Concerns escalate over the BSB’s proposed duty compelling barristers to enhance equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
- The initiative aims to replace the existing duty barring unlawful discrimination, introducing a proactive requirement.
- Critics argue this may infringe barristers’ independence, likening the duty to enforced social engineering.
- Questions arise on the clarity and interpretation of ‘advancing’ EDI, potentially leading to disciplinary actions.
- Opinions vary significantly, with voices urging resistance to what some see as political imposition on the profession.
The introduction of a new obligation by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) has sparked significant debate. This proposed duty, designed to update the current obligation of non-discrimination, has raised alarms among legal professionals who view it as an encroachment on professional independence. As contentious as it is, the duty challenges the very fabric of barrister autonomy by mandating a form of social engineering.
Matthew Scott, a barrister, articulates concerns that the proposal might turn barristers into social engineers. He suggests that non-compliance could lead to severe repercussions such as fines or career termination. Scott emphasises the vagueness surrounding what actions genuinely advance EDI, placing the onus on the BSB to adjudicate potential breaches until tribunal considerations come into play. He further criticises the BSB’s ambitious agenda, suggesting it is perilously close to dictating personal beliefs and actions.
Barristers critical of this move express unease at what they perceive as the BSB’s overreach. In particular, they highlight the board’s notable silence on gender issues despite its vocal stance on race-related matters. Such neglect, some argue, indicates an impending push to mould barristers’ views along predetermined lines of gender diversity, thereby fuelling the fear of enforced political activism.
Academic perspectives, such as those from Professor Andrew Tettenborn, reinforce the integrity concerns linked to these proposals. He characterises the move as an unwarranted shift towards conforming the Bar to a singular political ideology. Tettenborn’s remarks underline a fundamental argument: any alignment with a specific social justice perspective must be resisted to preserve the Bar’s independence and robust diversity of thought.
Furthermore, the prospect of these regulations shaping the legal profession’s demographic composition finds detractors. They challenge the presumption that the Bar should mirror societal demographics, advocating instead for a more liberal approach that accommodates a variety of views on social justice. This notion extends to the belief that social justice initiatives should remain the remit of politicians, not regulators compelled by ideological convictions.
The debate over the BSB’s new duty underscores a deep-rooted tension between regulatory objectives and professional independence, with many calling for a cautious approach.
