logo
Rules forcing barristers to promote diversity dropped after backlash

Rules forcing barristers to promote diversity dropped after backlash

Yahoo27-05-2025

Plans to force barristers to promote diversity initiatives have been scrapped after the proposed overhaul sparked a backlash from top legal figures.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) said it will not be moving forward with plans to overhaul rules requiring barristers to actively advance diversity in their jobs.
The proposals, which were first put forward last September, would have seen barristers obliged to 'act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion' as one of the 10 'core duties' expected of them professionally.
Currently, the BSB's core duties simply say that barristers 'must not discriminate unlawfully against any person'.
However, the BSB was planning changes that would 'place a positive obligation' on barristers to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Barristers who failed to comply with the new rule would have risked serious sanctions from the BSB, including permanent disbarment and fines of up to £50,000.
The BSB said on Tuesday it has now abandoned its plans to amend 'Core Duty Eight' following the launch of a public consultation last September.
It comes after senior barristers and large industry groups raised concerns over the regulator's proposals.
The Bar Council, a trade body which represents over 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, had opposed the BSB's plans on the basis that the plans lacked clarity.
Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: 'A change to Core Duty Eight would lack the clarity needed for barristers to be able to comply.'
Some barristers had separately opposed the plans on the basis that ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of the rules left them open to abuse.
Naomi Cunningham, a barrister specialising in discrimination law, warned the proposed amendment risked being 'ruthlessly weaponised by activists to suppress dissent.'
Meanwhile, Andreas Gledhill, KC, and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, a former justice minister, branded the planned changes as 'coercive, illiberal and dangerous', saying the BSB was effectively setting in statute 'vague, uncertain and in some cases highly subjective' value judgments that had no legal basis.
They added that they 'unequivocally' supported equal opportunity and opposed discrimination in 'all its forms'.
The BSB said it will now seek to increase diversity at the Bar using other regulatory tools, including by setting 'clear expectations for the progress that we want to see over the next five years'.
'We remain determined to see a step change in progress in encouraging a diverse legal profession,' the BSB said.
Mark Neale, director general at the BSB, said: 'The challenge here is a practical one, not an ideological one ... at root, this requires a change of culture. Such a change requires the support and active collaboration of the profession.'
The BSB's reversal comes as an array of major businesses, including some of the world's largest law firms, have overhauled their own approaches to diversity initiatives amid Donald Trump's war on DEI.
Law firms including White & Case and Freshfields both dropped their diversity targets in the US in response to the Trump administration's attacks on corporate diversity initiatives. Some law firms have effectively been banned from working for the US federal government amid the DEI backlash.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Yahoo

Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Sign in to access your portfolio

Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Yahoo

Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data

Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

TechCrunch

time4 days ago

  • TechCrunch

Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.' 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store