Lawyers are uneasy over the lax system of policing senior judges, and many believe cover-ups of embarrassing episodes are taking place – despite general confidence in the UK's judicial standards. Claire Ruckin reports on the latest Big Question survey

Nearly half of respondents said they believe the judiciary has probably attempted to cover up embarrassing episodes in the past, according to the latest Legal Week/EJ Legal Big Question survey.

The survey, which questions more than 100 senior UK lawyers, also found that more than two-thirds believe there is little effective policing of judges. Less than 10% believe judges are untouchable, but 62% think there is currently only a limited system that is only effective in extreme circumstances.

Commenting on the findings, Birnberg Peirce & Partners public law lawyer Harriet Wistrich said: "Most people have skeletons in their closet and judges are no exception."

One Essex Court senior clerk Paul Shrubsall added: "Judges are human just like everybody else. I would have thought statistically you would find the same human failings in them as you would in any other demographic group."

The results come as the judiciary finds itself facing criticism after it was discovered that Lord Justice Richards, an experienced Court of Appeal judge, was not handed a formal suspension despite facing a court battle of his own over allegations of indecent exposure.

Richards voluntarily agreed to refrain from sitting in court but has continued to handle paper judgments and immigration applications, sparking unrest in some legal circles over what it means to 'sit in court' in the wording of the judiciary's disciplinary code.

Just over a third (35%) of survey respondents said a judge should be fully suspended until a criminal offence case against them is concluded. Nearly six out of 10 think a formal suspension should depend on the circumstances and 6% believe a suspension is inappropriate under the terms of the UK's legal system.

More than half (56%) of the respondents also thought it was unacceptable for a judge who has agreed not to sit in court to continue handling paper judgments and applications.

Wistrich said: "It would be very serious for a judge to be charged with a criminal offence and they should not be practising while the proceedings are ongoing. If they are cleared then they should get back to work. There is not a relevant distinction between the two and it would be highly inappropriate to carry on with paper judgments and applications."

However, an overwhelming 97% of respondents backed the general standard of the senior judiciary, with only 3% branding the standard as poor.

White & Case London head of litigation Alistair Graham commented: "The general standard of the judiciary is excellent, especially when compared with other jurisdictions – they are in a league of their own."

Opinions were mixed over what age judges should retire at, with 44% arguing judges should stand down at or before 65.

Wistrich said: "There should be a health assessment rather than a particular age of retirement to see if faculties are in place. I am not in favour of people being forced to retire if they are still on the ball and have something to give."

See Editors' Blog