header-logo header-logo

06 October 2021
Issue: 7951 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Bar earnings gender gap wider now than 20 years ago

The gap between men and women’s earnings at the Bar has increased in the past 20 years, analysis of Bar Mutual data has shown. In commercial and financial services law, for example, women barristers earned on average 49% less than men in 2000―but by 2020, that difference had increased to 57%

In Employment, the gap widened from 8% in 2000 to 16% in 2020. The reverse is true in some practice areas where women outnumber men, such as family law (children)―however, in that practice area, the gap had narrowed, from 21% in 2000 to just 4% in 2020.

The Bar Council report, Barrister earnings data by sex & practice area 20-year trends, stated: ‘Women have accounted for half of all new pupils for 20 years now, so we have to ask difficult questions about why so many leave and why men continue to out-earn women.

‘Over the last year the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board have published more data than ever exploring differential earnings at the Bar. This analysis enables us to look more closely at where disparities persist, and better understand who is thriving and which barristers need more support to build and sustain their practice.’

The report highlighted work the Bar Council has been undertaking since 2019 to modernise the Bar, focusing on women and under-represented groups. Its initiatives include looking at the way work is distributed, including briefing practices, marketing opportunities and monitoring; support for new and returning barristers, and practice management guidance on progression; mentoring support; the Bar Council Leadership programme; and measures to tackle discrimination and inappropriate behaviours.

Issue: 7951 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll