*/
I have often wondered what the Dragons’ reaction would be if a barrister appeared on Dragon’s Den espousing their business model. Presumably the Dragons would be impressed by the erudition, acumen and advocacy skills presented by the Bar, but I would be concerned that the underlying commercial position of the self-employed Bar may raise some eyebrows, not least the uncertainties over payment for our services.
Having served for many years on the Bar Council’s Remuneration Committee, I have observed from that coalface the collapse of public funding, the reduced opportunities for work as a result of fixed fees, and the roulette-wheel of conditional fee agreements. The funding challenges faced by the Bar fall to be considered against the background of our general and understandable reluctance to sue for our fees. Such a multiplicity of challenges may deter the Dragons from seeing us as a safe investment.
Then there is the way in which we organise our chambers. We are self-employed but most of us pay a percentage of our earnings to chambers. Chambers provides us with certain services: clerking, access to legal resources, and, of course, accommodation. In addition to paying rent, however, most chambers also expect and rely on members to provide services gratuitously, administering pupillage and tenancy processes, serving on committees concerned with equality and diversity, wellbeing, art. Chambers has to have systems in place for dealing with internal issues, to comply with regulatory responsibilities and ensure best practice, most of which depend upon barristers providing their services voluntarily.
Chambers will address these competing demands on their members’ time and resources in different ways. Many chambers will have CEOs and administrative structures in place to reduce the burden on barristers. The overarching aim of any head of chambers must be to give their barristers the freedom to practise unencumbered from administrative tasks and untroubled by chambers politics as far as possible. One of the reasons why issues around accommodation are so difficult, is that it threatens this equipoise.
A particular and special category of barristers are those who served as heads of chambers during the pandemic. Like many of my colleagues, the process of re-establishing chambers after lockdown has had a difficult and protracted legacy. Many chambers took steps to limit their rent liabilities during the pandemic by giving up space, in varying degrees, offset by improved virtual working arrangements, downsizing or moving to cheaper, more ‘modern’ accommodation.
For those chambers located in the Inns particular considerations come into play. Many of us love working in such an environment. It is part of what makes life at the Bar so special. It is not necessarily a logical or commercially driven preference, but the Bar is not all about the money, otherwise the question with which I opened would not be an issue. We practise at the Bar because we want to be a barrister. Most of us do not want to be solicitors. Some of us like the theatrical aspect of wearing wigs and gowns. For others, working in the Inns is an essential part of who they are as barristers.
But for every barrister that thinks like this, there are others who think very differently. Inn accommodation has its limitations. It is not modern. It can have poor or no heating. There is no air-conditioning. Rooms are too big for one person, but virtual working makes shared work rooms difficult. Barristers do not come into chambers anymore: rooms are deserted for large swathes of time. The architecture of chambers can ‘silo’ members into particular floors. There is little communal space. Members of chambers can go months without seeing their colleagues in person. Virtual meetings are far more practical in ensuring attendance.
The pros and cons of accommodation centred as it is in the heart of the Inns can be pure Brexit: not only ‘leave’ or ‘remain’ and a potential 48/52 split, but views on both sides that the other poses an ‘existential’ threat to chambers.
Here is my advice as to how to manage this debate:
This may seem like an abstract thought exercise, but all chambers have an identity that attracts solicitors, clients and candidates for tenancy and pupillage. In considering any move, it is essential to have that identity in mind.
Consultation with all members of chambers is essential. Knowing what members of chambers think and why they have reached the conclusions they have is vital in understanding the issues arising and how they could be addressed. This takes time. One of the potentially exasperating aspects of the discussions about accommodation in our chambers is how long they took, but the time taken allowed all members of chambers the opportunity to air their views and for them to understand the other sides of the argument.
Staff were also a key part of the discussion and were consulted during the process. One aspect of this is to be aware of how views may change over time. Although we argue for a living, we retain the ability to listen to and accept the arguments of others.
An essential of political life, familiar in particular to readers of Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, is to know the numbers. Knowing what the members of your chambers think is the invaluable guide to how to proceed. Our chambers held a number of meetings about accommodation; this allowed for the free flow of discussion but in the absence of a clear consensus a vote on the issue was always going to be contentious and deeply divisive. Ongoing discussion without decision leads to an inevitable accusation of procrastination, but as a head of chambers the role is to keep chambers together and not force an issue that will deepen divisions.
Any chambers managing a similar issue may also be confronted with an interesting and difficult procedural issue which is should such a decision be made by simple majority vote or by a special majority of 60 or 75%. This is a difficult issue to manage, particularly because the discussion of the procedure becomes a proxy for the actual decision about whether to move or not. To some extent in our chambers this procedural discussion helped to focus minds on an essential point which was that chambers really wanted and needed a decision that commanded such a majority even if such a procedural device were rejected.
Leaders in chambers, heads of chambers and management committees, have a crucial decision to make which is whether they take a fixed view about what to do. As head of chambers, I considered that neutrality was the appropriate option, but circumstances will vary from chambers to chambers. In my chambers there was no pressing need to move due to commercial circumstances, the arguments were finely balanced on both sides, and most members saw the potential drawbacks of both staying and moving. Circumstances in other chambers may compel their leaders to take a firm view about what is best for chambers.
The problem with the leave/remain question is there is no common ground; you either stay or go. However, our experience was that there was common ground and a fruitful discussion within chambers about what we looked for in our accommodation in particular how the public facing parts of chambers should look, how barristers’ rooms could be improved and how communal areas could improve social life in chambers.
Having made the decision to stay in the Inns and modernise chambers, the outcome may seem inevitable. Staying maintains our identity, particularly important for a chambers that is named after a key building in the Inns. Modernisation meets the needs of many members of chambers. It is not perfect, but it is a compromise. A reasonable point can be made, why so much talk when little has really changed? The answer to that, I think, is that compromise could not have been achieved without such debate, and that discussion about accommodation for so many of us means more than bricks and mortar but says something about who we are and why we do what we do. The process did not deliver radical change but in itself provides an answer to point 1 above about who we are as a chambers.
I have often wondered what the Dragons’ reaction would be if a barrister appeared on Dragon’s Den espousing their business model. Presumably the Dragons would be impressed by the erudition, acumen and advocacy skills presented by the Bar, but I would be concerned that the underlying commercial position of the self-employed Bar may raise some eyebrows, not least the uncertainties over payment for our services.
Having served for many years on the Bar Council’s Remuneration Committee, I have observed from that coalface the collapse of public funding, the reduced opportunities for work as a result of fixed fees, and the roulette-wheel of conditional fee agreements. The funding challenges faced by the Bar fall to be considered against the background of our general and understandable reluctance to sue for our fees. Such a multiplicity of challenges may deter the Dragons from seeing us as a safe investment.
Then there is the way in which we organise our chambers. We are self-employed but most of us pay a percentage of our earnings to chambers. Chambers provides us with certain services: clerking, access to legal resources, and, of course, accommodation. In addition to paying rent, however, most chambers also expect and rely on members to provide services gratuitously, administering pupillage and tenancy processes, serving on committees concerned with equality and diversity, wellbeing, art. Chambers has to have systems in place for dealing with internal issues, to comply with regulatory responsibilities and ensure best practice, most of which depend upon barristers providing their services voluntarily.
Chambers will address these competing demands on their members’ time and resources in different ways. Many chambers will have CEOs and administrative structures in place to reduce the burden on barristers. The overarching aim of any head of chambers must be to give their barristers the freedom to practise unencumbered from administrative tasks and untroubled by chambers politics as far as possible. One of the reasons why issues around accommodation are so difficult, is that it threatens this equipoise.
A particular and special category of barristers are those who served as heads of chambers during the pandemic. Like many of my colleagues, the process of re-establishing chambers after lockdown has had a difficult and protracted legacy. Many chambers took steps to limit their rent liabilities during the pandemic by giving up space, in varying degrees, offset by improved virtual working arrangements, downsizing or moving to cheaper, more ‘modern’ accommodation.
For those chambers located in the Inns particular considerations come into play. Many of us love working in such an environment. It is part of what makes life at the Bar so special. It is not necessarily a logical or commercially driven preference, but the Bar is not all about the money, otherwise the question with which I opened would not be an issue. We practise at the Bar because we want to be a barrister. Most of us do not want to be solicitors. Some of us like the theatrical aspect of wearing wigs and gowns. For others, working in the Inns is an essential part of who they are as barristers.
