Page 45 - Judicial Diversity Update report

solicitors represent a significantly more diverse pool in terms of gender,
ethnicity and social background than the Bar. To recruit the best possible – and
most diverse – judges, it is important that the whole profession becomes the
pool for the judiciary.

2.62. First, it is important to understand where solicitors drop out of the appointment
processes and why. We note the WPG’s finding that there is a statistically
significant adverse impact on solicitors in paper sifts and telephone
interviews. Given that these are the first two sifting tools for the Deputy
104
High Court Judge process, it is hardly surprising that solicitors have fared so
poorly in efforts to be appointed to this critical feeder role. We await the JAC’s
‘deep dive’ analysis for a more detailed picture.

2.63. Second, solicitors are not applying for higher judicial office in anything like
their proportion of the eligible pool. The judiciary, JAC and Law Society have
made continued efforts to encourage and support applications from solicitors
(more below). These initiatives are important but in our view are too general
in approach. As recommended in our 2017 report, we strongly urge targeted
outreach, including the use of head hunters to identify and pursue applications
from strong solicitor candidates. This should be supported by intensive
mentoring for solicitor candidates, akin to the insight and encouragement that
is naturally available to barrister candidates within Chambers.

2.64. Third, we are concerned that in competitions for the two gateway roles to the
senior judiciary, barrister success rates far outstrip those of solicitors
sometimes by a factor of ten or more. This requires serious investigation. It
means that the vast majority of solicitors appointed to the Circuit bench and
High Court must pursue a considerably more circuitous and risky route to the
bench, as outlined in the next chapter.

105
2.65. In its November 2017 follow up report the House of Lords Select Committee
on Constitutional Affairs acknowledged the low success rates for applicants

104 Working Psychology Group, ‘Review of JAC Shortlisting Tools – Summary Report &
Conclusions’, July 2018, p.5, available online at
https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/about_the_jac/research-shortlisting-
tools-report-2018.pdf.
105 Select Committee on the Constitution, ‘Judicial Appointments: follow-up’ (2 November 2017),
available online at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldconst/32/32.pdf
40