Record high
More than six in ten pupil barristers are women, according to new figures from the Bar Standards Board (BSB), marking the highest proportion recorded since the regulator began collecting diversity data a decade ago.
The BSB’s annual Diversity at the Bar report, covering data as of December 2025, shows that 60.3% of pupils are female, up from 58.3% the previous year and an increase of nearly 11 percentage points over the past decade. The overall number of barristers also exceeded 19,000, with the 602 pupils currently in training representing the highest pupillage headcount in the report’s history, up from 589 in December 2024.
Progress at pupillage level sits in contrast to the picture at the top of the profession. Women make up just 21.5% of King’s Counsel, up slightly from 21.1% in 2024, leaving a significant gap compared to the 41.9% of barristers overall who are female.
The proportion of pupils from a minority ethnic background increased to 26.9%, up from 24.5% in 2024, yet only 11.3% of KCs are from a minority ethnic background compared to 18.3% of non-KC barristers. Black and Black British barristers make up 3.9% of non-KCs and 1.2% of KCs
Around one in three barristers who provided information on schooling attended a UK independent school between the ages of 11 and 18, compared to approximately 6.6 % of school children in England. Nearly 54% of barristers also had at least one parent who attended university.
On disability, 9.7% of barristers who responded declared a disability, well below the estimated 16.7% of the UK’s employed working-age population. The figure drops to 5.4% at KC level.
More than a quarter of practitioners (27.4%) are now aged 55 or over, up from 16.1 % in 2016. Response rates for some monitoring categories remain below 50%, which the BSB acknowledges limits the conclusions that can be drawn.
So women are significantly overrepresented in the pupillage intake.
How exactly does the BSB intend to close this gap and ensure that men have a fair opportunity to enter the profession?
Anyone?
Anyone?
The silence is deafening.
Clearly you did not read the article very well… there’s clearly no issue with the amount of male barristers within the profession. 41.9% of barristers are women… your point is moot.
Wow, what a silly comment.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there must have been historical discrimination in favour of men (to result in the current reality that only 41.9% of barristers are women.
By the same logic, it must follow instantly that we now have discrimination in favour of women to result in the 60.3% pupil figure.
You’re effectively arguing that because there was discrimination in favour of men in the past, that justifies discrimination in favour of women now.
That is obvious nonsense.
We should be treating men and women equally and fairly and selecting the best for the position.
And what exactly makes you think that women making up more of the profession means we are not selecting the best for the position? Your casual misogyny is interesting.
The same reason you seem to think that men making up more of the profession means we’re not selecting the best for the position.
I repeat my point below. Isn’t it funny how people like you only seem to care about these so-called gaps when they exist in one particular direction.
About two-thirds of law applicants in the UK are women, and most law courses now have a greater proportion of women than men. As such, more women graduate with law degrees and, therefore, it makes sense that, if the profession is hiring a representative sample of law graduates, more of those hired will be women. It is also unlikely that men are somehow discouraged from, or experience barriers to, applying for law courses in the first place, as the profession has historically been dominated by men.
I agree that it is important to ensure that, in the name of equality, we do not push certain groups, such as men, out of the profession entirely, but that is not what is happening here.
It’s actually quite sad to see how many likes your comment has received, because it reflects how many people don’t recognise or appreciate the structural inequality women have experienced over the years.
Whenever a gap exists in favour of men – be that the 41.9% barrister figure, gender pay gaps or otherwise – that gap is always taken as definitive and unanswerable proof of discrimination. And it is accepted – almost as a religious doctrine – that it must be closed.
Yet whenever a gap emerges in favour of women, the response is either silence or ‘totally explainable through non-discriminatory factors, nothing to see here, move on.’
I can’t speak for others. But I think the reason my original comment is getting likes is because most people can see this clear double standard. And they’re sick of it.
Sorry for the late reply! It dawned on me that I hadn’t checked this.
I will say I agree that the under-representation of men in certain fields isn’t taken seriously as a form of discrimination. However, it’s worth considering that your argument isn’t unequivocally true in every profession. For example, the under-representation of men in teaching is increasingly being recognised as a form of discrimination due to negative bias in hiring male teachers.
It may be worth considering whether young men are being discouraged from applying for law degrees and are pushed towards other subjects, which would be absolutely wrong and a form of discrimination.
However, if barristers’ chambers are getting more applications from women, which they likely are if more women are graduating with law degrees, then they’re not necessarily discriminating against men by hiring a representative sample of their applicant pool.
I do see your perspective that you feel there is a double standard. However, historically, women have not been able to access many professions. As such, lack of representation is assumed to be discrimination because, well, we have historical evidence it is, because once upon a time, women weren’t allowed to do these jobs in the first place.
Anyway, I can see from the masses that my view isn’t necessarily the favoured one, so I’ll leave it alone.
Most articles like this try to imply that because a [characteristic] proportion of a selected cadre differs from the [characteristic] proportion of some wider population, it necessarily follows that the selection is unfairly discriminatory.
Non sequitur.
It is likely that the desireable qualities for selection are not randomly distributed in the wider population.
Just because half the population have double digit IQs, we should not expect half of all appointed Judges to have doubke digit IQs.