embedding the values and principles of good EDI practice across the professions.’ (SCA 2024, p 17).

Alternative pathways and pro bono limitations

While some suggest that disabled barristers might substitute pro bono or tribunal work to build advocacy records, this oversimplifies reality. Such work may lack the complex interlocutory, appellate and multi-day hearings necessary to fulfil KC competency criteria. Moreover, many tribunal settings involve written advocacy, remote hearings or low-value claims less likely to yield judicial assessors meeting the KCA’s evidentiary standards.

Potential reforms

If the appointments system is to become substantively inclusive, the following merit serious consideration:

  1. Creation of flexible, competency-based interview assessments where written submissions, oral argument and hypothetical problem-solving scenarios test relevant skills (modelled on judicial selection procedures).
  2. Publication of comprehensive data on adjustments granted to foster confidence in consistency and good practice.
  3. Enhanced training for panels on the Equality Act’s anticipatory duties and systemic disadvantage concepts, building on the unconscious bias training described by Sir Paul Morgan (Counsel 2025).
  4. Inclusion of external disability experts in interview panels to ensure adjustments reflect lived experience.

Systemic challenges persist

The profession rightly celebrates progress in widening access to the junior Bar. Yet the persistent shortfall in disabled representation at the KC level reflects systemic challenges embedded across career development stages, not simply in final appointment decisions. Without bolder structural reforms, the risk remains that the King’s Counsel ladder remains, in practice, one which only certain bodies can climb.

This is not grievance; it is constitutional fairness. 

Responding to the points raised in this article, Mark Henderson, Chair of the Bar Council Disability Panel, said: ‘I’m sorry to read about Diego’s experience with the Disability Committee, and would welcome a discussion with him. When I joined the Disability Panel, I was told that disability had sometimes been treated as the poor relation of the Bar’s equality agenda. That has changed. The Disability Panel has major initiatives under way, strongly supported by the EDSM [Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility] Committee and [Bar Council] secretariat, to achieve better physical access to chambers and on other reasonable adjustments, especially for neurodiversity and in pupillage. Reasonable adjustments are important throughout a career at the Bar. The Panel will look closely at the issues raised by the article.’
King’s Counsel Appointments (KCA) said: ‘The KC Competency Framework is a competence standard under the Equality Act and all applicants must meet the required standard of excellence.
‘When notified of a disability, the KCA makes a range of reasonable adjustments. These can include fewer cases, fewer assessors, a smaller body of evidence on contested oral advocacy or case work over longer time periods. However, the evidence received from assessors must still demonstrate strong and consistent excellence across all the competencies.

‘KCA’s processes are independently audited. We continue to increase awareness and improve transparency through our outreach work for both applicants and assessors. Further details can be found on our website.’

* KCA’s statistics reflect applicants who self-identify as disabled, without disclosing methodology, type of disability or demographic context.

References

King’s Counsel Appointments: Guidance for applicants, 2024

Disability at the Bar 2024, Bar Standards Board, 2025

Mapping Systemic Barriers to Equality Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Professions, Social Change Agency, 2024

Reshaping Legal Services, Legal Services Board, 2021

Legally Disabled? The impact of Covid-19 on the employment and training of disabled lawyers in England and Wales: opportunities for job-redesign and best practice, Prof Debbie Foster and Dr Natasha Hirst, 2020: legallydisabled.com

‘Doing diversity in the legal profession in England and Wales: why do disabled people continue to be unexpected?’ Prof Debbie Foster and Dr Natasha Hirst, Journal of Law and Society, 49(3), 2022

‘KC selection: a view from the inside’, Sir Paul Morgan, Counsel, February 2025