*/
The Harman Report found judicial bullying to be a real and significant problem. As the judiciary starts the journey of recognising and addressing misconduct on the bench, Saara Idelbi suggests some ways to respond in the moment – with the aim of preserving mutual respect in the courtroom
‘Can you see a world where you might talk about it in future? Maybe to help others going through the same thing?’ ‘No.’ The joints between the floorboards were somehow in desperate need of my attention, framed by the stinging tears lingering along the border of my lower eyelids. ‘They’ll think it was my fault or I was weak.’
After it was all over, I tried to forget about that pro bono case. So it was a surprise to feel compelled to write about that instance of judicial bullying. One which caused me to lose half a stone in a week, sent me to the GP in tears, and made me consider leaving the profession after only three years in practice. And on LinkedIn of all places.
Despite the increased awareness of judicial bullying since my experience, and after the publication of a Statement of Expected Behaviour for the judiciary, it was saddening to read in the Harman Report that ‘[t]he judiciary’s submission to the Review casts doubt on the validity of complaints…’. Our judges – who were once in our shoes – do not believe us.
Don’t get me wrong. Not all judges are bullies. I know I am not perfect; I’ll have days when I am a stronger advocate. I have sat through hearings where I observed the progressive deterioration in communication, where one innocuous interruption snowballs into counsel and judge talking over each other, trapped in a battle where they are both visibly wounded by the other.
Nevertheless, as observed in the Harman Report, judges are not like other court users. Judges are in charge. Judges have the power. That makes the attack far more devastating. Moreover, the sting came, at least for me when I was junior, from judges being idols, our role models.
I’m not so naïve now. I understand that judges are humans. I sit part-time; I know I am human. In one hearing an unrepresented party snapped back at me: ‘You are patronising me!’ As I was about to reply, I realised that in that moment it didn’t matter if I was or was not being patronising. To the litigant, their perception of the hearing was true to them. My job was not to be right about the ‘objective assessment’ of the treatment, but to decide the substance of the case. I paused. When I started to speak, I brought my volume and pace down, almost by half. I explained I did not intend to patronise. I took the time to explain my intention and the objectives for the hearing. They did not raise their voice at any point in the hearing again. They even thanked me.
Everyone takes their lead from the judge. Other counsel can jump on the bandwagon of the disrespectful judge and be disrespectful to the victim. Witnesses jump on the bandwagon of the disrespectful judge and will be disrespectful to the victim. You can jump on the bandwagon of the disrespectful judge by seeing yourself as the victim, worthless, useless. But you do not have to jump on the bandwagon of your scolding. You do not have to be defenceless.
Capitulating rarely improves the interaction. I hope that one day the Bar Council, Bar Standards Board, Law Society and judiciary can sit down together to create a playbook of acceptable responses to perceived judicial bullying. This would allow practitioners to know what they can say without putting themselves at risk; and signals to the judge that it is time to pause and recalibrate the interaction, whether or not the judge agrees.
Meanwhile, here are some suggestions of ways you can respond in the moment, so that the first time you think about how to respond is not when confronted with the behaviour.
This is about shifting your perception. It is easy to feel overcome when your brain has signalled that you are under attack. Whenever you feel frustrated or attacked by someone, you need to get curious. Rather than panicking at the physiological alarm and trying to ‘fix’ or respond to the interaction, be interested in understanding it.
Curiosity involves your dopamine system (reward), as well as the hippocampus (for memory) and the prefrontal cortex (for decision-making) (‘The Mind’s Struggle Between Fear and Curiosity’, Muhammad Tuhin, Science News Today, 2025). Importantly, the alarm response to perceived judicial attack in your amygdala can be overridden by curiosity. You have to train your curiosity.
Whatever it is that your judge or peer is doing that is upsetting you, if you genuinely try to understand why they are doing it, you probably will see a solution more clearly.
This is for snide or insulting comments, rather than interrupting or combative ‘debate’ comments (see below). Be unafraid to ask:
Or variations on the same. This puts a spotlight on what the judge has said, to prompt reflection on their own motivation.
If their motive, conscious or subconscious, was insulting, it is likely that their physiological system will go into panic because the realisation will set in that this is being recorded. This is being observed. This is being noted. Their options are:
This is for the benefit of the transcript. Also, facial expressions are hugely open to interpretation. The judge may have furrowed their brow because they just remembered they left the oven on or forgot to send a judgment for corrections (even judges get intrusive thoughts at work). They equally may have had an argument with their child just before coming on screen, so their expression may simply reflect the fact the cortisol has not left their system. Or perhaps their face is just out of control. It may have absolutely nothing to do with what you have said.
Asking, with genuine interest, gives the judge an opportunity to reflect on their presentation or – if they are attempting to intimidate or humiliate you – a way out to save face.
Again, why should we let them save face? Because judges are human. People will climb down in a safe space.
I was taught ‘the slow repeat’ in advocacy training sessions on witness handling. It does what it says on the tin: slowly repeat the answer from the witness you are cross-examining, maybe while writing it down. The slow repeat gives oxygen for the words to reverberate and concentrate their meaning.
The same applies to untoward comments where the words are unmistakeable in their intent to belittle you. In the martial art of Tai Chi, one of the core techniques involves using your opponent’s own energy against themselves. You can’t be criticised for using their words.
One of the comments on my Harman Review post referred to an instance where the judge said to counsel: ‘Stop babbling, girl.’ Odious. It is, however, the perfect phrase to practise with. Go to a mirror, repeat those words slowly (though switch the gender as appropriate), each time placing the emphasis on a different word. Now switch the gender to the one that others would not identify you by. Listen to yourself, through the lens of the observer. That is why the slow repeat is effective.
For a profession that involves a lot of words, it is amusing that ‘the pause’ is so revered, but it is rightly so. It is also a tool for you to cope with judicial bullying. The pause lets the judge’s words sit in the air. The pause gives you time to reflect on your reaction. It is the time for you to decide whether and how you choose to react. The pause gives you space to breathe.
If the pause is interrupted, it has made them feel uncomfortable and done what it needs to. You can explain that you have not concluded your submissions and continue.
Take the opportunity to exercise a breathing technique. For example:
‘Won’t it sound silly if I do breathing techniques in court?’ Firstly, these do not need to be loud techniques – and you’ll have to breathe anyway. Secondly, even if you are audible, the sound of your breathing in the pause is a clear signal that there is a problem. Thirdly, it is not silly to self-regulate. Self-regulation for a courtroom advocate is the skill that we do not speak about enough in the profession. Take your time for it. It is part of your job.
This is for the transcript. Sometimes the words themselves are not hostile; the volume, pace and intensity are. A transcript will not show volume, pace or intensity.
What do you do if they shout back that they are not shouting at you? Keep your response dry: ‘Judge, your volume is louder to me than it was [at x time in the hearing]. I am standing no further away from you. Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to lower your voice?’ If the judge doubles down, consider using tip 10 below.
We will never know with certainty what triggers judges to shout at counsel or advocates. But in responding to judicial bullying, you are not aiming for dominance; you are aiming for mutual respect. That mutual respect involves a recognition that the judge is in charge of the room and you are in charge of your client’s case.
In the instance of judicial bullying I referred to at the start of this article, I decided to time the judge’s tirade. I wanted to be sure that I was not imagining how long it was going on for. I needed something else to focus on to get through and the clock seemed as good as anything else.
The Wellbeing at the Bar hub advises us to ‘write down everything that takes place, when, where, who witnessed it and how you felt as a result’. Distil what happens into statistics. How many times have they interrupted? How long were the interruptions each time?
This is for the interrupting judge or the combative ‘debate’. Debate and testing are normal, especially when you get into appellate courts. The dynamics here are different because the court’s task is – often – to test the analysis. The decision may have wider implications. The stakes can be high. This can leave little bandwidth for niceties.
