Report comment

Apart from the pension arrangements (long known as one reason to go to the bench for well paid QCs looking for a transition from a silks' practice in their mid to late 50s) there are - or were - other reasons to apply to the bench, not all of which have the same resonance any longer: a knighthood/damehood; intellectual curiosity and satisfaction in deciding rather than advocating; the possibility of advancement to LJ and beyond; important work, such as chairing enquiries rather than being counsel to them (which may in fact harm a commercial silk's practice)…
By way of modern examples, it takes a robust and brave soul to chair something like the Grenfell Inquiry; not so many people give a fig about knight/dame-hoods any longer; the seemingly never ending stream of incompetent legislation (thankfully Brexit seems to have diverted Parliament's mind from ever more useless laws); the societal shift which suggests being a judge doesn't carry the kudos it once did...

I can also imagine that behind the scenes the Government's parsimonious approach to Justice (not an entirely new development, I grant you) causes irritation: library underfunding, a shortage of clerking, shabbier premises - all sap the soul rather.

So the pension changes may be a dominant cause of judicial dissatisfaction and recruitment difficulties, but they are only the most prominent part of a range of issues which hint heavily to judges and potential judges that the role is not valued as it once was. Thankfully the Bar still has an ethos of 'giving back', so excellent candidates will still step forward, but for how much longer?

Although I have focussed on barristers, the same concerns will apply to solicitor candidates, in different measures, with the added and old problem that barristers being self-employed can themselves decide to forgo income in pitching for the bench, but solicitors in firms generally encounter additional obstacles in doing so.