Lords call for judicial appraisals and positive action to increase diversity
The introduction of a formal appraisal system for senior judges has been put forward as one of several recommendations in a House of Lords report on judicial appointments published earlier this week (28 March). The suggestion for a judge-led appraisal system is one of a number of measures intended to boost public confidence in the judiciary contained in the report, which is primarily aimed at increasing diversity.
March 29, 2012 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
New recommendations put forward to increase public confidence in UK judiciary
The introduction of a formal appraisal system for senior judges has been put forward as one of several recommendations in a House of Lords report on judicial appointments published earlier this week (28 March).
The suggestion for a judge-led appraisal system is one of a number of measures intended to boost public confidence in the judiciary contained in the report, which is primarily aimed at increasing diversity.
There is currently no appraisal scheme in place for salaried court judges, although there are schemes operating within some tribunals, with previous proposals that would have seen top judges appraised by court users rejected in 2008.
Proposals intended to boost diversity could see female and minority applicants to the judiciary appointed ahead of white men with equal skills. The report suggests positive action could be used for judicial appointments, which would mean that, while appointments must be based on merit, if everything else is equal, the desire to encourage diversity should be taken into account.
The report draws on the most recent judicial statistics which show that in 2011 only 5% of judges were from an ethnic minority and only 22% were women.
Committee chairman Baroness Jay (pictured) said: "It is vital that the public have confidence in our judiciary. One aspect of ensuring that confidence is a more diverse judiciary that more fully reflects the wider population.
"It is important that judges are appointed on merit, but the committee felt there are steps that could be taken to promote diversity without undermining that principle. It is also important that solicitors, who are a more representative group of society than barristers, do not face any impediments to a career in the judiciary."
The Government now has two months to respond to the report, at which point it will go back to the Lords for debate.
Commenting on plans for judicial appraisals, Matrix Chambers' Hugh Tomlinson QC said: "It is difficult to see any sensible argument against an appraisal system for the judiciary for exactly the reasons that the committee has outlined. Appraisals are used in all other areas of professional life and there is an overwhelming argument for extending them to the judiciary. Of course, it could not be done by the Government or outside bodies, but there is no reason why the judiciary cannot organise it itself."
Fountain Court head Tim Dutton said: "The report's recommendation to appoint to correct an imbalance where two candidates are of equal merit is a good one, as it ensures that standards are maintained, but recognises the need for tangible change. I also think that the decision to raise the retirement age in the Supreme Court is sensible."
Clifford Chance head of commercial litigation Simon Davis commented: "Judges make unpopular decisions every day and a problem with any appraisal system is that unhappy voices shout louder than the happy. If appraisals help judges be better judges that is self-evidently a good thing, but not if they risk in practice being an unnecessary distraction from the effective administration of justice."
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Proposals to boost judiciary diversity
- Increasing flexible working and career breaks to encourage applications from women
- Increasing the retirement age for Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges from 70 to 75
- Increasing the number of judicial applications from solicitors
- Giving the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice a formal duty to encourage diversity among the judiciary
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Subsidiaries in Belgium and France Sued by DRC Over Conflict Minerals
2 minute readBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250