As she steps down from a seven-year career, three of which spent as Chair of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), Kathryn Stone OBE offers a powerful perspective on the state of the Bar of England and Wales—its enduring strengths, its cultural challenges and the path forward. With her experience at the BSB and a distinguished career championing public interest and regulatory integrity, Kathryn’s leadership has been marked by courage, candour and a commitment to ethical progress.
In this insightful conversation, taken from our GetBriefed Podcast, Kathryn reflects on what drew her to legal regulation, the values that define the Bar, and why independence, accountability and fairness remain central to public confidence in the profession. From equality consultations to cultural reform, and from AI in legal practice to the realities of regulatory scrutiny, she provides a transparent view of what it means to lead change in a complex sector:
Q: You’re stepping down from a seven-year career at the Bar Standards Board, the last three years of course have been in the role of Chair. What has that journey looked like for you?
I've been reflecting on my motivation for applying to be the chair of the Bar Standards Board in 2022. And I've asked myself a number of times over the past three years, why did I apply for this job? And I guess there's a whole kind of range of things that I think supported my motivation.
I have absolute respect for the barrister profession. The individuals within the profession are people of enormous intellectual capability and very real moral strength. And as I leave, that respect for the barrister profession has actually been enhanced. So that's part of the journey. But I've also become aware of some of the challenges that are still there at the Bar – thinking about those and how we address those as a regulator and how we address those as the broader ecosystem, if you like, of the barrister profession.
Q: It's wonderful to hear that after seven years working much more closely with the profession that your respect has been enhanced, that's very positive to hear. What would you say the strengths of the Bar of England and Wales are?
It's that kind of intellectual rigour. It's the absolute commitment to ethical practice. It's the independence of the Bar as embodied, if you like, by the Cab Rank rule. And those are the reasons why.
There are other reasons too, but those are the reasons why people come from all over the world come to have their cases litigated in London and why the Bar of England and Wales is called upon to represent people across the world in different jurisdictions.
The Cab Rank rule is an absolutely fundamental principle of the barrister profession and that commitment to independence and representing whoever has an arguable case.
Q: There's a relatively unique position where the Bar invests a lot of personal time and effort in supporting the junior members coming through and essentially supporting the future of its own profession. Is that something that you have found?
I've had the opportunity to observe a whole range of different training courses, including some really excellent training in advocacy for barristers. It is extraordinary, the amount of time that experienced barristers and judges give up in order to train more junior members of the profession or to go into schools and to colleges to promote the Bar as a really important career choice and how to go about becoming a barrister.
That's an incredible thing that the profession of the Bar gives back to society and gives back to young people. It really does make a difference.
Q: You must have obviously observed some challenges that the Bar faces. Can you give us your thoughts on what some of the challenges for the Bar might be going forward?
Yes, I have. We're all aware that Baroness Harman is currently undertaking a review of the prevalence of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct at the Bar. And she's going to be reporting later in the year and making recommendations for what can be done to change that Those close relationships that define the Bar, and pupillage, and access to the Bar are the same close relationships that might give rise to an abuse of power and authority and lead to incidents of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
We know at the Bar Standards Board, and I know from my previous work in this area at the House of Commons and elsewhere that simply changing the enforcement process isn't going to change the incidence of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. It's a cultural problem and we need to look at the roots of these issues and make sure that people have trust and confidence in a process that enables them to bring their cases forward and have them listened to and addressed properly and fairly.
Q: I know that there has been some media focus on that already. Are you in any position to comment on that?
Yes, there was a Channel 4 news report about a high-profile barrister and about the experiences of the witnesses who came forward. It was clear to me and to my colleagues at the Bar Standards Board that we had not served those witnesses well. So the Bar Standards Board issued an apology to those witnesses and said that we will learn from their experience, and we will do better.
One of the things that we've done immediately is gone out to procure and fast track the procurement of a victim and witness support service so that we get the balance right between processes and being focused on a fair and thorough process and support for the individuals who bring forward complaints.
We have to build trust and confidence in a process and at the same time, ensure individuals, whether they be the people who are bringing forward the complaints or the barristers who are the subject of the complaints, are properly supported and have a fair and proper process in hearing.
Q: In terms of the Bar Standards Board generally as one of the legal regulators, it would appear over the 18 months there has been some criticism that has come out. What is your response to the kind of criticism that can be levied at the Bar Standards Board and has been in recent times?
Well, I would be the first to say that our performance has been mixed, and we implemented a programme of reform of modernising our delivery programme and we're a very, very good way through that.
We commissioned a review of our services and our processes. We commissioned that because we knew we had to do it differently to be more efficient, to be more effective. We've done that. We're a good way through that reform programme now. There are some real, very tangible improvements.
I have to say that as I leave with my respect for the barrister profession enhanced, I can't, I'm afraid, say the same for the system of oversight regulation. I think there are some fairly fundamental flaws in that. I have, of course, raised this with the Legal Services Board themselves. It would be disrespectful not to do that.
I am respectful of our oversight regulator in a way that I would expect people that we regulate to be respectful of us. I've shared my disappointment at their apparent lack of recognition of the improvements that we've made with them and I hope that we can continue to try to persuade our oversight regulator that we have indeed made a transformational change to the organisation. We have indeed made significant improvements to the performance of our organisation. And I would caution our oversight regulator and other observers from looking at everything through the prism of speed.
Speed, for me, isn't the only indicator of good performance. I actually don't think it's the most important indicator of good performance. We have to make sure that the decisions that we arrive at, particularly when we're investigating allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, are arrived at properly and fairly and the decisions are evidence-based, they're substantiated, and they give fair opportunities to all parties to be represented and to have their voices heard.
Independent audits of our decisions show that our decisions are of high quality, that's what matters. And I think the barrister profession would be the first to complain, and they'd be right to do so, if our decisions weren't of high quality and weren't fair or properly arrived at.
So speed is only one element and we now hold the executive team of the Bar Standards Board to account by a number of different variables including productivity, quality and timeliness - not just how fast we can look into a matter and conclude it, because all that will happen then is we'll have to do it all over again because the decision will be challenged, it won't be the right decision, it won't be a fair decision, and we will leave people who bring forward complaints in a worse position than they were before.
Q: The barristers who are potentially subject to the complaints also feel the stress and I'm assuming that would be where the need for speed would come into play where the person who's being investigated would obviously like the investigation of as quickly as possible, but of course would need the right outcome as well. Is that fair to say?
That's not always the case. There is a view that people want cases to be done and dusted. Cases where allegations, particularly of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are made, to be done as quickly as possible. And of course, we all want things to be expedient, we want them to be effective.
We have to think really carefully about the rights and the wellbeing of the people who bring the complaints forward and also the rights and the wellbeing of those people who are subject to complaints.
If we were to impose artificial time scales on people, the first thing would happen is that they wouldn't be met. For example, a barrister might say, well, I need more time than 28 days to go and get advice about an issue. Or a complainant might say, well, actually, I'm not quite ready to take that next step yet. I just need more time to think about. I need to find support. I need to go and take advice. I need to think about what that means for me.
So we have to be very, very careful not to confuse or conflate the quality of the investigation with the speed at which the investigation is carried out. And one of the things that I've been really clear with the team about is that we must never sacrifice quality for speed. I know that there's a frustrating balance to be struck, but we have to arrive at an outcome that's fair and right for all the parties.
Q: The last time that we sat down, the Bar Standards Board were mid-consultation for some potential change that might happen to the equality rules. The BSB were possibly creating a positive obligation on barristers to promote equality.
Can you tell us a little bit about the responses during the consultation from the Bar and stakeholders?
I can indeed, yes. The equality rules consultation drew in the most responses that the Bar Standards Board has ever had to a consultation. I think we received over a thousand responses. Many, many, of those responses were incredibly carefully considered, very carefully argued with some really persuasive evidence and as you would expect from the barrister profession.
There were some that were boarding on offensive, but that's how people wanted to respond. Some of those responses were really disappointing. But I think I said when I was here last that it is and it was a genuine consultation.
Every member of the board at the BSB, read every response to the consultation and we had a very careful debate, a very careful discussion around our board table. We concluded that there should be no change to core duty eight. We were persuaded by the barrister profession's view that there didn't need to be regulation in order for them to promote equality, diversity and inclusion across the Bar. And we are confident that the Bar will now go ahead and do that with support, with advice, with guidance.
We will do that with the barrister profession, not to them.
I think it's really important that the Bar understands that the Bar Standards Board was genuinely interested in their views, genuinely listened and was informed by, not directed by, the responses that came in. And I just hope that they will see that as a genuine consultation with a positive outlook.
Q: Is there a way that you can see that the regulator could work with the profession for the greater good?
The job of the regulator is to apply the regulatory objectives as set out in the Legal Services Act in the public interest. So, we regulate in the public interest, and what that doesn't mean is that we set ourselves aloof and distant from the profession. It means that where we can and do agree that there are things that we can work on together to promote the public interest, then we really should do that.
For example, when it comes to thinking about AI, and AI is everywhere at the moment, there's a really, really interesting debate going on in the legal press. We get a summary of the legal press every Friday and every Friday, there are stories for and stories against the use of AI in the legal profession.
We've recently completed a piece of research about tech at the Bar and one of the things that's been really positive is that the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board are working together to draw up advice and guidance about how barristers can use AI to support the work that they do. Now, will AI ever take the place of barristers’ professional judgments? Maybe not. But will it take out the drudgery of chronologies and case files and timelines and all the rest of it? Certainly.
One really interesting thing that I've been involved with, slightly off from the Bar standards board, is the use of one particular police force is using AI to detect the use of child sexual abuse material on the dark web. It is absolutely extraordinary the way that AI has been used by the police. They do that so we don't even have to think about it. But it's AI that's opened the doors and enabled them to detect so many more criminals than they ever would have been able to do before.
I've also been talking recently to a friend who's a medical professional, and AI has been used to design proteins, which has cut years off research. So, AI and the change and the challenge that it presents is coming to the legal profession. And if it's something that we can all get behind to promote an evolution rather than a revolution, I think that has to be not only in the public interest, but in the interests of the barrister profession.
Q: What does the future look like after you finish your term as chair of the Bar Standards Board?
I'm actually very sorry to be leaving the Bar Standards Board. I've learned a huge amount and met some extraordinarily inspirational people and I've learned a lot from them. I'm off, as you know, to be one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services.
Q: And what exactly does that entail?
Well, it's not a regulator, it's an inspectorate. There's a very clear difference, and my police forces and fire services are in Wales and the Southwest. So I've got a new patch to get used to. It's a really big geographical area. I think I'll be spending most of the next five years on the M5…
But I'm so excited to be joining the organisation. And one of the things that I think is clear is that I really believe that being a regulator, being an inspector, you can be respectful of the profession that you are regulating and inspecting without being in its pocket. I'm going to take the independence that I think I've brought to this role across to HMICFRS and look forward to working with the teams. I've met some of the police officers in the different forces. I've met some fire chiefs, and I'm really excited now to start that job full time on the 1st of September.
I'm just treading the water a bit at the moment by attending meetings and getting briefings. It's a very, very different world. I'm excited to be thinking about being part of it.
Listen to the full episode here.
