Protocol for Legal Professionals Wishing to Raise Concerns Informally About Judicial Behaviour. 8 July 2026
Following on from the Harman Review, the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals last week issued a new Protocol for Legal Professionals Wishing to Raise Concerns Informally About Judicial Behaviour. The document formalises what is said to be a practice that has existed for many years: the ability of lawyers to raise concerns about judicial conduct through informal channels rather than making a formal complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (‘JCIO’).[1]
The aim is straightforward enough. If a judge has a brief loss of temper or makes an ill-judged remark, advocates are encouraged either to raise it directly with the judge or to ask a leadership judge to have a quiet word
Although the protocol expressly states that it excludes Coroners,[2] practitioners appearing in Coroners’ Courts, should not feel left out. This is likely to merely reflect the constitutional position of the coronial jurisdiction, sitting outside the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, rather than any principled non-application of the approach promoted in this guidance. Indeed, in so far as this document is doing no more than committing to writing a process which has long been in existence, it reflects an approach that is already equally applicable to Coroners.
Expected judicial/coronial behaviour
The protocol proceeds from the proposition that not every instance of inappropriate judicial behaviour requires a formal complaint. Whilst serious allegations, such as repeated bullying, harassment or sexual harassment, are best suited for formal complaint mechanisms, less serious matters such as an isolated loss of temper or a single inappropriate remark are examples of concerns that are likely to be suitable for informal resolution.
There already is a statement of expected behaviour for those in judicial office here. All Coroners should strive to adhere to it and always:
- treat others fairly and respectfully;
- be aware of how your words and behaviour can affect others;
- be mindful of one’s authority and be careful not to abuse it;
- remain patient and tolerant when encountering difficult situations;
- act professionally and courteously, including under pressure, and avoid shouting or snapping;
- aim to ensure that no one in a hearing room is exposed to any display of bias or prejudice;
- be open to feedback if you have done something that may have caused discomfort or offence.
But, as the Harman Report lays bare, bad behaviour from the Bench is not a rare or isolated phenomena.
Perhaps even more worryingly, as the Harman Review so clearly documents, barristers frequently do not complain about judges, even where the conduct is serious. The issue is not having an adequate complaints route, but having the confidence to use it
Proposed routes of complaint
This protocol’s preferred option for low level behaviour is the direct approach. The advocate should ask to see the judge privately and discuss the conduct. Ideally after the hearing has finished.
A great idea, but is that ever likely to happen? Saying ‘Oh, just raise it informally with the Coroner concerned’ is a wholly unrealistic proposal in most cases. The frank reality is that for junior (and even not so junior) barristers and solicitors raising an issue yourself with someone in coronial office is going to be an incredibly daunting task. Particularly where the practitioner frequently appears in the same coronial jurisdiction, they may be very reluctant to draw the impact of their bad behaviour to the coroner’s attention for fear of further victimisation and/or prejudicing their clients in future cases.
As the Harman Review notes:
“in most cases no one had complained for fear of repercussions.”…..“even where they believe the evidence of misconduct is clear and repeated, most barristers will not complain, fearing that to do so would only make the behaviour worse, could damage their case, and future cases before that judge, that it would mark them out as a troublemaker or harm their career and that anyway nothing would be done.”
This informal route will perhaps be more attractive if senior members of the profession (such as a chambers colleague or law firm partner) step up to the mark here and are prepared to help others by raising concerns constructively with the Coroner where the individual advocate feels unable to do so.
This is a responsibility that none of those at senior levels should shirk. Indeed it is to be hoped that every chambers or solicitors firm will have at least identified those senior people who are prepared to help out and raise matters informally with coroners or judges on behalf of others.
Approaching Leadership Judges
The second option proposed in the protocol is to approach the relevant leadership judge. The leadership judge will speak to the judge concerned and decide what, if anything, should happen next.
The difficulty remains that, as the Harman Review found, there is a striking lack of confidence in internal judicial complaint mechanisms. The Harman Report records concerns about judicial ‘impunity’, distrust of reporting systems and scepticism about whether meaningful action follows complaints.
Nevertheless, a lower level concern being communicated to the relevant leadership judge, either personally or through a senior member of the profession, may be preferable as offering greater possibility for anonymity and avoidance of repercussions than if one speaks to the judge/coroner oneself.
The protocol anticipates that the leadership judge approached will try not to identify the complainant. However, the realistic fear of those reporting is that it may not be possible for the complainant to remain anonymous if any specifics of the behaviour are to be provided.