Sadly, the ‘lizard brain’ cannot tell the difference between real threats and intellectual challenge. Ask yourself: are they trying to understand you, are they interrupting your attempts to clarify or are they unwilling to hear you?
If they are interrupting your attempts to clarify, first try to condense your answer to a few words and then see whether the interruption happens again. If not, or if the latter issue arises, this is the time to get curious once more!
The interrupting judge is difficult to handle. Worst still is when the level of interruption curtails you from representing your client’s case to the best of your ability. This is the only tip that involves an active, assertive response. This is the strategy of last resort.
To do this requires bravery and unimpeachable confidence. You must know your case inside out. You must ensure that your advocacy skills are disciplined. Every question or submission had a purpose which could be defended and its relevance explained, if you had to. You were accurate in your time estimate and you kept to it.
Before you do, you must remember the job you are there to do. Ask yourself, do you need to respond to the judge’s bullying to do that job? Push back only if their case cannot be fairly argued if you do not. Nothing more. Do not push back to gain dominance in the room. Not to make yourself feel better. Not to let the judge know they are an awful person (and frankly if they have decided to behave that way in court, they are probably already deeply unhappy with some aspect of their life).
Tell the judge that their behaviour is preventing the case being heard fairly:
If the judge does not pause or recalibrate, then again you have your appeal point. But again, if the judge does, be gracious and move forward.
Our adversarial system is built on conflict. There’s no point sugar-coating it. There will be days in court where – with everyone behaving as they should – you will still feel like you went ten rounds with an international heavyweight boxing champion. Being bruised doing the job is not the same as being bruised for existing. You are not in court to be a punchbag. I hope these strategies aid you. Reflect on them. Add to them. Consider how you would adapt them to your own style. Even
if you never use them, know that they are in your arsenal and you are not alone.
Chapter 10: Barristers’ experience of the judiciary, para 298: ‘The judiciary’s submission to the Review casts doubt on the validity of complaints stating: “there can be a difference between an individual’s perception of how they were treated and an objective assessment of that treatment”. It may well be the case that some barristers mistake justifiable demands for high standards and ‘robust case management’ as bullying. But that cannot be a justification for refusing to acknowledge what is widely recognised everywhere, namely that there is a problem of judicial bullying of barristers. The sheer quantity and quality of accounts given to this Review cannot reasonably be categorised as misunderstandings or mistakes of perception.’
Statement of Expected Behaviour for the judiciary
Counsel articles on this topic include:
‘Bullied in court? What chambers can do about it’, Eleanor Laws KC, Oliver Mosley, Kyan Pucks, Counsel June 2022
‘Recognising and managing oppressive behaviour – in-court and out’, Darren Howe KC and Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Counsel April and May 2022, Part 1; Part 2
‘Standing up to bullies’, Derek Sweeting KC, Counsel August 2021
‘Dieu et mon droit’, Rehna Azim, Counsel May 2021
‘Robing room bullying’, Rehna Azim, Counsel November 2020
Wellbeing at the Bar portal: Help for barristers – Bullying
LawCare: The mental health charity for the legal sector. Free confidential helpline (Mon-Fri 9am-5pm) 0800 279 6888 or visit lawcare.org.uk
Samaritans: For anyone in crisis – call the free (24/7) confidential helpline 116 123 or visit samaritans.org
Befrienders Worldwide: please visit befrienders.org to access helplines worldwide.
Saara Idelbi is is a barrister at 39 Essex Chambers and co-founder of Advocatr, the AI-advocacy training platform. Her specialisms include public law, human rights/equality, data privacy, and challenges concerning the use of technology. She co-authored A Practical Guide to Non-Pecuniary Damages in Human Rights Act Claims (Law Brief Publishing: 2024).
‘Can you see a world where you might talk about it in future? Maybe to help others going through the same thing?’ ‘No.’ The joints between the floorboards were somehow in desperate need of my attention, framed by the stinging tears lingering along the border of my lower eyelids. ‘They’ll think it was my fault or I was weak.’
After it was all over, I tried to forget about that pro bono case. So it was a surprise to feel compelled to write about that instance of judicial bullying. One which caused me to lose half a stone in a week, sent me to the GP in tears, and made me consider leaving the profession after only three years in practice. And on LinkedIn of all places.
Despite the increased awareness of judicial bullying since my experience, and after the publication of a Statement of Expected Behaviour for the judiciary, it was saddening to read in the Harman Report that ‘[t]he judiciary’s submission to the Review casts doubt on the validity of complaints…’. Our judges – who were once in our shoes – do not believe us.
Don’t get me wrong. Not all judges are bullies. I know I am not perfect; I’ll have days when I am a stronger advocate. I have sat through hearings where I observed the progressive deterioration in communication, where one innocuous interruption snowballs into counsel and judge talking over each other, trapped in a battle where they are both visibly wounded by the other.
Nevertheless, as observed in the Harman Report, judges are not like other court users. Judges are in charge. Judges have the power. That makes the attack far more devastating. Moreover, the sting came, at least for me when I was junior, from judges being idols, our role models.
I’m not so naïve now. I understand that judges are humans. I sit part-time; I know I am human. In one hearing an unrepresented party snapped back at me: ‘You are patronising me!’ As I was about to reply, I realised that in that moment it didn’t matter if I was or was not being patronising. To the litigant, their perception of the hearing was true to them. My job was not to be right about the ‘objective assessment’ of the treatment, but to decide the substance of the case. I paused. When I started to speak, I brought my volume and pace down, almost by half. I explained I did not intend to patronise. I took the time to explain my intention and the objectives for the hearing. They did not raise their voice at any point in the hearing again. They even thanked me.
Everyone takes their lead from the judge. Other counsel can jump on the bandwagon of the disrespectful judge and be disrespectful to the victim. Witnesses jump on the bandwagon of the disrespectful judge and will be disrespectful to the victim. You can jump on the bandwagon of the disrespectful judge by seeing yourself as the victim, worthless, useless. But you do not have to jump on the bandwagon of your scolding. You do not have to be defenceless.
Capitulating rarely improves the interaction. I hope that one day the Bar Council, Bar Standards Board, Law Society and judiciary can sit down together to create a playbook of acceptable responses to perceived judicial bullying. This would allow practitioners to know what they can say without putting themselves at risk; and signals to the judge that it is time to pause and recalibrate the interaction, whether or not the judge agrees.
Meanwhile, here are some suggestions of ways you can respond in the moment, so that the first time you think about how to respond is not when confronted with the behaviour.
This is about shifting your perception. It is easy to feel overcome when your brain has signalled that you are under attack. Whenever you feel frustrated or attacked by someone, you need to get curious. Rather than panicking at the physiological alarm and trying to ‘fix’ or respond to the interaction, be interested in understanding it.
Curiosity involves your dopamine system (reward), as well as the hippocampus (for memory) and the prefrontal cortex (for decision-making) (‘The Mind’s Struggle Between Fear and Curiosity’, Muhammad Tuhin, Science News Today, 2025). Importantly, the alarm response to perceived judicial attack in your amygdala can be overridden by curiosity. You have to train your curiosity.
Whatever it is that your judge or peer is doing that is upsetting you, if you genuinely try to understand why they are doing it, you probably will see a solution more clearly.
This is for snide or insulting comments, rather than interrupting or combative ‘debate’ comments (see below). Be unafraid to ask:
Or variations on the same. This puts a spotlight on what the judge has said, to prompt reflection on their own motivation.
If their motive, conscious or subconscious, was insulting, it is likely that their physiological system will go into panic because the realisation will set in that this is being recorded. This is being observed. This is being noted. Their options are:
This is for the benefit of the transcript. Also, facial expressions are hugely open to interpretation. The judge may have furrowed their brow because they just remembered they left the oven on or forgot to send a judgment for corrections (even judges get intrusive thoughts at work). They equally may have had an argument with their child just before coming on screen, so their expression may simply reflect the fact the cortisol has not left their system. Or perhaps their face is just out of control. It may have absolutely nothing to do with what you have said.
Asking, with genuine interest, gives the judge an opportunity to reflect on their presentation or – if they are attempting to intimidate or humiliate you – a way out to save face.
Again, why should we let them save face? Because judges are human. People will climb down in a safe space.
I was taught ‘the slow repeat’ in advocacy training sessions on witness handling. It does what it says on the tin: slowly repeat the answer from the witness you are cross-examining, maybe while writing it down. The slow repeat gives oxygen for the words to reverberate and concentrate their meaning.
The same applies to untoward comments where the words are unmistakeable in their intent to belittle you. In the martial art of Tai Chi, one of the core techniques involves using your opponent’s own energy against themselves. You can’t be criticised for using their words.
One of the comments on my Harman Review post referred to an instance where the judge said to counsel: ‘Stop babbling, girl.’ Odious. It is, however, the perfect phrase to practise with. Go to a mirror, repeat those words slowly (though switch the gender as appropriate), each time placing the emphasis on a different word. Now switch the gender to the one that others would not identify you by. Listen to yourself, through the lens of the observer. That is why the slow repeat is effective.
For a profession that involves a lot of words, it is amusing that ‘the pause’ is so revered, but it is rightly so. It is also a tool for you to cope with judicial bullying. The pause lets the judge’s words sit in the air. The pause gives you time to reflect on your reaction. It is the time for you to decide whether and how you choose to react. The pause gives you space to breathe.
If the pause is interrupted, it has made them feel uncomfortable and done what it needs to. You can explain that you have not concluded your submissions and continue.
Take the opportunity to exercise a breathing technique. For example:
‘Won’t it sound silly if I do breathing techniques in court?’ Firstly, these do not need to be loud techniques – and you’ll have to breathe anyway. Secondly, even if you are audible, the sound of your breathing in the pause is a clear signal that there is a problem. Thirdly, it is not silly to self-regulate. Self-regulation for a courtroom advocate is the skill that we do not speak about enough in the profession. Take your time for it. It is part of your job.
This is for the transcript. Sometimes the words themselves are not hostile; the volume, pace and intensity are. A transcript will not show volume, pace or intensity.
What do you do if they shout back that they are not shouting at you? Keep your response dry: ‘Judge, your volume is louder to me than it was [at x time in the hearing]. I am standing no further away from you. Is it unreasonable for me to ask you to lower your voice?’ If the judge doubles down, consider using tip 10 below.
We will never know with certainty what triggers judges to shout at counsel or advocates. But in responding to judicial bullying, you are not aiming for dominance; you are aiming for mutual respect. That mutual respect involves a recognition that the judge is in charge of the room and you are in charge of your client’s case.
In the instance of judicial bullying I referred to at the start of this article, I decided to time the judge’s tirade. I wanted to be sure that I was not imagining how long it was going on for. I needed something else to focus on to get through and the clock seemed as good as anything else.
The Wellbeing at the Bar hub advises us to ‘write down everything that takes place, when, where, who witnessed it and how you felt as a result’. Distil what happens into statistics. How many times have they interrupted? How long were the interruptions each time?
This is for the interrupting judge or the combative ‘debate’. Debate and testing are normal, especially when you get into appellate courts. The dynamics here are different because the court’s task is – often – to test the analysis. The decision may have wider implications. The stakes can be high. This can leave little bandwidth for niceties.
Sadly, the ‘lizard brain’ cannot tell the difference between real threats and intellectual challenge. Ask yourself: are they trying to understand you, are they interrupting your attempts to clarify or are they unwilling to hear you?
If they are interrupting your attempts to clarify, first try to condense your answer to a few words and then see whether the interruption happens again. If not, or if the latter issue arises, this is the time to get curious once more!
The interrupting judge is difficult to handle. Worst still is when the level of interruption curtails you from representing your client’s case to the best of your ability. This is the only tip that involves an active, assertive response. This is the strategy of last resort.
