Disability Pride Month (“DPM”) is approaching, and an opportunity to discuss the positive impact the Bar Standards Board’s (the “BSB”) package of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (“EDI”) reforms on addressing some of the remaining problems faced by disabled barristers. DPM is held each July to commemorate the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) on 26 July 1990. The first celebration was held in Boston, and it is celebrated annually in various U.S. cities. Unfortunately, Brighton is the only UK city to host a similar event, despite the UK’s potent disability rights activism since the 1980s and 1990s. Protests, including those against negative media portrayals and efforts of disabled people, led to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, we have adopted the annual event into our calendar.
Challenges around accessibility and inclusion remain. Within the legal profession, disabled barristers are leading the movement to address these concerns, coordinated by groups like the Association of Disabled Lawyers (the “ADL”), Neurodiversity in Law, AllBar, Barristers with Lived Experience of Mental Illness (“BLEMI”) and Bringing (Dis)Ability to the Bar (“BDABar”). Bar Standards Board (the “BSB”) Disability Taskforce and Bar Council’s Disability Panel also contribute to representation and reform.
These welcome reforms will introduce an outcomes‐focused approach while retaining prescriptive requirements for transparency and accountability.[1] Central to these proposals is the recasting of Core Duty 8 from “you must not discriminate unlawfully against any person” to “you must act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion” when practising or providing legal services.[2] Under the new duty, all barristers and chambers would take steps to identify and mitigate EDI barriers, ie “advance” EDI. Beyond the reform to Core Duty 8, a dual framework for self-employed barristers and BSB entities is introduced in the consultation. Firstly, the General Equality Rules set four outcome-based objectives. These are eliminating unlawful discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity; preventing bullying, harassment and victimisation; ensuring equal access to services; and promoting an inclusive culture. Secondly, Specific Requirements include for self-employed barristers and entities include policies, equalities data collection and analysis, action plans, training and disability access and access to premises. Furthermore, Specific Requirements for chambers mandate six core policies to govern practice and enable grievance procedures. These policies cover EDI; anti-harassment and bullying; reasonable adjustments, flexible working, parental leave, and allocation of unassigned work.[3] These measures appear to apply proportionately, with sole practitioners exempted from work-allocation policies where not relevant.
Compliance with the Equality Act 2010 alone has proven insufficient. The evidence suggests that the profession inherently fails to address discrimination and ill-treatment. The 2020 Legally Disabled Report (“The Report”)[4] highlighted some of the discrimination and bullying experienced by disabled barristers. Of those surveyed, 45% experienced ill-treatment in the working environment and 71% of these barristers believe the ill-treatment was in relation to disability. Ill-treatment, as defined by The Report, includes poor attitudes, lack of understanding, ridicule or demeaning language, refusal of necessary reasonable adjustments, bullying, overbearing supervision and unreasonable performance targets. However, these issues are often unreported, as 54% of the barristers surveyed never reported the ill-treatment they experienced, and 37.5% sometimes reported it. Additionally, only 8.3% said they consistently reported ill-treatment. Requesting reasonable adjustments caused stress and anxiety to the surveyed barristers who asked for them 72.3% of the time. In 2024, the BSB noted that despite improvements in diversity, significant challenges persist in recruitment, retention, and addressing bullying, harassment, and discrimination at the Bar. Furthermore, too many chambers occupy heritage buildings lacking step-free access, adapted facilities, or suitable hearing loops. This limits the work opportunities of barristers with limited mobility, hearing and sight. For example, alternative means of meeting other members of chambers, staff and clients become necessary. This causes isolation in a profession where networking is essential.
Change is imperative. The Bar professes “excellence” as its standard and EDI must not be an afterthought or a mere add-on. The “reasonable steps” contained in the reforms can and should be scaled to chambers of varying sizes and practitioners at different career stages, which is a real asset. For large commercial sets, this might entail annual EDI audits, data-driven reviews of work allocation, and targeted outreach to underrepresented groups. Sole practitioners or small sets could satisfy the duty by ensuring websites meet accessibility standards, engaging with EDI-focused “Continued Professional Development”, and pre‑emptively offering reasonable adjustments to clients and colleagues. The ambiguity of “reasonable and proportionate” allows for context‑sensitive implementation. Still, it also places a premium on the BSB to issue concrete examples and non‑exhaustive toolkits to guide practitioners.
This flexibility should address concerns about a potential conflict with Core Duties 2 and 7, the obligations to act in the best wishes of the client and to a competent standard.[5] These could be compromised if a client’s views or instructions are perceived to conflict with EDI objectives. Additionally, Chambers fear that conducting detailed accessibility audits and implementing action plans within a prescribed timeframe, such as full accessibility in five years, could expose them to legal challenges and divert resources from substantive EDI work. Inbuilt flexibility should assist smaller chambers and sole practitioners lacking in-house administrative support and capacity to meet outcomes, who are particularly concerned about the feasibility of compliance without clear templates and dedicated funding for necessary adjustments. The flexibility could consider these factors in its assessment of compliance.
