Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and current post-holders – 2021 Statistics

Question 1

1. Main Points

Accepted Answer

This publication is based on data covering around 17,100 barristers, 154,200 solicitors and 8,800 Chartered Legal Executives^{[footnote 1]}, 33 selection exercises run by the JAC in 2020-21 (with 3,471 applications and 799 recommendations for legal and non-legal roles), 93 selection exercises run by the JAC between 2018 and 2021, and 3,314 court judges and 1,711 tribunal judges in post as at 1 April 2021.

The main points in this section focus first on the make-up of the legal professions, followed by judicial selection exercises, and finally diversity of the current judiciary.

1.1 Gender


Women are well represented in the solicitor and Chartered Legal Executive professions, but are less so among the more experienced and more senior members of the legal professions	Women constitute 39% of barristers, 52% of solicitors and 76% of Chartered Legal Executives. Among professionals with 15 or more years of legal experience, 33% of barristers, 44% of solicitors and 73% of Chartered Legal Executives were women.
Overall, there is no evidence of disparity for women in judicial selection exercises in 2020-21	Across all legal Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) exercises in 2020-21, women accounted for 43% of applications and 44% of recommendations. Recommendation rates from the pool of eligible candidates for women were an estimated 17% lower than for men (not statistically significant), though there were variations by appointment.
Women remain under-represented in the courts judiciary, particularly in senior roles	As at 1 April 2021, about a third (34%) of court judges and half of tribunal judges were women. The proportion of women has increased in recent years, but remains lower in senior court appointments (29% for High Court and above).

1.2 Ethnicity


Black, Asian and minority ethnic representation is lower among more experienced members of the legal professions	As at 1 April 2021, Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals together constituted 15% of barristers, 18% of solicitors and 14% of Chartered Legal Executives. This is in line with the estimated proportion in the working age population of England and Wales (14%). Among professionals with 15 or more years’ experience, 14% of barristers, 12% of solicitors and 7% of Chartered Legal Executives were Black, Asian and minority ethnic.
When considered together, there is no evidence of disparity for Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates in legal judicial selection exercises in 2020-21	Across all legal exercises in 2020-2021, the recommendation rate from the eligible pool for Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates was an estimated 8% lower than for White candidates, though this difference was not statistically significant.
In the past three years of legal exercises, Asian, Black, Mixed ethnicity and Other ethnic minority individuals were over-represented in applications for judicial appointment, but Asian, Black and Other ethnic minority candidates had lower recommendation rates than White candidates	From the eligible pool, recommendation rates for Asian, Black and Other ethnic minorities candidate groups were an estimated 36%, 73% and 44% lower respectively compared to White candidates. All of these estimates were statistically significant.
The proportion of Asian and Mixed ethnicity individuals in the judiciary has increased since 2014, while the proportion of Black individuals has stayed the same in that time. Proportions of ethnic minorities remain lower in senior court roles	As at 1 April 2021, 5% of judges were from Asian backgrounds, 1% were from Black backgrounds, 2% were from Mixed ethnic backgrounds and 1% were from Other ethnic minority backgrounds. The proportion of ethnic minorities is lower for senior court appointments (4% for High Court and above) compared to others.

1.3 Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity


Representation of gender-ethnicity intersection groups varies across the legal professions. In all three professions, representation of White men was higher in professionals with more experience and in higher seniority positions	As at 1 April 2021, White men constituted the highest proportion of barristers (53%), followed by White women (32%), Black, Asian and minority ethnic men (8%) and Black, Asian and minority ethnic women (7%). White men and White women constituted the joint highest proportion of solicitors (41%), followed by Black, Asian and minority ethnic women (10%), then men (8%). White women constituted two thirds (67%) of Chartered Legal Executives.
Representation of both Black, Asian and minority ethnic men and women is higher among applications than recommendations. Both groups have lower recommendation rates than White candidates	Across all legal exercises between April 2018 and April 2021, Black, Asian and minority ethnic men accounted for 11% of applications and 6% of recommendations. Black, Asian and minority ethnic women accounted for 13% of applications and 6% of recommendations. White women accounted for 36% of applications and 39% of recommendations. White men accounted for the remaining 40% of applications and 49% of recommendations.
More than half of the judiciary are White men and a third are White women. Black, Asian and minority ethnic men and women each account for 5% of judges	As at 1 April 2021, Black, Asian and minority ethnic men and women each accounted for 5% of judges in post. White women accounted for 35% and White men accounted for the remaining 55%. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with a higher proportion of women from both White and Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds among tribunal judges. Within the senior courts, White men constituted a larger proportion of posts.

