standards in the interests of the public. It should lead to a qualification that only the Inns could give, and which any aspiring criminal advocate would be proud to possess. This might even be accompanied by letters after the name, or some distinctive title which would be recognised within the profession, and by the public at large, as a benchmark of excellence. It should create an awareness and demand for a high level of competency, which is presently being badly undermined. Pastoral care: We might wonder at the paradox that there are still queues of young people wanting to join the criminal Bar, but that too many who have the good fortune to do so – often those with excellent prospects – find that they have no choice but to leave. This is, perhaps, easily explained. The work of the criminal Bar, even in the most mundane case, can in human terms be exciting, dramatic and endlessly fascinating. It is also immensely important. This is a powerful attraction, but it is no longer sufficient. Although Professor Martin Chalkley demonstrates in our Report that the Bar can still be financially viable, once installed in chambers too many barristers find that their financial commitments are so great that they have no option but to leave. It is not that they are getting no work, although work may be thin on the ground, but that they are not receiving pay for the work they do. Hence the recommendation in the Report that: ‘In publicly funded work junior members of the Bar should never be required to appear in court without the same remuneration which would be received by any other advocate‘. How does this ever come about? Think how very difficult it is to get a pupillage and then a tenancy at the independent Bar. How can it happen that so soon afterwards junior barristers are leaving, and what are the consequences? When discussing the problem I have sometimes been met with the plaintive: ‘T’was ever thus’. But this is not so. At one time newly called barristers were able to take the finances of the early years in their stride, for they were likely (as was I, and many others for some time afterwards) to have the good fortune of private support to keep them going. The situation is now very different. The Bar has rightly encouraged diversity, and the Inns generously succeed in assisting less wealthy men and women to come to the Bar. However, they are likely to be saddled with massive student debt, and subject to expenses of a different order. The hard facts of life dictate that unless they can make ends meet, they have no alternative but to leave – and, may I say, leave unhappy and disillusioned by the way in which they have been treated. For example, I have met many barristers on secondment who are owed very substantial sums for work they have done, and who have felt utterly helpless when it comes to getting that money in. Working on secondment is no bad thing, but those who are forced to seek work outside the Bar often find that their regular income now becomes an essential part of their lives. They simply cannot afford to take the step backwards into the profession they felt obliged to leave.
Chambers must take responsibility for this situation. The BSB should immediately re-instate the rule that ‘Heads of Chambers must ensure fees are collected for all members past and present’. The Inns can give money, and might think of a scheme to help support the junior Bar, at least until their fees have been collected, but this should not be necessary. Chambers should look to the future of the profession. They need to be aware of individual circumstances; despite the difficulties, they might also be able to offer temporary support to those in desperate need of their outstanding fees. The Inns, working with the BSB, should provide a helpline to ensure that the most vulnerable in the profession are not exploited. As to the consequences of the present state of affairs continuing, they will be far-reaching. It should be a matter of real concern that when a promising junior leaves the Bar, at a stroke the Inns and chambers may well lose their investment in that person – many thousands of pounds of carefully judged funding. Worse still: the criminal Bar will become an ageing profession, and sink into decline. There will not be the people with the experience and skills to prosecute and defend in the ever-growing number of difficult and serious cases; the public will suffer the effects of sub-standard performance. As many fear, lack of these skills will impact upon the future of the judiciary. No one doubts that this is a critical period in the history of the criminal Bar, or the important role the Inns must play if its future is to be assured. I am delighted that Master Treasurer, Stephen Hockman is in the forefront of those who are presently wrestling with the challenges. For the immediate future I regret the best, if not the only answer, will likely be seen by practitioners, weary of the problems and deeply anxious about their livelihoods, as naïve and idealistic, but it must be outward looking. Surely it cannot be a retreat into Wonderland for the independent Bar to appreciate that its strength lies in providing a vital, high quality and irreplaceable public service, and that this depends upon all its members demanding from themselves and others the high standards that have come to be expected of them.
WILL PLACE FILLER PIC OR SINGLE PAGE ARTICLE HERE
Master Rivlin was Called to the Bar in 1963. After his appointment as a Circuit Judge and Deputy High Court Judge, he went on become Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court and Recorder of Westminster. In 2007 he was Autumn Reader. Following retirement from the Bench in 2011 he became Chair of the charity Fine Cell Work, adviser to the Director of the SFO and a Member of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. He recently chaired the Bar Council’s Report into the Criminal Justice System. His introduction to the law, First Steps in the Law is now in its seventh edition.
The Criminal Bar and the Inn: A Personal View
81