Concerns over judicial bullying in the UK legal system have prompted calls for more robust measures beyond a recently introduced informal protocol intended to address the issue. Judges and barristers have criticized the protocol, which encourages lawyers to report discomfort caused by judicial behavior through direct or indirect approaches, as insufficient to tackle what many describe as a pervasive problem.

The protocol, published last week, advises lawyers experiencing bullying to speak directly to the judge involved, approach the judge’s leadership figure, or ask a senior member of their chambers or the Bar Council’s commissioner for conduct, Dame Maria Miller, to intervene. The leadership judge then decides on any necessary action. However, the judiciary’s website emphasizes that this process does not replace the formal complaints route, which involves the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for more serious issues.

This initiative follows a report last year by Baroness Harman KC, commissioned by the Bar’s professional body, documenting widespread judicial bullying with minimal accountability. Harman called for stringent sanctions, including removal from the bench for bullying, harassment, or sexual misconduct.

The Bar Council recently disclosed that roughly half of the bullying and harassment cases reported by barristers through its confidential Talk to Spot system in the past year—nearly 140 reports—allege inappropriate behavior by judges. Despite this, many barristers remain reluctant to report such conduct, fearing negative repercussions on their careers or cases. They also express a lack of confidence in the judiciary’s mechanisms for addressing complaints, particularly when leadership judges are implicated. Critics argue that known offenders often face no consequences and may even receive promotion.

One criminal barrister, speaking anonymously, recounted lodging a report about a “notorious” judge whose persistent harshness, including public belittlement and volatile behavior, severely affected her ability to perform in court. She suggested that such conduct compromises the fairness of trials by shifting the focus from evidence to managing the judge’s mood.

Others acknowledge the challenges judges face amid heavy caseloads, evolving laws, and administrative pressures but insist these factors do not excuse bullying. Several barristers advocated for enhanced recruitment processes with psychological assessments, formalized behavior standards, management training, and clear accountability measures, including a suggested “two warnings and you’re out” policy to enforce consequences for misconduct. Some also allege a culture of mutual protection among judges that hinders transparency and effective disciplinary action.

Judge Kaly Kaul KC, chair of the Judicial Support Network, reported receiving nearly 400 complaints over five years about bullying, mostly involving judge-on-judge incidents. She described the new protocol as largely symbolic and called for the Inns of Court to assume a disciplinary role, as well as independent investigations of misconduct supported by formal anti-bullying codes. Kaul also advocated for confidential reporting options for judges subjected to peer bullying and an independent review of bench harassment.

In contrast, Dame Maria Miller expressed optimism about the judiciary’s engagement with the issue and highlighted ongoing investments in mandatory leadership training aimed at addressing exclusionary and inappropriate behaviors. Lady Justice Whipple, the judiciary’s lead for development and wellbeing, reaffirmed the commitment to maintaining high standards of professionalism and taking allegations of bullying and harassment seriously while noting that most judicial office holders act with courtesy and integrity.

The debate underscores a tension within the legal profession between acknowledging the demanding pressures on judges and enforcing strict standards of conduct to protect fairness and the welfare of those who appear before the court.