1.4 Professional Background


Representation of solicitors falls throughout the judicial selection process	Across all legal exercises in 2020-2021, there was a higher representation of barristers than solicitors among applications. Solicitors also constituted a smaller percentage of recommendations. Chartered Legal Executives constituted 0.4% of all applications. Candidates who were ever solicitors accounted for 39% of applications and 27% of those recommended for appointment. Candidates who were working as solicitors when they applied accounted for 28% of applications and 15% of those recommended for appointment.
Most court judges have a background as a barrister	Overall, 32% of court judges and 64% of tribunal judges were from non-barrister backgrounds (mostly solicitors). However, in the more senior court posts (High Court and above) only 5% of current judges were non-barristers. In both courts and tribunals, the proportion with a non-barrister background has fallen compared to 2014.

1.5 Intersection of Gender and Professional Background


Female solicitors were the largest gender-profession group among applications to judicial appointments, but the smallest group among recommendations	Across all legal exercises between April 2018 and April 2021, male solicitors accounted for 27% of applications and 21% of recommendations. Female solicitors accounted for 30% of applications and 20% of recommendations. Female barristers accounted for 19% of applications and 25% of recommendations. Male barristers accounted for 25% of applications and 35% of recommendations.
Male barristers are the largest gender-profession group in the judiciary and are more represented in senior posts	At 1 April 2021: 39% of judges were male barristers, 19% were female barristers, 22% were male solicitors and 20% were female solicitors. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with a higher proportion of male and female solicitors among tribunal judges. Within the senior courts judiciary, male barristers occupied the majority of posts.

1.6 Intersection of Ethnicity and Professional Background


Black, Asian and minority ethnic barristers have lower recommendation rates than White barristers. Black, Asian and minority ethnic solicitors have lower recommendation rates than all three other ethnicity-profession groups	Across all legal exercises between April 2018 and April 2021, Black, Asian and minority ethnic barristers accounted for 9% of applications and 7% of recommendations. Black, Asian and minority ethnic solicitors accounted for 15% of applications and 5% of recommendations. White solicitors accounted for 42% of applications and 36% of recommendations. White barristers accounted for 35% of applications and 52% of recommendations.
White barristers are the largest ethnicity-profession group in the judiciary and are more represented in senior posts	At 1 April 2021: 6% of judges were Black, Asian and minority ethnic barristers, 4% were Black, Asian and minority ethnic solicitors, 39% were White solicitors and 51% were White barristers. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with a higher proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic solicitors among tribunal judges. Within the senior courts judiciary, White former barristers occupied almost all posts.

1.7 Intersection of Gender, Ethnicity and Professional Background


Apart from White female barristers, all other gender-ethnicity-profession groups have lower recommendation rates from application than White male barristers	From application, recommendation rates for all gender-ethnicity-profession groups were lower than the rate for White male barristers, apart from White female barristers whose rate was equivalent. All of the solicitor groups had lower recommendation rates than their barrister counterparts. Similarly, all of the Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups had lower recommendation rates than their White counterparts. It was only groups that contrast solely on gender (for example, White female solicitor and White male solicitor) that were found to not have significantly different recommendation rates.
White male barristers are the largest gender-ethnicity-profession group in the judiciary and occupy the majority of senior court posts	At 1 April 2021: 3% of judges were Black, Asian and minority ethnic male barristers, 2% were ethnic minority male solicitors, 2% were ethnic minority female barristers and 2% were ethnic minority female solicitors. 34% were White male barristers, 21% were White male solicitors, 17% were White female barristers and 18% were White female solicitors. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with higher proportions of Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals, solicitors and women among tribunal judges.

1.8 Age


Most judges are aged 50 or over	72% of court judges and 72% of tribunal judges were aged 50 and over, with 37% aged 60 and over in courts and 40% in tribunals. Across all legal selection exercises, those aged 50 and over accounted for 41% of applications and 39% of recommendations.

1.9 Non-legal Members of Tribunals, and Magistrates


Compared with judges, a higher proportion of non-legal members and magistrates are women, or Black, Asian and minority ethnic	Across all tribunal non-legal members in post as at 1 April 2021, 53% were women, 17% were Black, Asian and minority ethnic and 86% were aged 50 and above. 56% of sitting magistrates were women, 13% were Black, Asian and minority ethnic and 82% were aged 50 and above.
In judicial appointments a higher proportion of recommendations were for women and Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in non-legal exercises than in legal exercises	Across all non-legal exercises in 2020/2021, 70% of recommendations were women and 27% were from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. In non-legal exercises between 2018 and 2021, 17% of recommendations were from Asian backgrounds, 4% were from Black backgrounds, 3% were from Mixed ethnic backgrounds and 1% were from Other ethnic backgrounds.
Women and Asian candidates had higher recommendation rates from application than men and White candidates respectively	Across all non-legal exercises in 2020/2021, recommendation rates from application were 18% higher for women than they were for men. In non-legal exercises between 2018 and 2021, recommendation rates for Asian candidates were 23% higher than for White candidates and rates for Black, Asian and minority ethnic men and women, and White women, were all higher than for White men.

Question 2

2. Statistician’s Comment

Accepted Answer

These statistics present analyses of diversity for judicial office holders, judicial selection exercises and within the legal professions which provide the eligible pool of candidates for most judicial roles in England and Wales. To enable the detailed breakdown of gender, ethnicity and professional backgrounds, the latest data, as well as an aggregation of data over the previous three years’ selection exercises, has been utilised.

One in three court judges and half of tribunal judges are women. Although this is an increase on previous years, women continue to be underrepresented in the courts judiciary in 2021, particularly in the more senior roles.

The proportion of judges who identify as Black, Asian or minority ethnic has also continued its gradual increase from 7% in 2014 to 10% of judges at 1 April 2021. However, within this gradual increase of ethnic minority judges there are different trends depending on the ethnic group. Most of the increase has been in judges of Asian and Mixed ethnicity, while the proportion of Black judges has stayed at 1% during that time. It is worth bearing in mind that changes in representation will always be gradual due to the relatively low numbers of joiners to and leavers from the judiciary each year, compared to the number in post, as well as other, wider factors relating to the eligible pool of legal professionals, selection processes and promotions.

For judicial selection exercises during 2020-21, these statistics show that overall there was no statistically significant difference in recommendation rates from the eligible pool for women or Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates relative to men and White candidates respectively, though this does vary within specific exercises. However, recommendation rates from application for solicitor candidates were significantly lower than for barrister candidates.

Aggregated data across all legal exercises between April 2018 and April 2021 demonstrates varying disparities and outcomes for the different ethnic groups. For example, the recommendation rates from the eligible pool for Asian candidates were an estimated 36% lower than for White candidates, while rates for Black candidates were an estimated 73% lower than for White candidates. In contrast, recommendation rates from the eligible pool for mixed ethnicity candidates were an estimated 82% higher than for White candidates. All of these rate differences are statistically significant, meaning that we can be confident that there are real differences between ethnicity groups in terms of rates of progression through to the judiciary. These findings demonstrate the importance of looking at ethnicity more closely, as the experiences of different ethnicity groups within the Black, Asian and minority ethnic categorisation are not the same. Looking solely at the broad group can mask underlying disparities.

This year for the first time we include data on the intersection of diversity characteristics: gender with ethnicity, gender with professional background, ethnicity with professional background and the intersection of gender, ethnicity and professional background. The many findings from this analysis can be found in the main body of the report.

Alongside figures for court and tribunal judges, this publication also covers non-legal members of tribunals and magistrates, where there is greater representation of women and ethnic minorities overall. In addition to the above characteristics, this publication presents data on age and - for judicial appointments - social mobility, disability, sexual orientation and religion, though further work is required to collect sufficiently robust data on these characteristics for the judiciary and the legal professions.

Question 3

3. Things you need to know

Accepted Answer

3.1 Overall

This publication sets out patterns and trends relating to judicial diversity, bringing together data on legal professions (which provide the pool from which the future judiciary are drawn), judicial appointments, and sitting judges and other post holders. It covers diversity at different stages of the path to judicial office, as summarised in the image below.

A key aim of this publication is to bring together data into one place that before 2020 was published separately, and in doing so, provide a comprehensive picture of the data available and evidence gaps.

Much of the diversity data included in this publication depends on voluntary self-declaration by legal profession members, judicial post applicants and judicial office holders. All percentages are calculated using the proportion of individuals where the characteristic is known. A characteristic is considered to be ‘unknown’ if an individual has asked for their data to not be shared further, has chosen ‘prefer not to say’, or has left the answer blank. For intersections of multiple characteristics groups, individuals in the ‘unknown’ group are those that were ‘unknown’ for one or more of the characteristics being intersected.

The minimum required declaration rate^{[footnote 2]} for this publication is 60%. Where this declaration rate has not been met, the data has not been included. As declaration rates improve, we hope to include more information in future releases. Further details are given in the background guidance note.

In the preparation of this report, specifically the chapters relating to ethnicity, we considered the newest Cabinet Office guidance^{[footnote 3]} and the findings of the Sewell Report^{[footnote 4]}. Recommendations included moving away from the term “BAME” and disaggregating ethnicity as much as possible. As a result, in this publication we refer to ethnicity data using the high-level categories of those who self-identify as coming from an Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British, Mixed, White or Other ethnic background. Where the numbers in these high-level categories are small, we aggregate the Asian, Black, Mixed and Other groups and refer to this group using the term “Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME)”, then compare this group to the White group^{[footnote 5]}. For comparisons with the White group as a whole, when we use the term “ethnic minorities” it is excluding White minorities. We use this aggregated group when presenting data on the intersection of ethnicity with other diversity characteristics.

We recognise that using these high-level categories and further aggregating them may not capture differences in the lived experience of those making up the groups, but this is the most granular we are able to present without risking disclosure of information or the robustness of findings. We also avoid (after this point) usage of the “BAME” acronym in the text of this report, opting to write the term in full. However, “BAME” will occasionally be seen in the charts and accompanying statistical tables, though only where limited space prevents using the whole term.

The data tables accompanying this report provide breakdowns of ethnicity in the high-level categories referred to above for the legal professions and Judicial Office (JO). This breakdown is also provided for the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). However, due to the risk of disclosure from small numbers in a single year, only data for the aggregated Black, Asian and minority ethnic group is provided for the 2020-21 data. Statistics on the more granular groups are available as an aggregation of numbers of candidates over the previous 3 years of data (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), and so are only available in the “JAC_3_years” tables.

3.2 Legal professions

Data on the legal professions included in this publication^{[footnote 6]} is provided as at 1 April 2021, with definitions as follows:

Solicitors: all practising solicitors i.e. those who hold a practising certificate (PC).
Barristers: all practising barristers (those who hold a PC).
Chartered Legal Executives: all fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) excluding students, affiliates, associates and graduates.

Definitions of Post Qualification Experience (PQE) for each profession included in this publication:

Solicitors: number of practising certificates held (rather than years since admission).
Barristers: years of practice (the number of years since an individual completed pupillage).
Chartered Legal Executives: based on years of experience for members who have achieved fellowship^{[footnote 7]}

Definitions of seniority^{[footnote 8]} for each profession included in this publication:

Solicitors: solicitors at the lower level and partner at the higher level. Partner includes owners and managers of law firms. There is no equivalent way of identifying seniority for in-house solicitors, who are all included in the lower level of solicitor^{[footnote 9]}.
Barristers: junior barristers (lower level) and Queen’s Counsel (QC)^{[footnote 10]} at the higher level.
Chartered Legal Executives: CILEX fellows are the lower level of seniority, partners represent the higher level of seniority (if an individual is a fellow and partner, they are counted as partner)

Solicitors, barristers and Chartered Legal Executives comprise very different populations and professions. Their population sizes are highly varied, as are their members’ qualification, progression and employment processes, eligibility and potential interest in applying for, and consequent representation in, the judiciary. As a result, caution is advised in making comparisons between different professions, and with the JAC and Judicial Office data. In particular, Chartered Legal Executives are unable to apply for judicial roles requiring 7 or more years legal experience^{[footnote 11]}.

3.3 Judicial Appointments: Applications and Selections

The JAC figures include all exercises which closed^{[footnote 12]} between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021^{[footnote 13]}, of which there were 33. JAC figures on ethnicity groups within the Black, Asian and minority ethnic category (Asian, Black, Mixed, Other), and the intersection of diversity characteristics (Gender, Ethnicity and Professional Background) include all exercises which closed between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2021, of which there were 93. Senior appointments^{[footnote 14]} are not covered in the main commentary but are included in the accompanying tables, and exercises with fewer than 10 recommendations are grouped to maintain applicant confidentiality.

Recommendations from JAC selection exercises will not directly correspond to new entrants to the judiciary also covered in this publication, as there is a lag between selection exercises being completed and individuals taking up their post.

Where 2 or more applicants are assessed as being of equal merit, the JAC can select an applicant for the purpose of increasing judicial diversity using the Equal Merit Provision (EMP) introduced by the Crime and Courts Act 2013^{[footnote 15]}. EMP can be applied at both the shortlisting and recommendation stages. The EMP was applied 16 times across 1 exercise at the shortlisting stage and 7 times across 3 exercises at the recommendation stage, in exercises that closed during 2020/2021.

A recommendation rate refers to the proportion of applicants (who have declared a specified characteristic) that were recommended for appointment which allows success of those with different characteristics to be compared within an exercise. These rates will depend on the number of applicants for the exercise as well as the number of posts available so that comparisons of rates between exercises should be avoided.

The Relative Rate Index (RRI) is used to compare the relative success of two different groups, for example men and women. More information on the method of calculation and reporting can be found in the user guide.

In this publication we refer to two types of significance: practical significance and statistical significance. Practical significance refers to when an RRI for a particular comparison between two groups falls outside the 0.8 to 1.25 ‘zone of tolerance’; if it falls outside these bounds the result can be considered to be of practical importance. Statistical significance refers to when there is a less than 5% chance that a result is due to random variation, and means we are confident that there is a real difference between two groups of candidates. For more detailed explanations of these concepts, please see the accompanying user guide.

Eligibility for judicial selection varies from one exercise to another. The Eligible Pool (EP) for an exercise presents the gender, ethnicity and professional background of individuals who meet the minimum eligibility requirements – including minimum years of experience – for a specific legal exercise^{[footnote 16]}. There are three broad eligibility types:

Posts requiring a minimum 5 years legal experience, as a barrister, solicitor or Chartered Legal Executive
Posts requiring a minimum 7 years legal experience as a barrister or solicitor
Posts requiring previous judicial experience (in addition to a number of years of legal experience)

This publication also includes figures for average years of PQE among candidates who have applied for judicial selection^{[footnote 17]}. These are a guide to actual levels of experience of applicants, and are therefore different from the eligible pool which is based on all those eligible for a role (many of whom will not apply).

When considering applicants’ professional background, applicants for judicial roles are analysed based on their full career history (i.e. whether ever a solicitor, or ever a barrister) as well as their current legal role at time of application. The “ever” legal role is based on applicants’ self-reporting and does not take account of the relative time spent in each profession. Numbers of Chartered Legal Executives are not high enough to be considered in the “ever” legal role analysis.

This publication presents data for selection exercises concluded during 2020-21 and does not draw comparisons with previous years as these can be affected by the number and type of exercises run in a year, which can vary according to recruitment needs.

The data and associated representation percentages can also be sensitive to when exercises are formally closed and how this compares to the report’s cut-off date of 1 April in each year. For example, there are often three large fee-paid exercises run on an annual basis (Recorder, Deputy District Judge, and Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and Employment Tribunal). The latter two exercises were still open on 1 April 2021 and so have not been included in this year’s statistics. For this reason, we advise further caution when comparing judicial appointment statistics from one year to the next.

3.4 Judicial office holders

JO data in this publication relates to judges and non-legal members of tribunals in post as at 1 April 2021, as well as leavers and new entrants from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.

Judges may hold more than one post at a time, for example some judges sit in more than one chamber, tribunal or court. In these statistics, a judge is counted only against their primary appointment, which is the one considered as their main judicial post. There are a small number of posts that are by definition not primary appointments, for example Upper Tier Tribunal President and Employment Appeal Tribunal President. The post-holders are included only in the counts for their primary appointment, meaning that for these posts statistics are not presented.

Throughout this report, where the term “tribunal judges” is used it is referring only to legal tribunal judges and does not include non-legal tribunal members. Statistics on non-legal tribunal members are discussed in the final chapter “Non-legal and Magistrates” only.

The data covers all courts in England and Wales, all tribunals administered by HMCTS, Welsh tribunals not administered by HMCTS and magistrates in England and Wales. This includes the Employment Tribunal Scotland, in addition to tribunals in England and Wales. Tribunals that are the responsibility of the devolved Welsh Government are not included.

Question 4

4. Overview of the legal professions and judiciary

Accepted Answer

This publication is based on data covering around 17,100 barristers, 154,200 solicitors, 8,800 Chartered Legal Executives, 33 legal and non-legal selection exercises run by the JAC in 2020-21 (with 3,471 applications and 799 recommendations) and 3,314 court judges and 1,711 tribunal judges in post as at 1 April 2021

Of all applicants for court and tribunal positions requiring at least 5 years’ post-qualification experience, applicants had around 17 years’ experience on average. Of those who applied for positions requiring at least 7 years’ of experience, applicants had around 25 years’ experience on average.

4.1 Legal professions

As at 1 April 2021, there were 17,123 barristers, 154,208 solicitors and 8,769 Chartered Legal Executives (out of a total CILEX membership of around 21,000), based on the definitions outlined in the previous section.

The varying size of the professions should be kept in mind when interpreting the figures presented throughout this publication relating to the percentage of those in different professions with various characteristics (typically there will be more solicitors than barristers or Chartered Legal Executives). Absolute numbers are given in the accompanying data tables.

Additionally, Chartered Legal Executives are not eligible for most judicial appointments; in 2020-21, they were eligible to apply for 4 out of a total of 24 legal exercises^{[footnote 18]}.

4.2 Judicial Appointments: Applications and Selections

Exercises in 2020-21

The JAC completed 33 selection exercises (excluding senior judicial appointments) in 2020-21^{[footnote 19]}:

15 exercises were for court posts
18 were for tribunal posts, of which 9 were for non-legal tribunal member posts

While this publication only makes direct reference to the 6 large legal and 6 large non-legal exercises, totals include relevant smaller exercises (unless otherwise stated).

Overall, there were 3,471 applications, resulting in 799 recommendations for immediate appointment (s87)^{[footnote 20]}

2,127 applications for legal posts, with 344 recommendations
1,344 applications for non-legal posts, with 455 recommendations

In addition, a total of 27 applications were received and 11 recommendations made for the following senior judicial exercises completed in 2020-21: Master of the Rolls, Senior President of Tribunals, Court of Appeal and Chancellor of the High Court^{[footnote 21]}.

Levels of experience among applicants

While information on the eligible pool for each exercise is presented (where available), the actual levels of applicants’ PQE are often greater than the minimum statutory requirement of 5 or 7 years. As a result, further diversity breakdowns for the legal professions are given in the following chapters to allow a more meaningful comparison.

Court positions requiring 5 years’ PQE: average PQE of applicants was 17 years, with a range of 5 to 41 years
Court positions requiring 7 years’ PQE: average 27 years, range 7 to 48 years
Tribunal positions requiring 5 years’ PQE: average 18 years, range 5 to 41 years
Tribunal positions requiring 7 years’ PQE: average 22 years, range 7 to 38 years

These averages should be treated with caution, because high average PQE among applicants does not necessarily proffer a better chance of success. Further investigation into the relationship between experience and success in the judicial appointments process is currently being conducted by the Judicial Diversity Forum. It will look at experience in terms of exposure to types of legal work, seniority level and PQE. The findings of this investigation will be published in the future.

Comparison with previous years

This publication presents data for selection exercises concluded during 2020-21 and does not draw comparisons with previous years as these can be affected by the number and type of exercises run in a year, which can vary according to recruitment needs.

The data and associated representation percentages can also be sensitive to when exercises are formally closed and how this compares to the report’s cut-off date of 1 April in each year. For example, there are often three large fee-paid exercises run on an annual basis (Recorder, Deputy District Judge, and Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and Employment Tribunal). The latter two exercises were still open on 1 April 2021 and so have not been included in this year’s statistics. For this reason, we advise further caution when comparing judicial appointment statistics from one year to the next.

However, compared to the pre-JAC years (1998-99 to 2005-06), there has been a clear increase in the representation of women and Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates at both the application and recommendation stages since the JAC was established, for the four appointments where data is consistently available^{[footnote 22]}. Changes in the representation of solicitors between the pre-JAC and JAC periods varies by exercise. This data is presented in Table 2.5 of the accompanying tables.

4.3 Judicial office holders

As at 1 April 2021, by primary appointments there were:

3,314 court judges
1,711 tribunal judges, with an additional 3,134 non-legal members of tribunals.

The overall number of court and tribunal judges has fluctuated over time, and there is no consistent pattern of increase or decrease. Since 2012 (the earliest year with data available on both courts and tribunals), the numbers of court judges (3,575 in 2012), and tribunal judges (2,060 in 2012) have both decreased.

This publication also covers new entrants to, and leavers from, the judiciary. Turnover in the judiciary tends to be relatively low, with 336 judges beginning their first appointment in 2020-21 (219 court, 117 tribunal judges) and 259 leaving in the same period (142 court, 117 tribunal).

There were 12,651 magistrates across England and Wales. The number of magistrates has fallen steadily in recent years, decreasing by 50% from 25,170 since 2012.

Question 5

5. Gender

Accepted Answer

5.1 Legal Professions

Women constituted 39% of barristers, 52% of solicitors and 76% of Chartered Legal Executives.

Among professionals with 15 or more years of legal experience, 33% of barristers, 44% of solicitors and 73% of Chartered Legal Executives were women.

The proportion of women is notably lower among legal professionals with 20 or more years’ experience. Women are also less well represented in senior positions, where 18% of Queen’s Counsel (barristers), 33% of partners (solicitors) and 70% of Chartered Legal Executive partners were women.

Considering each profession as a whole, compared to men, women constituted a lower proportion of barristers (39%), around half of solicitors (52%) and a higher proportion of Chartered Legal Executives (76%).

Post Qualification Experience

In practice, most applicants for judicial roles have more than the minimum experience. For court and tribunal posts requiring 5 years or more experience, applicants have around 15 years’ experience on average^{[footnote 23]}. Among those with 15 or more years’ PQE, women constituted 33% of barristers, 44% of solicitors and 73% of Chartered Legal Executives.

For court and tribunal posts requiring 7 years’ or more experience, applicants have on average around 20 years’ experience. Among those with 20 or more years’ PQE, women constituted 28% of barristers, 38% of solicitors and 68% of Chartered Legal Executives (though Chartered Legal Executives are not eligible to apply for these roles).

Figure 1: representation of women in the legal professions by PQE band, April 2021 Across all legal professions, the proportion of women is notably lower for those having 20+ years’ experience.

Seniority^{[footnote 24]}

Compared to men, at 1st April 2021:

Among barristers, women constituted a lower proportion than men at both the lower (junior barrister) and higher (Queen’s Counsel) seniority levels (Figure 2).
Among solicitors, there was a larger proportion of women than men at lower seniority levels (solicitor), but a lower proportion of women at higher seniority levels (partner).
Among Chartered Legal Executives, there was a larger proportion of women than men at both the lower (fellow) and higher (partner) seniority levels.

Figure 2: representation of women in the legal professions by seniority, April 2021 For all three professions, the proportion of women is lower at more senior compared to less senior levels.

5.2 Judicial Appointments: Applications and Selections

Across all legal JAC exercises in 2020-21, women accounted for 43% of applications, 42% of those shortlisted and 44% of those recommended for appointment.

838 applications were from women, of whom 141 were recommended for appointment^{[footnote 25]}.

Overall, our best estimate is that there was no disparity for women relative to men when comparing recommendation rates from the eligible pool, because although the rate for women was an estimated 17% lower than for men, this difference was not statistically significant.

Overall View

Across all legal exercises in 2020-21^{[footnote 26]}, when considering the eligible pool there was not strong evidence of disparity for women. From eligible pool to recommendation, the estimated^{[footnote 27]} RRI of 0.83 shows that overall the success rate for women was 0.83 times the rate for men (or 17% lower for women than men). This difference is not statistically significant.

44% of recommendations were women; this compares with an expected 49% overall if recommendations were in line with the overall eligible pool for 2020-21 exercises. Representation of women in the legal exercises remained relatively stable between the application and recommendation stages - women represented 43% of applications and 42% of those shortlisted.

Compared to men, women had a higher recommendation rate from shortlisting, but a slightly lower shortlisting rate from application (Figure 3). The smaller difference seen between men and women in the recommendation rate from application was because these other rate differences mostly cancelled each other out.

Figure 3: progression of applicants through the exercise stages by gender (all legal exercises completed in 2020-21).

Exercise-specific Analysis

There was considerable variation across exercises run in 2020-21. When considering women relative to men, from the eligible pool to recommendation we can be statistically confident a disparity exists for two of the six large exercises (Figure 4) – the Recorder and (salaried) Judge of the First-tier Tribunal exercises – though these disparities are in different directions.

For example, for Recorder the RRI of 0.56 indicates that women were 0.56 times as likely (or 44% less likely) to be successful relative to men, compared to the eligible pool^{[footnote 28]}. Conversely for Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, women were 2.03 times as likely (or 103% more likely) to be successful.

Similarly, in the Circuit Judge exercise women were 12% more likely to be successful (or 1.12 times) than men, although because this RRI was not statistically significant, we cannot be confident that there is a true difference between genders in this exercise.

The large difference in the Recorder exercise is likely to contribute heavily to the overall (not statistically significant) difference seen, as Recorder was by far the largest exercise completed in 2020-21, with 1,001 applicants.

Figure 4: RRI for women compared to men, from eligible pool to recommendation (all legal exercises completed in 2020-21). Statistically significant results – where the confidence interval does not overlap the parity line - are light blue. The tolerance zone is shaded grey; results falling within this zone are considered to represent a disparity which is not large enough to be considered practically important (and tend not to be statistically significant).

Representation percentages (Figure 5) help to show the progress of women at different stages of the selection process. In comparison to the eligible pool, the representation of women was higher at the recommendation stage for four out of six large legal exercises, and lower for two. Again, there are different broad patterns depending on the definition of the eligible pool:

For all of the roles requiring previous judicial experience apart from High Court Judge, the representation of women tended to be consistent with or higher than the eligible pool at the application stage, and then increase or remain consistent between application and recommendation
However, for the one role requiring 7 years’ PQE (Recorder), the opposite was true; the proportion of women among applicants was lower than in the eligible pool, and then fell further to recommendation

Figure 5: representation of women at different exercise stages, by eligible pool type (all legal exercises completed in 2020-21). Representation of women was higher at recommendation stage than in the eligible pool for half of these large legal exercises

5.3 Judicial Office Holders

34% of court judges and 50% of tribunal judges were women as at 1 April 2021. 39% of all judges (courts and tribunals combined) were women.

