In theory the answer to George Peretz KC’s problem is salaried part-time working, which is common and now the norm in some jurisdictions. A headcount of 20 new employment judges is likely to amount to in the region of 15 FTE appointments. The trend towards salaried part-time working is welcome, but also exaggerates the depletion of salaried judiciary. There is a shortage in numbers of salaried judiciary and many of those who are in post will not be working full time.
A couple of points that George Peretz does not mention are that his hypothetical KC/law firm partner is likely (unless in publicly-funded practice) to suffer a considerable drop in earnings if appointed as a junior-level judge. These days even well-paid 50 or 60 years olds may have considerable financial commitments that mean that that is not something they can consider. The second is that salaried appointees are subject to restrictions on outside interests that go far beyond not being able to return to practice. His adopted designation of “A Political Lawyer” and associated Substack would probably not be sustainable if appointed as a salaried judge.
The restriction on return to practice is a vexed topic, particularly given its apparent lack of enforceability, but I doubt it is the biggest problem. It might be possible for a big-name KC to become a salaried judge for a few years, then pick up their practice where they left off, but I can’t see that happening with e.g. a law firm partner who has spent months disentangling themselves from financial partnership and given up all contact with their former clients. Joshua’s article highlights the abundance of fee-paid lawyers, few of whom seem to want to become salaried. Experienced fee-paid judges will know well what it means to be salaried, so should be able to make a decision that they want to take on the role, even if it is a one-way street.
I had read Lord Burnett’s comments as being about making life uncomfortable for those who want to permanently be fee-paid, rather than improving the attractiveness of salaried office. There has been talk in the past of limiting terms of fee-paid judges, but that in itself is highly problematic.
It does seem that the Judicial Office/JAC is struggling to make salaried appointment (whether part-time or full-time) an attractive proposition for those who are currently fee-paid.
Interesting piece. I think there’s another point as well - it certainly applies to me and to others I know in my position (mid 50s, successful lawyers - KC/partner in good firm). For many of us, spending our late 50s and 60s in full-time employment with 6 weeks’ holiday isn’t that attractive compared to an alternative of continued practice (easing off a bit) plus part-time arbitration/mediation plus part-time judging (if we get that) plus non-exec directorships or part time public appointments plus taking much more time off to spend with children/grandchildren and - increasingly - spouses who have retired from other careers. If you offer us the choice of “full time plus 6 weeks holiday” or “don’t bother applying”, many of us will go with “don’t bother applying”.
In theory the answer to George Peretz KC’s problem is salaried part-time working, which is common and now the norm in some jurisdictions. A headcount of 20 new employment judges is likely to amount to in the region of 15 FTE appointments. The trend towards salaried part-time working is welcome, but also exaggerates the depletion of salaried judiciary. There is a shortage in numbers of salaried judiciary and many of those who are in post will not be working full time.
A couple of points that George Peretz does not mention are that his hypothetical KC/law firm partner is likely (unless in publicly-funded practice) to suffer a considerable drop in earnings if appointed as a junior-level judge. These days even well-paid 50 or 60 years olds may have considerable financial commitments that mean that that is not something they can consider. The second is that salaried appointees are subject to restrictions on outside interests that go far beyond not being able to return to practice. His adopted designation of “A Political Lawyer” and associated Substack would probably not be sustainable if appointed as a salaried judge.
The restriction on return to practice is a vexed topic, particularly given its apparent lack of enforceability, but I doubt it is the biggest problem. It might be possible for a big-name KC to become a salaried judge for a few years, then pick up their practice where they left off, but I can’t see that happening with e.g. a law firm partner who has spent months disentangling themselves from financial partnership and given up all contact with their former clients. Joshua’s article highlights the abundance of fee-paid lawyers, few of whom seem to want to become salaried. Experienced fee-paid judges will know well what it means to be salaried, so should be able to make a decision that they want to take on the role, even if it is a one-way street.
I had read Lord Burnett’s comments as being about making life uncomfortable for those who want to permanently be fee-paid, rather than improving the attractiveness of salaried office. There has been talk in the past of limiting terms of fee-paid judges, but that in itself is highly problematic.
It does seem that the Judicial Office/JAC is struggling to make salaried appointment (whether part-time or full-time) an attractive proposition for those who are currently fee-paid.
Interesting piece. I think there’s another point as well - it certainly applies to me and to others I know in my position (mid 50s, successful lawyers - KC/partner in good firm). For many of us, spending our late 50s and 60s in full-time employment with 6 weeks’ holiday isn’t that attractive compared to an alternative of continued practice (easing off a bit) plus part-time arbitration/mediation plus part-time judging (if we get that) plus non-exec directorships or part time public appointments plus taking much more time off to spend with children/grandchildren and - increasingly - spouses who have retired from other careers. If you offer us the choice of “full time plus 6 weeks holiday” or “don’t bother applying”, many of us will go with “don’t bother applying”.