A former justice minister has voiced strong opposition against the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) proposed positive equality duty.
- Lord Wolfson KC, alongside Andreas Gledhill KC, argues the BSB lacks authority to enforce social justice views on barristers.
- The proposed duty is criticised for its vagueness, potentially risking barristers facing subjective disciplinary actions.
- There are concerns the duty might lead to damaging public confidence and unlawful positive discrimination.
- The regulatory changes are viewed as coercive and beyond the acceptable remit of professional obligations.
In a notable intervention, former justice minister Lord Wolfson KC has expressed his opposition to the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) plan to introduce a positive duty aimed at advancing equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) among barristers. In collaboration with Andreas Gledhill KC, Lord Wolfson articulated that the BSB does not possess the authority to impose what they perceive as its own social justice perspectives onto legal practitioners. Such a move, he contended, is increasingly evident in the current proposals.
The letter penned by Lord Wolfson, a practitioner at One Essex Court and a minister in the previous government, alongside Mr Gledhill, was addressed to Sam Townend, chair of the Bar Council. Both barristers backed the BSB’s objectives of promoting equal opportunities and counteracting discrimination. However, they disagreed with the proposed methods of implementation, which they argue extend beyond what is permissible for a regulatory body.
Central to their argument is the charge that the proposal is riddled with ambiguity, potentially subjecting barristers to disciplinary measures based on deeply subjective judgements. This unprecedented response to a BSB consultation has already seen outcry from barristers holding gender-critical views and those engaging with national media outlets.
Further criticisms were directed at the potential for the proposals to erode public trust and instigate positive discrimination within the legal profession. By attempting to enforce adherence to its EDI agenda through binding professional commitments under threat of disciplinary consequences, the BSB faces accusations of engaging in coercive and overbearing regulation.
Both barristers underscored the notion that the administration of justice should not be confined to proponents of affirmative action, cautioning against the bar’s regulator using its position to advance such an agenda under the title of professional regulation.
The opposition to the BSB’s proposed equality duty highlights significant concerns about overreaching regulatory practices and subjective enforcement.
