Solicitors dissuaded from seeking judicial appointment due to “unfounded myths”
“Unfounded myths” and a perception of inherent prejudice are deterring solicitors from applying to become judges.
Research published by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) last week showed that a third of the 2,000 solicitors and barristers questioned believed they had to know a High Court judge who was willing to act as a referee before they could apply for a judicial appointment.
Many respondents also believed that being younger than 40 years old, working class, a solicitor, not having the “right” kind of education, and not knowing the top judges would disadvantage any application. However, more than half the respondents said they would consider judicial office if they could work part-time, while some 13% of black and minority ethnic (BME) respondents said they were “very likely” to apply in future.
JAC Chairman Baroness Prashar says the commission will continue working “to dispel these unfounded myths and to develop an even sharper and better targeted approach to encourage applicants from a much more diverse pool”.
Law Society President Marsh says: “The Law Society lobbied successfully on behalf of its members working in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) so that the barrier for CPS lawyers seeking judicial appointment would be lifted.
“We believe this is helping towards achieving greater diversity in the judiciary, since the CPS employs higher proportions of women and BME lawyers than are to be found in private practice. Out of the 3,155 lawyers currently employed by the CPS 54.5% are women and 15.1% are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. By restricting the range of judicial appointments open to CPS lawyers, the government was until recently, missing out on one of the most diverse pools the legal profession can offer.”
The JAC is holding a conference to discuss the findings, which were commissioned from the British Market Research Bureau, on 7 July.
