Perhaps I need educating? Has BSB detected a problem regarding inclusion that needs to be fixed by further regulation, and importantly, that requires more of it rather than enforcement of current statutory measures? The Bar is a market place of chambers and sole practitioners: success depends on offering a diversity of service from a diverse workforce. That is why many chambers have encouraged fast-tracking minority applicants to interview. But it is the ethics of inclusion coupled with commercial realities that drive such initiatives, not the imperatives of regulations. I am for the lightest regulation of the Bar. Isn't that what provides greatest choice to both members, their administrative teams and their users?
To my mind, the only thing the regulator should focus on is whether chambers act in a way that promotes merit, without considering anything else—unless candidates are equally meritorious.
'The new duty “certainly doesn’t” override' the cab-rank rule, Neale told me. Is it for Neale to say that? But more important - and I confess I've only read your two posts on it - is that I feel the whole idea fails to distinguish clearly between lawyers individually (and the same might apply to me as a solicitor advocate) and groups of lawyers, such as barristers' chambers. For me Neale's comment shows up that failure.
Quite the contrary. This is liberal. This is about ensuring that chambers are open and inclusive to barristers and pupils of all views and all backgrounds.” All views? We should welcome eg Qanon folk or neo-Nazis? That’s liberal?
Perhaps I need educating? Has BSB detected a problem regarding inclusion that needs to be fixed by further regulation, and importantly, that requires more of it rather than enforcement of current statutory measures? The Bar is a market place of chambers and sole practitioners: success depends on offering a diversity of service from a diverse workforce. That is why many chambers have encouraged fast-tracking minority applicants to interview. But it is the ethics of inclusion coupled with commercial realities that drive such initiatives, not the imperatives of regulations. I am for the lightest regulation of the Bar. Isn't that what provides greatest choice to both members, their administrative teams and their users?
To my mind, the only thing the regulator should focus on is whether chambers act in a way that promotes merit, without considering anything else—unless candidates are equally meritorious.
'The new duty “certainly doesn’t” override' the cab-rank rule, Neale told me. Is it for Neale to say that? But more important - and I confess I've only read your two posts on it - is that I feel the whole idea fails to distinguish clearly between lawyers individually (and the same might apply to me as a solicitor advocate) and groups of lawyers, such as barristers' chambers. For me Neale's comment shows up that failure.
Quite the contrary. This is liberal. This is about ensuring that chambers are open and inclusive to barristers and pupils of all views and all backgrounds.” All views? We should welcome eg Qanon folk or neo-Nazis? That’s liberal?