Page 46 - Judicial Diversity Update report

from a non-barrister background. The report reviewed common perceptions
amongst lawyers and a certain legal culture that affects the potential pool. For
example, the low success rate was dissuading solicitors from applying for the
judiciary, whilst “the Bar remained the traditional route into the judiciary in
the eyes of much of the legal profession”. Also, it found that solicitors who
openly pursued judicial aspirations could end up being marginalised within
their firm. As for government lawyers, the report acknowledged these lawyers
are an important potential source of recruits to the judiciary (in part because of
their ethnically diverse workforce).

2.66. We note that poor appointment rates of fee-paid judges among solicitors is
often attributed to the unwillingness of firms to allow solicitors to sit part time.
The evidence submitted to us suggests that this is less and less the case.
Moreover, the data does not support the explanation. For some exercises,
solicitors have applied in large numbers and still failed disproportionately. In
the 2017-18 Recorder exercise mentioned above, for example, 618 solicitors
applied, presumably on an understanding that their firm would support them.
Of the 618, only six were appointed. 106 Barristers were nine times more likely
to be appointed.

2.67. The statistically poor performance of solicitor candidates in appointment
exercises demands exploration of how their skills and experiences are assessed
in the process. This is explored in more detail in Chapter Five.

2.68. Finally, as we previously recommended the pool from which judges are drawn
should be widened to include academics. Many excellent women lawyers are

attracted by the working culture and flexibility offered by academia. However,
107
current eligibility criteria present a serious obstacle to this group. In our

106 Judicial Appointments Commission, ‘Judicial Selection and Recommendations for Appointment:
Official Statistics, 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018’, June 2018, (Table 5 (Recorder)) available online at
https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/about_the_jac/official_statistics/statis
tics-bulletin-jac-2017-18.pdf
107 To be eligible for the Court of Appeal, candidates must have at least seven years post-qualification
experience; for the Supreme Court the minimum is 15 years. The problem is that many (extremely
eminent) legal academics have either never qualified to practise in the first place, or have done so after
having been academics for a long period of time, meaning they do not have the required number of
years’ experience after qualification. For the Court of Appeal eligibility requirements, see Court of
appeal judges, available at https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-
judiciary/judicial-roles/judges/%20coa-judges/. For Supreme Court eligibility requirements, see
41