Samantha Singer is co-chair of the Bar Council’s Pro Bono and Social Responsibility Committee. Samantha practices from QEB, specialising in matrimonial finance. She appeared pro bono, alongside Tim Amos KC, in the groundbreaking decision of Cobb LJ in A and B (Schedule 1: Arbitral Award: Appeal) [2024] EWHC 778 (Fam).
I am nearing the end of my second year as co-chair of the Bar Council’s Pro Bono and Social Responsibility (PBSR) Committee. The role is an extraordinary privilege. Our committee receives an overview of the immense breadth and amount of pro bono work undertaken by the profession. Chairs participate in selection processes for various pro bono awards and read accounts of the critical work colleagues undertake in furtherance of access to justice. We attend Parliament to represent the Bar Council at the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee chaired by Toby Brown and the Solicitor General. We are present at meetings and gatherings addressed by cabinet ministers and, until very recently, their shadow counterparts. This bird’s eye view of the pro bono work of the Bar, and its impact, is, stunning.
This vantage point demonstrates the scale of the challenge, too. Our committee has unique insight into the ballooning demand for pro bono help against a deteriorating justice landscape. Each year, more is asked of pro bono advocates. More cases, increasing vulnerabilities, greater complexity. Our committee has no political clout or remit to seek policy change. And yet. My Bar Council ‘in-tray’ remains overwhelmingly upbeat. There are no complaints to or within our committee about the scale of the near-insurmountable challenge. In fact, if there is complaining or grumbling about anything, the pro bono Bar does not seem to partake. Well, with one isolated exception.
The one perennial problem? Listing for pro bono counsel’s convenience. The only topic about which I receive a steady stream of frustrated emails. The only serious ‘problem’ to be raised within the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee in Parliament. And by a leading silk at a packed event during last year’s Pro Bono Week. The frustration was palpable and justifiably so. The work and energy involved in matching pro bono client and pro bono advocate is considerable. (This Pro Bono Week, seek out colleagues who review potential Advocate clients and ask them about the work involved.) It is an affront to the mission of the pro bono Bar for court listing to be the crack through which potential representation falls.
Enter the Guidance on Pro Bono Advocacy and Judicial Liaison. The work of members of the judiciary, the Chair of the Bar, Advocate (the Bar’s pro bono charity) and the PBSR Committee. The guidance sets out a pilot project to establish dialogue between Bar and Bench when it comes to listing and other matters affecting pro bono advocacy. The key innovation of the project is the identification of a pro bono liaison judge in participating courts. Our first such judge, was HHJ Orchover at the Central Family Court (CFC). It would be tempting fate to say the problem has completely evaporated at the CFC since Her Honour took on the role but it has. Our PBSR Committee are extremely grateful to her both for jumping into this uncharted territory and for making such a massive difference in a short space of time.
The next step is to seek to roll out the pilot and raise its profile. With our bird’s eye view of the pro bono Bar and its ability to get stuff done whatever the weather, we have reason to be hopeful. Do please spread the word! And help keep my inbox pristinely positive.
With much gratitude to the judiciary involved in greenlighting this project and to Kian Goodsell, policy analyst at the Bar Council, for his work in bringing the project to fruition.
If you’re interested in the work of the Bar Council’s PBSR Committee, come along to our Bar-wide strategy meeting taking place on the first day of Pro Bono Week, 4 November 2024.