header-logo header-logo

26 July 2020
Issue: 7897 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

Extent of pandemic damage to Bar revealed

Barristers are considering leaving the profession due to the financial impact of COVID-19, with publicly funded, criminal and young practitioners hardest hit, research has found

The results of a Bar Council survey between 16 June and 6 July are bleak―16% of self-employed barristers actively want to leave as a result of the pandemic (for 20 years, this has been no more than 4% yearly). Court closures and interrupted cases have left self-employed barristers working half their normal hours, with fee income reduced by 59% (69% for publicly funded barristers who do crime, immigration, housing and family law).

Long-term sustainability is a major problem. Half of those who mainly do publicly funded work say they are already suffering financial hardship, and a further 41% expect to, while 29% are uncertain whether they will renew their practising certificate next year (rising to 36% of immigration practitioners). A mere one in five expect to be practising from their current chambers in a year.

However, the impact is widely felt, with 9% of commercial, 10% of chancery and 18% of personal injury barristers uncertain if they will renew their practising certificate in 2021.

Government support has had a limited impact―of the 16% of barristers who applied to the Bounce Back Loan Scheme, only 57% were successful, and only 21% of barristers have benefited from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme.

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar (pictured) said: ‘We had hoped to see some green shoots by now, but this shocking evidence suggests the opposite.

‘The justice system won’t last much longer unless those essential to it are supported, just like others working in the public sector and playing a crucial role in society. Recovery looks a long way off and, when barristers cannot afford to stay in their profession, the public will lose out on vital help. The government cannot avoid intervening any longer.’

View the survey results at: bit.ly/3hEdqOs.

Issue: 7897 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll