*/
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?’
Chair of the Bar reports back
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
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
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
Kindness Ambassadors – coming to a courtroom near you! Valerie Charbit, Nicola Shannon KC and Professor Robin Banerjee update readers on the second phase of the project examining, and promoting, the impact of kindness and how it can fit into an adversarial system
