Harman: Bar at risk of its own ‘MeToo’ moment
“Decisive and radical change” is needed at the Bar and the bench to reset a “culture of impunity” that allows those at the top to bully or harass others, the Harman review has concluded.
Baroness Harriet Harman KC today unveiled 36 hard-hitting recommendations targeted at behaviour “within chambers and courtrooms, in open court and behind robing room doors”.
This was the only way to prevent the Bar facing its ‘MeToo’ moment, she said, and shifting the “jeopardy” from the victims to those who commit misconduct.
Her proposals include creating the post of Commissioner for Conduct to tackle bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar – appointed by the Bar Council – mandatory training for all barristers every three years and lowering the threshold for the duty on barristers to report serious misconduct by others from ‘reasonable belief’ to ‘reasonable suspicion’.
“The culture of collusive bystanding needs to be recognised, called out and ended,” said Baroness Harman, urging a “strong” sanction for failure to report, up to suspensions for those in positions of seniority.
She also recommended proscribing as serious misconduct any sexual relationships between barristers or employees with a pupil, mini-pupil or someone on work experience in their chambers.
“It should be made clear that it is serious misconduct to trawl for sex on LinkedIn,” she added. “Women barristers and those seeking pupillage should be able to use it without being subjected to predatory trawling. LinkedIn is meant to be a professional network, not a dating app.”
Sanctions needed to be strong to act as a deterrent: “A major disincentive to complaining is that even if the misconduct is proved it may incur only a minor penalty…
“Though it will no doubt cause resentment and prompt cries of unwarranted severity and unfairness, it will only take a few cases of disbarment in serious cases for the message to get across…
“It must also be made clear to all that judicial bullying, harassment or sexual harassment will be dealt with by removal from the bench.”
Other eye-catching proposals included a conduct agreement for everyone in chambers, a requirement for chambers to report all bullying and harassment cases to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) or the commissioner, and a ban on chambers using non-disclosure agreements in such cases.
The report called for an express prohibition in the code of conduct on bullying, harassment and sexual harassment which applies at all times, including in private relationships “where there is, or was, a professional nexus”.
The code should also prohibit the abuse of trust placed in barristers “by virtue of their power and influence” – this should similarly apply in private relationships, but “where the abuse of power is particularly egregious, there ought to be no requirement for a professional nexus”.
An overhauled complaints system would see time limits for processing cases, support services and mandatory vulnerable witness training for BSB staff.
Following a finding of serious misconduct, the Bar tribunal should have the power to order the respondent barrister to compensate the complainant for harm such as mental suffering, loss of earnings and damage to reputation.
The review also stressed that regulatory action must be taken against online bullying and harassment.
The Bar Council appointed former Labour deputy leader, a solicitor, in June 2024 to lead the independent review after research the previous year found bullying, harassment and discrimination a “systemic” problem, with 44% of barristers saying they had experienced or witnessed it in the previous two years.
Baroness Harman engaged with hundreds of people working in and around the Bar and she recounted some of their stories, such as the pupil who was told by a clerk in her first week that she needed to sleep with him, and the junior clerk regularly groped by a silk, who would ask about her underwear.
A law student recounted how a male barrister offered to pay for her Bar studies if she engaged in an “intimate relationship” with him. “When I refused, he called me frigid and suggested that it was my fault for asking him post-mini [pupillage] to review my pupillage applications.”
The review noted: “Often the same senior members of the profession who are happy to sexually exploit junior members will later complain that those junior members ‘slept their way to the top’.”
But it found that most did not report what they had experienced out fear of the consequences for their careers.
The culture of denial must end, Baroness Harman said. “Some senior barristers are dismissive of the suggestion that there is any problem at their chambers if they have had no instances of the most egregious behaviour such as sexual assault or shouting at juniors.
“They fail to recognise that micro aggressions such as ignoring or being dismissive to someone, sarcastic remarks, not including someone in invites to events with clients, repeated requests by a KC to a junior to go for a drink alone with them may also meet the threshold of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment.”
There was also “a culture of excuses which should have no place in today’s Bar”, such as ‘You have to be robust to be at the Bar. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen’, or ‘It’s not bullying, it’s just robust case management’. or ‘Judges have to kick off to keep standards up’.
Baroness Harman went on: “There is, at both the self-employed and employed Bar, an attitude of bitter resignation that the prolific offenders, whether engaging in bullying or harassment, are widely known but that nothing can or will be done; that the victim won’t dare to complain; that it’s not anyone else’s responsibility to raise it, and even if they did, nothing would be done about it…
“WhatsApp groups abound, with pupils comparing notes on predatory barristers and with junior barristers complaining about particular bullying judges.
“There is a wholesale lack of confidence in the complaints system, a recognition that complaining penalises the victim rather than the perpetrator, and a pervasive pessimism that, it being the Bar, nothing will change.”
For the judiciary, she called for “greater accountability for conduct in the courtroom”, with barristers being able to call on an independent monitor to attend hearings for the purpose of observing behaviour in court.
The time limit for complaints to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (currently three months) should be abolished, while an independent person should have a say on sanction as well as the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor as now.
Chair Barbara Mills KC said: “It is clear that decisive action is required. We will consider these recommendations carefully and develop a plan for change.
“On the basis of the many conversations I have had with the senior judiciary and the work they have already undertaken in this area, I am confident that we will work together to bring about necessary change.
“This is a once in a generation opportunity for the Bar to change its culture – and for all of us that change starts now.”
Leave a Comment