Two barristers express concern over BSB’s equality rule revisions.
- Allison Bailey criticises the proposed positive duty as regulatory overreach.
- Sarah Phillimore challenges the vagueness of the inclusivity duty.
- Concerns raised about the potential impact on barristers’ core duties.
- Debate surrounds the promotion of equality, diversity, and inclusion in legal practice.
Two barristers have voiced significant concerns over the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) proposal to amend its equality rules, which introduces a positive duty to advance equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Allison Bailey, a barrister who previously won a tribunal case against her chambers concerning the treatment of her gender-critical views, described the proposal as “regulatory overreach.” She argued that current core duties are sufficient, requiring barristers not to discriminate unlawfully and to act with integrity and honesty.
Allison Bailey expressed her immediate reaction on social media platform X, emphasising that EDI has often become confused with trans activism and the erosion of single-sex protections, potentially neglecting other discrimination areas such as disability, age, sex, race, and sexual orientation. Bailey insists that barristers’ primary role should remain the promotion of the rule of law and the best interests of clients.
Sarah Phillimore, another barrister critical of the BSB’s proposal, labelled it “appalling” and “undefined.” She questioned what the BSB means by “inclusive culture” and stressed that while society comprises various beliefs and practices, an attempt to enforce a singular vision of inclusivity might be untenable and contradictory to active discrimination battles.
Phillimore further expressed concern that imposing this duty could compel barristers to deny representation to clients based on their views, potentially prioritising this new duty over the rule of law and client equality. The proposal suggests the duty applies when practising or providing legal services, which Phillimore describes as “deeply disturbing.”
The BSB’s suggestion has sparked debate within the legal community. While some see the integration of EDI as an essential evolution of legal practice, critics like Colin Wynter KC demand more substantial justification for replacing existing non-discrimination mandates with comprehensive EDI requirements.
The BSB’s proposal continues to fuel debate, highlighting tensions between traditional legal duties and evolving societal values.