To do this requires bravery and unimpeachable confidence. You must know your case inside out. You must ensure that your advocacy skills are disciplined. Every question or submission had a purpose which could be defended and its relevance explained, if you had to. You were accurate in your time estimate and you kept to it.
Before you do, you must remember the job you are there to do. Ask yourself, do you need to respond to the judge’s bullying to do that job? Push back only if their case cannot be fairly argued if you do not. Nothing more. Do not push back to gain dominance in the room. Not to make yourself feel better. Not to let the judge know they are an awful person (and frankly if they have decided to behave that way in court, they are probably already deeply unhappy with some aspect of their life).
Tell the judge that their behaviour is preventing the case being heard fairly:
If the judge does not pause or recalibrate, then again you have your appeal point. But again, if the judge does, be gracious and move forward.
Our adversarial system is built on conflict. There’s no point sugar-coating it. There will be days in court where – with everyone behaving as they should – you will still feel like you went ten rounds with an international heavyweight boxing champion. Being bruised doing the job is not the same as being bruised for existing. You are not in court to be a punchbag. I hope these strategies aid you. Reflect on them. Add to them. Consider how you would adapt them to your own style. Even
if you never use them, know that they are in your arsenal and you are not alone.
Chapter 10: Barristers’ experience of the judiciary, para 298: ‘The judiciary’s submission to the Review casts doubt on the validity of complaints stating: “there can be a difference between an individual’s perception of how they were treated and an objective assessment of that treatment”. It may well be the case that some barristers mistake justifiable demands for high standards and ‘robust case management’ as bullying. But that cannot be a justification for refusing to acknowledge what is widely recognised everywhere, namely that there is a problem of judicial bullying of barristers. The sheer quantity and quality of accounts given to this Review cannot reasonably be categorised as misunderstandings or mistakes of perception.’
Statement of Expected Behaviour for the judiciary
Counsel articles on this topic include:
‘Bullied in court? What chambers can do about it’, Eleanor Laws KC, Oliver Mosley, Kyan Pucks, Counsel June 2022
‘Recognising and managing oppressive behaviour – in-court and out’, Darren Howe KC and Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Counsel April and May 2022, Part 1; Part 2
‘Standing up to bullies’, Derek Sweeting KC, Counsel August 2021
‘Dieu et mon droit’, Rehna Azim, Counsel May 2021
‘Robing room bullying’, Rehna Azim, Counsel November 2020
Wellbeing at the Bar portal: Help for barristers – Bullying
LawCare: The mental health charity for the legal sector. Free confidential helpline (Mon-Fri 9am-5pm) 0800 279 6888 or visit lawcare.org.uk
Samaritans: For anyone in crisis – call the free (24/7) confidential helpline 116 123 or visit samaritans.org
Befrienders Worldwide: please visit befrienders.org to access helplines worldwide.
The Harman Report found judicial bullying to be a real and significant problem. As the judiciary starts the journey of recognising and addressing misconduct on the bench, Saara Idelbi suggests some ways to respond in the moment – with the aim of preserving mutual respect in the courtroom
The Bar Council is ready to support a turn to the efficiencies that will make a difference
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
What meaningful steps can you take in 2026 to advance your legal career? asks Thomas Cowan of St Pauls Chambers
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, explains why drugs may appear in test results, despite the donor denying use of them
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today
Ready for the new way to do tax returns? David Southern KC continues his series explaining the impact on barristers. In part 2, a worked example shows the specific practicalities of adapting to the new system
Resolution of the criminal justice crisis does not lie in reheating old ideas that have been roundly rejected before, say Ed Vickers KC, Faras Baloch and Katie Bacon
With pupillage application season under way, Laura Wright reflects on her route to ‘tech barrister’ and offers advice for those aiming at a career at the Bar
Jury-less trial proposals threaten fairness, legitimacy and democracy without ending the backlog, writes Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon), the UK’s leading expert on juries, judges and courts