However, the Bar Council is rightly concerned about the reforms exceeding the BSB’s statutory remit under the Legal Services Act 2007 due to a potential lack of compatibility with regulatory objectives, transparency, and proportionality.[6] Furthermore, it suggests that the new equality rules risk regulatory overreach that could chill freedom of expression and debate, contrary to views protected under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Additionally, the Bar Council[7] believes the proposals would be challengeable through judicial review since the BSB would seek to enforce regulations that would go beyond the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. These concerns need to be considered by the BSB, and a conclusion must be provided. If it finds incompatibility, the BSB should reconsider its position. However, it is vital for the equality and inclusion of disabled people at the Bar that it continues to identify means of addressing the issues we face.
Similarly, enforcement under the new duty must be clear and proportionate. Disciplinary measures must be reserved for systemic or egregious failures, not isolated lapses or well-intentioned efforts. The BSB needs to explain how enforcement will apply and ensure it is not disproportionately used. Punishing well-intentioned allies will not aid our cause.
Perhaps the most challenging reform is the profession ensuring that premises are fully accessible to all.[8] This is particularly difficult in regard to ensuring equal physical access within chambers and the Inns of Court.[9] The Inns are custodians of many buildings used by the Bar. The Inns and chambers have limited authority to alter listed buildings. Under planning laws, the Inns’ buildings must preserve their historic character and architectural significance. Any alteration impacting original fabric, such as walls, staircases, and windows, must demonstrate “minimal harm” to heritage values, prioritising conservation over modernisation. The interaction with heritage law creates tension with the duty to provide reasonable adjustments. In other words, the requirement to protect listed buildings can conflict with the imperative for physical accessibility. This puts the Inns in a tricky position. On the one hand, they are committed to advancing the Bar, including its diversity. On the other hand, they are limited in the adjustments they can make. Barristers residing in the Inns would have great difficulty with meeting the new Core Duty. Decisions to alter listed buildings need to be referred to for listed building consent from organisations such as Historic England, which aims to conserve historical buildings.[10] The BSB needs to ensure that regulatory compliance can be achieved in these circumstances. This will require continued collaboration between all stakeholders before the new rules can be enforced.
Nevertheless, recasting Core Duty 8 into a positive obligation to advance EDI represents a vital opportunity for the Bar to realign its internal practices with the justice and excellence it champions externally. For disabled barristers, it affirms that inclusion is not peripheral but a professional standard. These reforms indicate that the experiences we face are being addressed and that the Bar is willing to act positively to eradicate it. Yet success depends on the BSB’s provision of clear guidance, practical toolkits, dedicated funding and proportionate enforcement, backed by the collective efforts of practitioner networks and chambers. Only then can the Bar move from passive compliance to active engagement, demonstrating that true professionalism encompasses a conscious commitment to equality for all.
Daniel Holt LLB (Hons), LLM (QMUL)*, LLM (City Lond)**
Barrister | Farrar’s Building
Chair | Association of Disabled Lawyers
Chair | Middle Temple Disability Forum
[1] Bar Standards Board, ‘Consultation on the Proposed Amendments to the Equality Rules’ (September 2024). < https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/static/8245b4b1-4593-4fc2-8524971ef73abf2e/equalityrulesconsultationfinal.pdf> accessed 23 April 2025
[2] ibid, p3.
[3] ibid, p4.
[4] Debbie Foster and Natasha Hirst, ‘Legally Disabled? The career experiences of disabled people working in the legal profession’ (Cardiff Business School, 24 January 2020). <http://legallydisabled.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Legally-Disabled-full-report-FINAL.docx> accessed 23 April 2025.
[5] Criminal Bar Association (November 2024), p14 < https://www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CBA-Response-to-the-BSB-Consultation-on-EDI.pdf > accessed 23 April 2025
[6] Bar Council (September 2024), p4. < https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/6bd9c3b2-7f74-469a-95368aaf612db9c1/Bar-Council-proposed-response-to-BSB-equality-rules-consultation-November-2024.pdf> accessed 23 April 2025
[7] ibid;
[8] Bar Standards Board, ‘Consultation on the Proposed Amendments to the Equality Rules’ , p23(September 2024). < https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/static/8245b4b1-4593-4fc2-8524971ef73abf2e/equalityrulesconsultationfinal.pdf> accessed 23 April 2025
[9] Chancery Bar Association (November 2024), < https://www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CBA-Response-to-the-BSB-Consultation-on-EDI.pdf > accessed 23 April 2025
[10] Criminal Bar Association (November 2024), < https://www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CBA-Response-to-the-BSB-Consultation-on-EDI.pdf > accessed 23 April 2025