For Coroners the Regional Lead Coroners likely provide the route. A quick scour of the internet doesn’t easily produce a list of the Regional Lead Coroners and their contact details, but those appointed in January 2025 and are identified in the Chief Coroner’s Annual Report and are currently:[3]
| Region | Regional Lead |
|
| North East | Lorraine Harris, Area Coroner for East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull | coronersoffice@hullcc.gov.uk |
| London | Graeme Irvine, Senior Coroner for London East | coroners@walthamforest.gov.uk |
| Midlands | Louise Hunt, Senior Coroner for Birmingham & Solihull | coroner@birmingham.gov.uk |
| South East | Heidi Connor, Senior Coroner for Berkshire | coroner@reading.gov.uk |
| South West | Andrew Cox, Senior Coroner for Cornwall & the Isles of Scilly | cornwallcoroner@cornwall.gov.uk |
| Wales | John Gittins, Senior Coroner for North Wales (East & Central) | coroner@denbighshire.gov.uk |
| North West | Kate Bisset, Area Coroner for Lancashire & Blackburn with Darwen | coroners@lancashire.gov.uk |
Thirdly, where resort to the relevant leadership judge is impracticable, the protocol suggests that concerns may be raised through the Senior Presiding Judge’s office. In the Coronial jurisdiction this would presumably be the Chief Coroner’s office.
Is the lack of a route of complaint the real problem?
The document appears to proceed from the assumption that there needs to be a clearer route for raising concerns. But that was not really Harman’s diagnosis. As the excellent article from QEB Hollis Whiteman chambers notes: Bullied in court what can chambers do about it? here, “a quiet word can only go so far.”
The Harman Review contains page after page of evidence suggesting that people already know how to complain. The issue is that they think complaining will achieve little while creating substantial risks for the complainant. Fear, power imbalance, lack of confidence and scepticism about consequences are all significant obstacles to this informal protocol being used.
Recording and reporting:Talk to Spot
A still underused resource is ‘Talk to Spot’ the online complaints platform supported by the Bar Council. It provides a platform that can assist address the reluctance of advocates to come forward and make complaints about judicial or coronial bullying, harassment or discrimination. Easily accessed here ‘Talk to Spot’ allows any user (importantly not limited only to barristers) to record any inappropriate behaviours they have experienced or witnessed [5]. Individuals can share as much or as little information as they want. Records can be made anonymously. Although the Bar Council does not take formal action on behalf of anonymous complainants, one-to-one support can then be provided without the person recording disclosing their name.
When the Bar Council receives multiple anonymous reports about the same individual, Spot makes it possible to go back to reporters and let them know others have made a complaint about the same individual. This information has empowered individuals to take their complaint further in some cases and has at the very least let them know they are not alone.
Harman has recommend extension of the Talk to Spot platform to allow users to refer their reports to a nominated team within the Judicial Office, as well as (or instead of) the Bar Council. This would allow complainants control over where to send their anonymous report. It would also allow the judiciary to understand the nature and scale of the problem, to identify patterns of behaviour and the identity of repeat ‘offenders’, and to employ the necessary interventions to address poor judicial or coronial behaviour.
Chambers’ support
Another positive action, spearheaded by QEB Hollis Whiteman, is for chambers to have an external bullying policy. A panel of barristers within chambers is recognised who will address all complaints of bullying brought to them within defined timescales and make sure bullying does not go unnoticed by the right people.[4]
Is it worth it ?
The LCJ’s new protocol is to be welcomed in so far as it recognises that professional concerns sometimes require conversation rather than investigation and that informal resolution can serve both complainants and judicial office holders, but perhaps only where the issue is limited and isolated and the Coroner concerned is genuinely open and reflective.
The new protocol is probably capable of dealing with the genuinely isolated case: a coroner who is under pressure, loses patience and snaps, receives feedback, reflects on it, is regretful and modifies their future behaviour.
But if the issue is truly limited and isolated is it going to be worth an individual alone taking the risk of bothering to raise it at all? One can only hope that the LCJ committing this previously informal route to writing will at least encourage some advocates to feel they can raise the matter. Being harassed, bullied and victimised very often makes the recipient feel singled out and alone. The message should be you are not alone, and help is there. Do use Talk to Spot, where you can obtain one to one advice even anonymously and make sure you ask your chambers or firm to ensure they have their own policy and will take positive action supporting members who experience external bullying from any source.
Footnotes
[1] Steps in the protocol are derived from the 2023 ‘Statement of expected judicial behaviours’ here
[2] Paragraph 5, footnote 2
[3] Chief Coroner’s Annual Report 2024, published September 2025: See here
[5] Barristers who are under a duty to report serious misconduct by others to the BSB can now satisfy that duty by reporting via the Talk to Spot scheme see here.