Categories
Judiciary Legal Professionals

New Protocol for Legal Professionals to Raise Informal Concerns About Judges Behaviour

Protocol Judicial Behaviour

On the 8th July 2026, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary published a new Protocol for legal professionals wishing to raise concerns informally about judicial behaviour which is designed to help legal professionals raise concerns informally about a judge’s behaviour.

The document issued by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals, formalises long-standing practices, offering greater clarity and confidence for solicitors, barristers, and legal executives working in the courts and tribunals.

Purpose and Scope of the Protocol

The protocol aims to address less serious issues, such as perceived discourtesy, minor procedural unfairness, or exclusionary conduct through early and proportionate resolution.

It encourages informal dialogue as the preferred first step, allowing concerns to be resolved quickly without damaging professional relationships or resorting to formal processes.

This approach does not replace the formal complaints system. The protocol explicitly directs that more serious allegations, patterns of behaviour, or unresolved informal matters should be referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). The JCIO is the independent body responsible for investigating formal complaints against judicial office holders in England and Wales.

It examines whether conduct breaches judicial guidelines and recommends outcomes to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice, ranging from advice and training to suspension or removal in extreme cases.

Broader Context and Supporting Measures

The protocol forms part of a comprehensive package of reforms aimed at tackling bullying, harassment, discrimination, and exclusionary behaviour. Key accompanying initiatives include:

  • A published Statement of Expected Behaviour that sets clear standards for judicial conduct.
  • Mandatory training for leadership judges on identifying and addressing inappropriate behaviour.
  • Wider training programmes for all judicial office holders.
  • Improved access to reporting routes, advice, and wellbeing resources.

These efforts are supported by a joint statement from the Lady Chief Justice, the Senior President of Tribunals, and the Bar Council’s Commissioner for Conduct. The reforms respond directly to evidence from the Judicial Attitude Survey, the Bar Council’s 2023 report on bullying at the Bar, and Baroness Harriet Harman’s 2025 Independent Review.

Statement from Lady Justice Whipple

“The judiciary is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, fairness and respect. While the majority of judicial office holders behave professionally and courteously, we take concerns about bullying, harassment and discrimination very seriously and are committed to providing clear, accessible routes for legal professionals working in our courts and tribunals to raise and resolve concerns about a judge’s behaviour. This protocol formalises and improves a process that has long existed – giving legal professionals clarity about how they can raise concerns informally.”

Lady Justice Whipple, Lead Judge for Diversity and Inclusion, Leadership, Development and Wellbeing

Practical Guidance and Next Steps

The detailed Protocol for legal professionals wishing to raise
concerns informally about judicial behaviour for legal professionals wishing to raise concerns informally about judicial behaviour should be consulted.

The protocol clearly outlines the process, including options for direct or indirect approaches, expected responses and timelines.

Legal professionals are encouraged to consult this guidance before deciding whether to pursue informal resolution or escalate directly to the JCIO.

Protocol for legal professionals wishing to raise concerns informally about coroner behaviour

On the 22nd July 2026, following the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals issuing the protocol setting out an informal resolution route if legal professionals have a concern about a judge’s behaviour, the Chief Coroner issued the Protocol for Legal Professionals Wishing to Raise Concerns Informally About
Coroner Behaviour.

The Chief Coroner is unable to investigate complaints relating to the personal conduct of a coroner or any other judicial office holder. As with all judges, matters concerning personal conduct fall within the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). Information about the complaints process and how to make a complaint is available via the JCIO website.

What is the Judicial College ?
Dodgy Judges

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), R v Sussex Justices, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ? and the highly dubious 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 23rd July 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