But for every barrister that thinks like this, there are others who think very differently. Inn accommodation has its limitations. It is not modern. It can have poor or no heating. There is no air-conditioning. Rooms are too big for one person, but virtual working makes shared work rooms difficult. Barristers do not come into chambers anymore: rooms are deserted for large swathes of time. The architecture of chambers can ‘silo’ members into particular floors. There is little communal space. Members of chambers can go months without seeing their colleagues in person. Virtual meetings are far more practical in ensuring attendance.
The pros and cons of accommodation centred as it is in the heart of the Inns can be pure Brexit: not only ‘leave’ or ‘remain’ and a potential 48/52 split, but views on both sides that the other poses an ‘existential’ threat to chambers.
Here is my advice as to how to manage this debate:
This may seem like an abstract thought exercise, but all chambers have an identity that attracts solicitors, clients and candidates for tenancy and pupillage. In considering any move, it is essential to have that identity in mind.
Consultation with all members of chambers is essential. Knowing what members of chambers think and why they have reached the conclusions they have is vital in understanding the issues arising and how they could be addressed. This takes time. One of the potentially exasperating aspects of the discussions about accommodation in our chambers is how long they took, but the time taken allowed all members of chambers the opportunity to air their views and for them to understand the other sides of the argument.
Staff were also a key part of the discussion and were consulted during the process. One aspect of this is to be aware of how views may change over time. Although we argue for a living, we retain the ability to listen to and accept the arguments of others.
An essential of political life, familiar in particular to readers of Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson, is to know the numbers. Knowing what the members of your chambers think is the invaluable guide to how to proceed. Our chambers held a number of meetings about accommodation; this allowed for the free flow of discussion but in the absence of a clear consensus a vote on the issue was always going to be contentious and deeply divisive. Ongoing discussion without decision leads to an inevitable accusation of procrastination, but as a head of chambers the role is to keep chambers together and not force an issue that will deepen divisions.
Any chambers managing a similar issue may also be confronted with an interesting and difficult procedural issue which is should such a decision be made by simple majority vote or by a special majority of 60 or 75%. This is a difficult issue to manage, particularly because the discussion of the procedure becomes a proxy for the actual decision about whether to move or not. To some extent in our chambers this procedural discussion helped to focus minds on an essential point which was that chambers really wanted and needed a decision that commanded such a majority even if such a procedural device were rejected.
Leaders in chambers, heads of chambers and management committees, have a crucial decision to make which is whether they take a fixed view about what to do. As head of chambers, I considered that neutrality was the appropriate option, but circumstances will vary from chambers to chambers. In my chambers there was no pressing need to move due to commercial circumstances, the arguments were finely balanced on both sides, and most members saw the potential drawbacks of both staying and moving. Circumstances in other chambers may compel their leaders to take a firm view about what is best for chambers.
The problem with the leave/remain question is there is no common ground; you either stay or go. However, our experience was that there was common ground and a fruitful discussion within chambers about what we looked for in our accommodation in particular how the public facing parts of chambers should look, how barristers’ rooms could be improved and how communal areas could improve social life in chambers.
Having made the decision to stay in the Inns and modernise chambers, the outcome may seem inevitable. Staying maintains our identity, particularly important for a chambers that is named after a key building in the Inns. Modernisation meets the needs of many members of chambers. It is not perfect, but it is a compromise. A reasonable point can be made, why so much talk when little has really changed? The answer to that, I think, is that compromise could not have been achieved without such debate, and that discussion about accommodation for so many of us means more than bricks and mortar but says something about who we are and why we do what we do. The process did not deliver radical change but in itself provides an answer to point 1 above about who we are as a chambers.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
It’s been five years since the groundbreaking QC competition in which six Black women barristers, including the 2025 Chair of the Bar, took silk. Yet today, the number of Black KCs remains ‘critically low’. Desirée Artesi talks to Baroness Scotland KC, Allison Munroe KC and Melanie Simpson KC about the critical success factors, barriers and ideas for embedding change
