Women barristers “disproportionately affected” by new complaints rule

---

Complaints: BSB plan will add to burden on practitioners

Women barristers will be “disproportionately adversely affected” by plans to introduce mandatory reporting by barristers of any complaints they receive, the Bar Council has warned.

The Bar Council said complaints about family law barristers were most likely to be escalated to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), and six out of 10 barristers in this area were female.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is proposing to introduce a rule requiring barristers to report to both to their chambers and their regulator any complaints they receive directly (so-called first-tier complaints).

The BSB launched a consultation on first-tier complaints in May, in response to changes required by a statutory statement of policy published by the Legal Services Board in 2024.

The Bar Council said women were more likely to work in family law – 62% of family law barristers are female, compared to 40% across the whole Bar – an area which the BSB acknowledged tended to attract a larger number of complaints.

The Bar Council said: “This will place them at a competitive disadvantage which will undermine efforts to address their continued under-representation at the Bar in general, in the Kings Counsel rank, and in judicial positions.”

It was “concerning” that the new reporting rule would also have “disproportionate impacts” on ethnic minority barristers, again because they tend to operate in areas that attract more complaints – and again as recognised by the BSB.

“We are not convinced that the BSB’s additional planned guidance will address sufficiently the additional burden faced by these practitioners.

“It is vital that the BSB monitors the impact on them and is prepared to adjust its policies if it is evident that the reporting requirements are having a detrimental impact on women and ethnic minority barristers who are already known to be at a significant disadvantage across all practice areas at the Bar in terms of the gender pay gap.”

The Bar Council opposed requiring barristers to report on the protected characteristics of complainants. Since this depended on co-operation from the complainant, it could not be guaranteed that it would be “consistent and reliable”.

Asking a complainant “who may already be feeling aggrieved and vulnerable” to share personal data could cause suspicion and further ill feeling.

“It may even expose barristers to unfounded discrimination claims or adversely affect the complaint, cause a widening of the scope of complaint, or make it harder to resolve it to the client’s satisfaction.”

The Bar Council was likewise opposed to barristers being required to report on whether complaints were escalated to LeO, as this depended on the complainant informing them.

However, data could be reported to the BSB on whether the case was publicly funded, the source of the instruction, the outcome of the case involved if concluded and whether advice was sought from Bar Mutual.

Potential positive impacts from the reporting of first-tier complaints, the Bar Council said, included “richer centralised data” for chambers and entities to analyse internally and facilitating “more reflection on interactions with clients” and complaint handling processes, leading to further improvements.

The new requirements would “inevitably create” an additional burden on chambers, entities, and sole practitioners, which would generate costs and detract from other fee-earning work.

“For sole practitioners, the burden cannot readily be absorbed by chambers staff as they may not exist. The administrative burden will likely fall directly on the practitioner.”