A quick one today, addressing a misnomer which began life as a conspiracy theory on Twitter, and this week found itself put forward as a news item by Kevin O’Sullivan and Isabel Oakeshott on “TalkTV”.
The claim
Lincoln’s Inn, an elite law school which trained among others Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, is overrepresented in its recent intake by people from ethnic minority backgrounds, due to the influence of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, in an example of “barrister bias”.
The truth
Lincoln’s Inn is one of the four Inns of Court, along with Middle Temple, Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn. The Inns are professional membership associations for barristers. They are based in London and provide (among other things) libraries, accommodation, ongoing training and dining.
Before a barrister can be “called to the Bar” following completion of their qualifications at Bar school, they must be a member of one of the four Inns. The Inns themselves are not law schools. Their role is largely ceremonial.
Anybody studying to become a barrister can apply to become a member of an Inn of Court. It costs between £100 and £150. The Inns do not select their members. There is no element of competition. There is no restriction on numbers. Nobody is denied entry because a place has been awarded to somebody else. You just choose your Inn and you’re, well, in. Once you have completed your Bar Training Course and are qualified to be called to the Bar, you get to enjoy a lovely day at your Inn having a graduation-esque ceremony in their grand halls, and your accomplishment will be published in The Times, which is how this “news story” came to light.
So is there an “over-representation of ethnic minorities” among new barristers called to Lincoln’s Inn? Well, in a sense, yes. The statistics show there to be an “overrepresentation” in all four Inns, when looking at the ethnic background of those called to the Bar:
Why should this be? Well, it’s because being called to the Bar of England and Wales carries international prestige, and our qualification is recognised in numerous common law jurisdictions, particularly throughout the Commonwealth. Hundreds of international students attend our Bar schools each year with a view to returning home upon qualification and practising law in their own countries. One of the features of the Bar school business model is that they offer the Bar course to far more students than there are pupillages (the 12-months on-the-job training that must then be undertaken before you can practise in England and Wales). This is how they remain sustainable. They rely upon the business of international students who have no intention of practising law in England and Wales.
And indeed, when we look at the statistics for barristers who obtain pupillage, we can see that it is more broadly reflective of trends in UK society – in other words, the overwhelming majority of those who obtain pupillage are white.
Put simply, international students are coming to the UK to obtain an internationally recognised qualification, and then returning home. And white students who are based in England and Wales and wish to practise here are getting most of the jobs.
The editorial angle of this story is head-scratchingly idiotic. It is akin to complaining that guided tours of London landmarks are oversubscribed with foreign tourists because of DEI pushing out all the UK tourists. It achieves stupidity on multiple levels in an almost impressively creative way.
None of the context, statistics or basic facts was advanced in the news report by either the presenter or the “international editor” of this former television channel, doubtless because, if it were, the story would quickly disintegrate into nothingness. Charitably, one might describe this as appalling journalism, an abandonment of basic principle on a level with selling out a source to the authorities to save one’s own skin. Less charitably, it has the stench of an angle intended to garner clicks by stoking racial division with invented stories of “anti-white” bias.
Either way, it is #FakeLaw, and a particularly egregious example of the species.
Thank you for, yet again, setting the record straight SB. As a law academic and practising barrister, I remain baffled as to why some journalists seem incapable of making the most basic inquiries such as contacting the Inn concerned, who would have readily provided the explanation you have. Ergo, end of a deliberately inflammatory story.
Fantastic refutation, well done ✔️
Spot on. So glad you are pointing out this distortion.
It’s commendable and admirable that SB still has the determination to respond to, and refute, fake claims about the legal system.
We should all be grateful to SB.
Thank you for this informative article. I did not see the television program that gave rise to your response but, in light of what you have set out in the article, I am disposed to agree with your comments with regard to it. Hopefully the misleading message which the program sought to convey will be disregarded, but that may be optimistic.
.
As a parent of 5 children who are approaching adulthood, I REALLY wish there was something that I or the greater ‘we’ could do to fight this mis-information. Beyond give them the critical thinking, and research skills needed to question and call out this BS. But as the saying goes “A lie can get round the world before the truth can get its boots on”