*/
The Chair of the Bar sought a public clarification from a senior judge over comments he made about the legal profession’s response to piloting extended court sittings.
Lord Justice Fulford, the judge in charge of reform, wrote a letter to ‘demystify’ plans for the pilots, which are due to start at six courts in the autumn, in light of what he termed ‘public comments – particularly from members of the legal profession’.
He said: ‘I regret the extent of the widely broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources’. Responding to critics, Fulford said the scheme ‘is not a disguised attempt to persuade, or force… legal professionals and others to spend more time at court’.
He acknowledged the Bar’s concerns over the scheme’s practicality and impact on diversity and said: ‘If it works, it works; if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.’ He stressed that a ‘detrimental impact on diversity… is not a price the judges are willing to pay’.
Responding, Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC, acknowledged there had been misunderstandings, but said that was because the consultation lacked detailed proposals about the scheme, which had been developed in a ‘somewhat piecemeal fashion’.
Langdon said: ‘I hope you did not mean implicitly to criticise the Bar Council… in raising these concerns, and doing so vocally and vehemently.’
He asked: ‘I wonder if, on reflection, you would be prepared, publicly, to make it clear that you did not mean to suggest that the Bar leaders who have been grappling with this had been ill-informed or misunderstood?’
The Chair of the Bar sought a public clarification from a senior judge over comments he made about the legal profession’s response to piloting extended court sittings.
Lord Justice Fulford, the judge in charge of reform, wrote a letter to ‘demystify’ plans for the pilots, which are due to start at six courts in the autumn, in light of what he termed ‘public comments – particularly from members of the legal profession’.
He said: ‘I regret the extent of the widely broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources’. Responding to critics, Fulford said the scheme ‘is not a disguised attempt to persuade, or force… legal professionals and others to spend more time at court’.
He acknowledged the Bar’s concerns over the scheme’s practicality and impact on diversity and said: ‘If it works, it works; if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.’ He stressed that a ‘detrimental impact on diversity… is not a price the judges are willing to pay’.
Responding, Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC, acknowledged there had been misunderstandings, but said that was because the consultation lacked detailed proposals about the scheme, which had been developed in a ‘somewhat piecemeal fashion’.
Langdon said: ‘I hope you did not mean implicitly to criticise the Bar Council… in raising these concerns, and doing so vocally and vehemently.’
He asked: ‘I wonder if, on reflection, you would be prepared, publicly, to make it clear that you did not mean to suggest that the Bar leaders who have been grappling with this had been ill-informed or misunderstood?’
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim