Categories
Legal Professionals

What is the Cab Rank Rule for Barristers ?

Cab Rank Rule - Barrister of England and Wales

The cab rank rule constitutes a fundamental ethical obligation for barristers practising in England and Wales and is enshrined in the Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook at rule rC29.

Pursuant to rC29, where a self-employed barrister (or, in specified circumstances, an authorised individual within a BSB entity or a BSB entity itself) receives instructions from a professional client such as a solicitor and those instructions are appropriate having regard to the barrister’s experience, seniority, and field of practice, the barrister must accept them.

This obligation applies irrespective of:

  • the identity of the client;
  • the nature of the case;
  • any personal beliefs the barrister may hold concerning the client’s character, reputation, motives, cause, conduct, guilt, or innocence; or
  • any disapproval of the client’s political, moral, social, or other views or causes.

The rule serves to promote access to justice, uphold the rule of law, safeguard barrister independence, and prevent discrimination in the acceptance of professional instructions.

It ensures that representation is available even in controversial, unpopular, or morally challenging matters. The principle is commonly analogised to a taxi at a cab rank, which must accept the next passenger regardless of their identity or destination (subject to reasonable limitations).

The obligation applies principally to self-employed barristers instructed via professional clients. It does not extend in the same manner to direct public access instructions, to solicitors, or to employed barristers outside independent practice.

Rule rC29 is expressly made subject to the exceptions in rC30. These include circumstances where for example:

  • the barrister is required to refuse the instructions under rule rC21 (rC30.1); or
  • acceptance would necessitate working outside ordinary hours, cancelling existing commitments, exceeding available professional indemnity insurance limits, or involve other specified grounds (such as foreign work in certain cases or refusal of standard contractual terms).
  • you are a King’s Counsel, and the acceptance of the instructions would require you to act without a junior in circumstances where you reasonably consider that the interests of the client require that a junior should also be instructed;

Rule rC21 mandates refusal (or, if already accepted, cessation and return) of instructions in various situations, including where:

  • the work would require action contrary to law or the Handbook;
  • the barrister lacks requisite authorisation, competence, or experience (including in relation to vulnerable clients);
  • there is insufficient time to prepare adequately (subject to limited exceptions for urgent matters);
  • a conflict of interest exists;
  • the barrister’s independence would be compromised (rC21.10, linked to Core Duty CD4); or
  • other specified professional obligations would be breached.

Cab Rank Application to Pro Bono Work

The cab rank rule does not require barristers to accept pro bono (unpaid) instructions.

In the article Barrister Starmer led ‘witch-hunt’ against Iraq veterans, Sir Keir Starmer KC chose to work for free (pro bono) alongside the now Attorney General Lord Hermer and the now disgraced solicitor Phil Shiner on a human rights claim in 2007 that reshaped the law governing troops in war zones.

While the current BSB Handbook does not contain an explicit standalone exception for inadequate remuneration, established BSB guidance and interpretations—rooted in prior provisions of the Code of Conduct (e.g., paragraphs 603–606)—confirm that barristers are not obliged to accept instructions where no proper professional fee is offered or where remuneration is inadequate, including unpaid pro bono work.

The rule is predicated on professional (remunerated) practice and is designed to secure representation in paid cases—particularly those involving controversial clients or causes where funding is available but barristers might otherwise decline due to personal views. It does not impose a duty to provide gratuitous services.

Barristers are encouraged to undertake pro bono work voluntarily, and many do so through established schemes such as Advocate (the Bar Pro Bono Unit), which facilitates substantial pro bono assistance annually. Such contributions reflect professional ethos, charitable commitment, and public service, but they remain discretionary rather than mandatory under the cab rank principle.

In conclusion, the cab rank rule compels acceptance of appropriate paid instructions from professional clients irrespective of personal views, subject to the exceptions in rC30 (including those arising under rC21). It remains a vital safeguard of access to justice and barrister independence, while explicitly not extending to compel unpaid or inadequately remunerated engagements.

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, Blackbelt Barrister, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Professional Ethics Exam for Barristers, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 2nd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent