Queensland bar council says national equitable briefing policy is potentially “divisive” … BAQ won’t play along with Law Council’s plans to improve the lot of women barristers … Qld. is different, says bar prez, Christopher Hughes … Lofty correspondence 

THE council of the Queensland bar has rejected the Law Council’s proposed new national equitable briefing policy. 

In a May 23 letter to LCA president-elect Fiona McLeod, Qld bar prez, Chris Hughes, says that the numbers, the composition and the decentralised nature of the bar “do not sit comfortably with the targets which the policy supports”. 

“The council takes the view that such targets are not in the interests of all its members, both women and men, and has the potential to be unnecessarily divisive.” 

Hughes says there are four women on the council of the BAQ (out of 17) and his outfit “regards the promotion and support of women at the bar as a very important issue deserving considerable and ongoing attention” … blah, blah.

The draft policy national model for equitable briefing tightens the existing light and fluffy LCA briefing policy formulated in 2009.  

Hughes says the targeted approach may suit the NSW and Vic bars, but not Queensland. The thinking seems to be that when briefing regional barristers in places like Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and so on, where the bars are tiny, there is no point asking whether barristers are Mr or Ms.  

The same with some specialised areas in Brisbane, where only a few people do the work. 

Hughes explained to Fiona that his members play a negligible role in selecting counsel to be briefed and, “at the end of the day, the right to choose counsel belongs to the client, no doubt in consultation with retained solicitors”. 

Anyway, the BAQ has it’s own very nice model briefing policy, formulated as recently as 2004.  

“The Law Council of Australia can remain confident that the council of the Bar Association of Queensland, and its membership generally, will continue to promote and support the women of Queensland in our profession.”  

Here’s Hughes’ letter, in all its glory: