Two renowned employment law experts express differing views on new Bar Standards Board (BSB) equality duty.
- The duty proposes replacing the core duty not to discriminate with promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion.
- Akua Reindorf KC expresses significant scepticism, calling the duty “deeply problematic” and poorly articulated.
- Karon Monaghan KC supports the duty, arguing concerns are based on misunderstandings of regulatory contexts.
- Both silks highlight implications on legal practice and professional obligations.
A significant debate has emerged between two influential figures in employment law over the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) proposed changes to equality duties. The new duty aims to move beyond merely avoiding discrimination, seeking instead to actively promote equality, diversity, and inclusion within legal services. The modifications have sparked widespread discussion and criticism among legal professionals, with some accusing the BSB of engaging in social engineering.
Akua Reindorf KC, representing Cloisters Chambers, strongly critiques the proposed duty as overly broad and insufficiently explained in its current form. She raises concerns about legal practitioners being required to endorse ideological positions that might conflict with their personal beliefs. Reindorf points to a troubling trend she has observed, where public bodies, particularly universities, extend beyond legislative requirements to advance equality aims, often leading to conflicting rights. She questions the lack of clear guidance on implementation, particularly how it would interact with existing rules such as the cab rank rule.
Conversely, Karon Monaghan KC of Matrix Chambers offers a more supportive perspective, contending that many objections arise from ignorance of the existing regulatory environment. According to Monaghan, the current core duty is lacking, merely advising against unlawful discrimination without further direction. She acknowledges that while certain aspects could benefit from adjustments, the fundamental intent aligns with existing equality legislation and should not be seen as the BSB’s misstep. She further argues that the shift from a bureaucratic system to an outcome-focused approach is necessary to adequately advance equality, diversity, and inclusion within the profession.
Monaghan also explores the consultation’s goals, which aim to cultivate a diverse legal workforce capable of serving a varied client base. She recognises the need for improvement in fostering inclusive environments but dismisses fears over potential imposition of quotas, highlighting their likely legal infeasibility. Monaghan’s balanced view underscores her belief in the duty’s potential to clarify and enhance barristers’ obligations without undermining their responsibilities to clients and the court.
The divergent views on the BSB’s proposed equality duty highlight the complexity and contentiousness surrounding efforts to balance professional duty with advancing equality.
