Well, I can only speak as a laywoman here, but I took a look at the report provided, and I am not entirely convinced that their conclusions match the data.
On several graphs, the earnings of female barristers exceeded those of men up to around the £90-150k mark, after which men earned more, but at a smaller percentage. Even with the ethnic minority comparisons, white male barristers didn't tend to earn much more (sometimes even earning less) until after £90-150k.
The report stated that there were 'notable differences' between the types of law practiced along gender and ethnic lines, but didn't specify what those were.
I looked through the conclusions given, and I couldn't really find any instance of discrimination, although the report says that there's still a likelihood of lesser earnings for women and ethnic minority barristers compared to white male barristers with a similar background and seniority.
Be that as it may, the fact that female barristers are more likely to work part-time than men is notable, since this has been flagged as a reason for the gender pay gap in other professions like medicine. For ethnic minorities, the report stated a 'perceived bias in the allocation of work', but few details were given.
I am far from a statistician or a data head, so if anyone can see something in these numbers that I'm missing, by all means, let me know.
That being said, I have a natural bias against attempts to force everyone to achieve the same outcome. If this report acknowledges a multiplicity of reasons for these disparities, very few of which appear to be the result of intentional discrimination (unless I am mistaken), and that there are 'notable differences' in legal paths according to gender and ethnicity, then what "solution" is proposed? Furthermore, it is already the law of the land that discrimination is forbidden.
These proposals raise more questions than answers.
Harry Potter barrister disbarred by BSB. Mr Ronald Bean (a practising barrister) was ordered to be disbarred by a BSB disciplinary tribunal which concluded on 4 September 2025 following findings of professional misconduct in relation to charges brought by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
The Tribunal found that, in representing Ms Rowling, Mr Bean had implicitly supported her views, namely endorsed social hierarchies, failed to support the lead character's status as a feminist model, depicted superior races as having a moral obligation of tolerance and altruism towards lesser races, and found the portrayal of house-elves as 'extremely troublesome' being written as happy in their slavery. In particular, Hermione's efforts on their behalf were considered to be naïve rather than explicitly depicting equality. In so doing, the barrister had failed to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.
Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said: “Our mission is to regulate barristers and specialised legal services businesses in England and Wales in the public interest. The BSB Tribunal found that Mr Bean had acted in a way as to bring the profession into disrepute and the decision to disbar Mr Bean reflects the fact that failure to promote equality, diversity and inclusion is wholly incompatible with membership of the Bar.”
This decision is not open to appeal.
Ms Silver Skinn-O'Nion KC, commenting on the decision said, "The Bar of England and Wales has to waken up to the fact that barristers cannot determine what they do and who they represent. If, as a result of their inability to promote the BSB's new standards, a barrister fails to use inclusive pronouns, denies biological sex or fails to demonstrate that their friend-group is culturally and ethnically diverse, they will be removed from the profession."
The decision whom to brief - which determines all other outcomes - is taken by solicitors and their lay clients in discussions which are as deeply privileged as communications can be. Does the regulator propose changing that?
Some people have too much time on their hands. They should get out more!
And another thought. It's 6.30 p.m. and it's been a long day.
A, B and C are in the clerks' room.
A says "Who's up for a pint?"
B says "I am".
C is a Muslim and says "Not me, but I'll join you for a coffee".
"Fine" says A "there's a coffee machine in the Dog and Duck".
"Sorry" says C "but pubs are Haram".
"Right you are" say A and B "see you in the morning" and go off to the pubs.
Are they in breach of their duty?
Well, I can only speak as a laywoman here, but I took a look at the report provided, and I am not entirely convinced that their conclusions match the data.
On several graphs, the earnings of female barristers exceeded those of men up to around the £90-150k mark, after which men earned more, but at a smaller percentage. Even with the ethnic minority comparisons, white male barristers didn't tend to earn much more (sometimes even earning less) until after £90-150k.
The report stated that there were 'notable differences' between the types of law practiced along gender and ethnic lines, but didn't specify what those were.
I looked through the conclusions given, and I couldn't really find any instance of discrimination, although the report says that there's still a likelihood of lesser earnings for women and ethnic minority barristers compared to white male barristers with a similar background and seniority.
Be that as it may, the fact that female barristers are more likely to work part-time than men is notable, since this has been flagged as a reason for the gender pay gap in other professions like medicine. For ethnic minorities, the report stated a 'perceived bias in the allocation of work', but few details were given.
I am far from a statistician or a data head, so if anyone can see something in these numbers that I'm missing, by all means, let me know.
That being said, I have a natural bias against attempts to force everyone to achieve the same outcome. If this report acknowledges a multiplicity of reasons for these disparities, very few of which appear to be the result of intentional discrimination (unless I am mistaken), and that there are 'notable differences' in legal paths according to gender and ethnicity, then what "solution" is proposed? Furthermore, it is already the law of the land that discrimination is forbidden.
These proposals raise more questions than answers.
Harry Potter barrister disbarred by BSB. Mr Ronald Bean (a practising barrister) was ordered to be disbarred by a BSB disciplinary tribunal which concluded on 4 September 2025 following findings of professional misconduct in relation to charges brought by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
The Tribunal found that, in representing Ms Rowling, Mr Bean had implicitly supported her views, namely endorsed social hierarchies, failed to support the lead character's status as a feminist model, depicted superior races as having a moral obligation of tolerance and altruism towards lesser races, and found the portrayal of house-elves as 'extremely troublesome' being written as happy in their slavery. In particular, Hermione's efforts on their behalf were considered to be naïve rather than explicitly depicting equality. In so doing, the barrister had failed to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.
Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said: “Our mission is to regulate barristers and specialised legal services businesses in England and Wales in the public interest. The BSB Tribunal found that Mr Bean had acted in a way as to bring the profession into disrepute and the decision to disbar Mr Bean reflects the fact that failure to promote equality, diversity and inclusion is wholly incompatible with membership of the Bar.”
This decision is not open to appeal.
Ms Silver Skinn-O'Nion KC, commenting on the decision said, "The Bar of England and Wales has to waken up to the fact that barristers cannot determine what they do and who they represent. If, as a result of their inability to promote the BSB's new standards, a barrister fails to use inclusive pronouns, denies biological sex or fails to demonstrate that their friend-group is culturally and ethnically diverse, they will be removed from the profession."
ROFL?
Satire or prophecy?
Joshua, when I originally penned this in response to Professor Andrew Tettenborn’s excellent article https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/barristers-should-be-allowed-to-join-the-garrick/, a couple of readers, thinking it was a genuine case, sought to correct the date. That suggests it might be both satire and prophecy?!
The decision whom to brief - which determines all other outcomes - is taken by solicitors and their lay clients in discussions which are as deeply privileged as communications can be. Does the regulator propose changing that?
Some people have too much time on their hands. They should get out more!