In a significant intervention, former justice minister Lord Wolfson KC, together with Andreas Gledhill KC from Blackstone Chambers, has voiced strong opposition to the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) proposed equality duty. The plan aims to impose a positive duty on barristers to actively advance equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
Lord Wolfson and Mr Gledhill have articulated their concerns through a joint letter addressed to Bar Council chair Sam Townend. They contend that the BSB lacks the authority to impose its own interpretations of social justice on legal practitioners, describing the proposed duty as inherently “vague” and “uncertain,” with a potential to be based on highly subjective value judgments. This, they argue, creates an unjust risk of disciplinary action against barristers merely for perceived non-compliance.
The proposal under consultation seeks to replace the existing core duty 8, which mandates barristers not to engage in unlawful discrimination. The past few weeks have seen an unprecedented reaction from barristers, particularly those with gender-critical views, who have publicly expressed their alarm. As a result, the topic has garnered notable attention both from within the legal community and the national media.
While the BSB’s intentions to promote equal opportunity and combat discrimination are recognised, Lord Wolfson and Mr Gledhill argue that the approach exceeds its legitimate remit. Emphasising that the new duty verges on “social engineering,” they warn it might inadvertently lead to what could be perceived as quotas, thus undermining public confidence in the very barristers the BSB aims to support.
Furthermore, the barristers caution that such a duty could inadvertently encourage unlawful positive discrimination among those eager to avoid potential disciplinary measures. They describe the BSB’s strategy as “coercive, illiberal, and dangerous,” asserting that the administration of justice should not be monopolised by proponents of affirmative action, nor should the BSB position itself as an enforcer of such ideologies under the pretext of professional regulation.
The debate around the BSB’s proposed equality duty highlights the tensions between promoting diversity and maintaining professional autonomy. As opposition from influential figures like Lord Wolfson and Andreas Gledhill gains momentum, the legal community continues to grapple with finding the right balance.