In the courts, there was a lower representation of women in the more senior posts (29% for the High Court and above). In the tribunals, 57% of judges in senior posts (presidents^{[footnote 29]}) were women. A higher proportion of new entrants, compared to leavers, were women.

Judges in post

As at 1 April 2021, women represented:

34% of all court judges – 1 percentage point higher^{[footnote 30]} than in 2020, and 9 percentage points higher than in 2014 (Figure 6).
50% of all tribunal judges – 3 percentage points higher than in 2020 and 7 percentage points higher than in 2014.

Figure 6: proportion of court and tribunal judges that were women as at 1 April, from 2014. The proportion of women judges remains lower in courts than tribunals and has increased more quickly in tribunals in the last year.

For context, women account for just over half of the general population of England and Wales aged 25-69^{[footnote 31]}. However, as judicial roles require substantial legal experience, a direct comparison with the general population does not provide as much insight on the progression of representation of women in the judiciary than consideration of the makeup of the legal professions (as presented in the earlier section).

Entrants and leavers

New entrants: the proportion of new entrants to the judiciary during 2020-21 – those not previously holding a judicial appointment – that were women was higher compared to judges in post^{[footnote 32]} for court judges and for tribunal judges^{[footnote 33]} (Figure 7).

Promotions: Among judges already holding a judicial role and promoted to another during 2020-21, 49% were women in courts and 39% were women in tribunals. These figures can be affected year-on-year by the mix of roles involved.

Leavers: A lower proportion of leavers from the judiciary were women compared to those in post, which reflects the lower proportion of older and more experienced judges that are women.

For example, of those in post at 1 April 2021, 44% of court judges under 50 were women, compared with 30% of those 50 and over (and 23% of those 60 and over). There was a similar pattern in the tribunals – 55% under 50 were women, compared to 48% of those 50 and over.

Figure 7: representation of women among court and tribunal judges leaving and joining the judiciary, 1 April 2020 – 31 March 2021. Representation of women was higher among new entrants and those in post compared to leavers.

Patterns by type of appointment

The representation of women across the judiciary varied by appointment type and seniority (Figure 8).

In the courts, 29% of judges in more senior posts (High Court and above) were women. The highest level of representation for women was among the District Judges (County Courts) at 45%.

In tribunals, women accounted for more than half of the most senior roles (Presidents)^{[footnote 29]}.

Figure 8: representation of women among court and tribunal judges by appointment, 1 April 2021. The representation of women is generally lower for more senior posts in the courts.

Patterns by region

The representation of women across the court judiciary also varies considerably by region, from 27% in Wales, to 44% in the South East. Variations may reflect the nature of the appointments in the different regions, as well as the underlying regional make-up of both the general population and the eligible pool. Further information is available in the accompanying data tables.

Question 6

6. Ethnicity

Accepted Answer

6.1 Legal Professions

At 1 April 2021, 15% of barristers, 18% of solicitors and 14% of Chartered Legal Executives were from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.

This is in line with the most recent estimate (based on 2011 Census data^{[footnote 34]}) that 14% of the working age population in England and Wales are from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.

Representation of individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds is lower among legal professionals with more experience and among higher seniority positions. Individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds together represented 10% of the Queen’s Counsel (barristers), 16% of partners (solicitors) and 10% of partners (Chartered Legal Executives).

Overall Picture in Each Profession

Individuals self-identifying as of Asian or Asian British ethnicity constituted 8% of barristers, 12% of solicitors and 5% of Chartered Legal Executives. The most recent estimate, based on 2011 Census data, is that 8% of the working age population (16-64) in England and Wales are from Asian or Asian British backgrounds.

Individuals self-identifying as of Black or Black British ethnicity constituted 3% of barristers, 3% of solicitors and 3% of Chartered Legal Executives. The most recent estimate, based on 2011 Census data, is that 3% of the working age population are from Black or Black British backgrounds.

Individuals self-identifying as having Mixed ethnicity constituted 3% of barristers, 2% of solicitors and 1% of Chartered Legal Executives. The most recent estimate, based on 2011 Census data, is that 2% of the working age population are from a Mixed ethnic background.

Individuals self-identifying their ethnicity as being in the Other group (not Asian, Black, Mixed or White) constituted 1% of barristers, 1% of solicitors and 5% of Chartered Legal Executives. The most recent estimate, based on 2011 Census data, is that 1% of the working age population are from Other backgrounds.

Considering each profession as a whole, Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals together constituted 15% of barristers, 18% of solicitors and 14% of Chartered Legal Executives, though representation of these ethnic minorities generally fell with increasing experience and seniority.