You might think that it is quite difficult to make the case that a profession which still dresses in a wig and gown is one that is rapidly evolving.

Dressing like an Elizabethan courtier is not exactly the hallmark of progression. Throw into that mix the fact that we still have many arcane phrases and practices (like using the word ‘arcane’) and you would probably have a point.

Alongside my wig, stiff wing collar, bands and robes, my work tools today are one laptop, two tablets, one notebook and a few pencils. That is it. Other than the notebook, I infrequently have paper files. In under ten years I have gone from carrying endless files, at least two legal texts and briefs wrapped in pink ribbon to having an entirely digital set up. The internet, wi-fi and portable computer technology have given me access to whole law libraries. I can now access cases that run to tens of thousands of pages through my phone.

One of the strengths of the Bar is our ability to adapt. In my nearly 30 years as a barrister, I have seen the administration of my Chambers move from everyone’s court dates being kept in a massive paper diary in the middle of the clerks’ room to everyone having access to our dia­ries electronically from anywhere in the world. The Coronavirus pan­demic that began in 2019/20 saw the profession conducting hearings by video within days of the first national lockdown commencing. It may seem odd that I am seeking a pat on the back for the profession simply

DOI: 10.4324/9781003111597-11 because we have moved with the times and are keeping up with tech­nology, but it illustrates how the Dickensian streets around the Inns of Court and the fancy dress of court wear are nods to the history of an ancient profession, not an indication that the professionals belong to a different era.

In many ways we who work in this profession reflect the law. I have prosecuted and defended in countless cases that have been charged pur­suant to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Yes, that law dates from 1861 and remains largely unchanged in respect of the offences that are still prosecuted under it. Notwithstanding the age of that Act, the law can prove to be remarkably agile in reacting to developments in culture, technology and society. We are able to continue using laws which are over 160 years old because they build the foundations in law around which a case is built. The ingredients of the offence of Threats to Kill described by section 16 of that Act of Parliament from 1861 remain the same whether the threats in question have been made by post, over the phone or via the internet. Where the foundations in law do not exist, Parliament is able to legislate to adapt or create laws to deal with whatever the developments have been. The internet has created a whole aspect of society that means both that the conduct of individuals has evolved and that environments have been created that require regula­tion. Sometimes the law has struggled to meet that challenge, but that just requires more legal innovation, it does not signify defeat. The bar­rister has to keep up with this increasing myriad of changes to substan­tive law. This is no mean feat, although it is made much easier by the availability of the internet and all its wonderful resources.

Law is not just about the creation of criminal offences. Its develop­ment is not just about keeping up with the pace of technology. The law reflects and forms the attitude of society at large. The study of law is the study of a living body of work. It can be in one moment an historical text, informing the student of a life and society very different to that in which we now live, and in the next moment it can be a tool for shap­ing the society around us.

Barristers are both lawyers and advocates. The practice of advocacy is a skill that requires adaptability. You need to change your style of questioning or the manner of your submissions depending on your tribunal - and you need to be able even to change tactic in the middle of a single question should the circumstances demand it. The most able of advocates have more than one ‘setting’. It can be incredibly effective for an advocate to dominate a witness, but in the wrong cir­cumstances it can be counterproductive. In other circumstances it can be unfair. The advocate with the greatest skill is able to match their questioning style to the needs of the witness and to the purpose of the examination.

The nature of advocacy has changed over time. That change is at its most acute when it comes to the questioning of vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials. Both the Bar and the judiciary recognised that ques­tioning a ten-year-old witness had to be very different to questioning a detective with 20 years’ service. This led to specialist training for advo­cates, adaptations to the court process and the development of ‘toolkits’ to assist the advocate in the way they would examine witnesses with particular needs, whether that be simply because of their young age or because of issues created by neurodiversity. (Just search online for ‘advocate toolkits’.) The adaptations to the court process have included the witness being remote from the courtroom, cross-examination being recorded months before the actual trial, the assistance of intermediaries in allowing advocates and the court to understand the communication needs of the witness and particular court hearings to set the rules that the examination must follow.

Whilst I still wear a horsehair wig on my head (and I support that continuing for reasons more than just tradition), the way that I work, the law that applies to my work, the procedures in the courtroom and the skills that I apply are in a constant state of development. Change is at the very heart of the role of an advocate in the justice system. If we stand still as advocates and lawyers, we get left behind. The landscape in which we work requires us to be adaptable. But have barristers them­selves changed?

When I commenced pupillage there were perhaps 30 members of Chambers. There were four women and twenty-six men. Every face in Chambers was ethnically visually similar. That did not reflect badly on my Chambers in particular, it reflected poorly on the Bar as a whole. We were not some outlier, we represented the diversity of the Bar. I recall going to a meeting early on in my career about fair recruitment processes. A more senior member of the Bar asked, in all honesty, ‘just what is wrong with only wanting to recruit candidates that had been to Oxbridge?’, with the follow up remark ‘what is the problem with having standards?’ This image is still one that the Bar struggles with. White. Male. Privately educated. Posh. The image is not entirely fair but it is entirely understandable.

Where adaptability and change have always been features of the Bar, change in the complexion of the Bar was not. In 2021 we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the first women to be called to the Bar. A centu­ries old profession, with the Inns of Court dating back to the 14th cen­tury, had only begun to admit women to the profession after something like half a millennium. The first female regular holder of judicial office was only appointed in 1956. By 1976 there were still only ten full-time female judges. The first female Court of Appeal judge was appointed in 1988. By 1994, and with the appointment of Brenda Hale, the total number of female High Court judges stood at ten - that is not the total number still sitting in 1994, ten was the total number that there had ever been.

The Bar, and the legal profession more widely, has a lot of catching up to do. The speed at which we are catching up has certainly increased dramatically in recent times. In my own Chambers (the Chambers where we had five women out of thirty members when I started) we now have 107 members, of whom 49 are women. When I look through the list of barristers of those below 20 years’ call, the ratio is 60/40 women to men. There is undoubtedly an element by which that sort of ratio will mean that the number of women who achieve high judicial office will increase, but it is not just a question of waiting for it to happen. Remember: 73 years after women were first called to the Bar, we had still only had ten female High Court judges.

What the Bar needs to avoid is resting on its laurels. The Bar needs to continue to change and adapt to ensure retention of women at the Bar. We should be creative about the way that all our Chambers are run so that we create an environment where primary care givers are able to return to work. We should make sure that work is fairly distributed. Simply because the ratio of women to men now more closely reflects society, it is not a case of job done. There was a 12-year gap between the first woman High Court judge and the second woman High Court judge. Whilst trailblazers are to be celebrated and amplified, the job is not done until the trail is well trodden. The achievement of the ‘first’ to do something is a personal one. When we lose count of the number of women that have been in the Supreme Court, that is an achievement of us all.

It is said that the first black barrister to practise in the English courts was Christian Cole, called in 1883. He had a head start on the first woman by nearly 40 years. Look at the Supreme Court. It is white. There is no escaping that fact. Only 4% of the judiciary in the High Court or above are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background. The figure for that demographic in the general population is 14%.

It is my view that it is the responsibility of every practitioner to work towards the profession becoming more diverse. Many significant steps have been taken, but many barriers remain. The only barrier to the profession should be ability. We act on behalf of other people, often in a critical passage of their life. We should strive towards excellence and recruit in a way that identifies that excellence in a fair way.

Many Chambers now undertake anonymised recruitment processes. To try to eradicate the disadvantages that may come from being in a lower socioeconomic group, my own Chambers only look at academic achievement beyond the age of 18. We also remove the academic institu­tions from applications before they are marked, so I am afraid going to Oxbridge is not on our list of criteria. This is a positive way in which the Bar has progressed in recent times.

When I began, pupillages were unfunded. I spent six months living in London with no income and a hefty bank loan to live off. That equated to progress in itself, as trainee barristers used to have to pay their trainer for the privilege of being trained! Now we have funding for pupillage and minimum earning guarantees for the new barrister. This is vital to ensure that the Bar is not just accessible to people with money behind them.

The Bar is not immune to the ills that affect the rest of society. Unconscious bias remains as much of an issue for the Bar as it does for the world at large. Being alive to that difficulty is the first step. Overcoming it takes many more steps. One of the big steps to take is for everyone to accept that this is vital and not to roll their eyes at the mention of it. Unconscious bias is that element by which we see someone that reminds us of ourselves and then we gravitate towards supporting them. So I interview a comprehensive school-educated northerner who went to a Welsh university and took part in a lot of debating society competitions and I instantly think, ‘he will be a good barrister’ because he reminds me of myself. That excludes others and does not recog­nise their strengths sufficiently. That is only one component of uncon­scious bias, it can also include a bias against an individual due to some characteristic.

I am great believer that it is incumbent upon each of us who are fortu­nate enough to study and work within the legal profession to show that this is a profession available to all who possess the necessary skills. This is where a form of unconscious bias can, in fact, assist. The unconscious bias exists in the mind of the prospective barrister who does not see anyone like them in the profession. It is easy for them to think we are all white, Oxbridge educated, men. This is where visibility is key. The Bar has changed, and although it is not enough, we need to advertise that fact.

Increasingly there is a wide range of initiatives that demonstrate to the wider community that the Bar could be for them: school visits, mock trials, online talks, they are all multiplying year upon year, and all take small steps to greater diversity. Whereas the Bar has not yet changed sufficiently to reflect the society which we serve and represent, the Bar has begun to change in the way it approaches the issue.

So what is the reader of this book with an interest in the law but no connections to the professions meant to do to further that interest? Let me begin by reassuring you - that person was me. I had no connections to the law or the professions. The way that the Bar has changed since my time is that there are far more opportunities out there now than when I was a student. Start with social media and platforms like Twitter. There is a real legal community on Twitter and lots of opportunities organised by individuals or Chambers, to gain some insight into the profession, whether that be from direct interaction with a barrister or an online seminar.

When it comes to diversity and equality of opportunity, progress has been slow. The Bar still has a lot to do in order to change. What it has begun to do is create the foundations for change. The readers of this book can hopefully build on those foundations.