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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll