Raising the Bar - Chair of Bar of Ireland Seán Guerin
The role of chair of the Bar of Ireland Council has become increasingly visible during Seán Guerin’s second term, with the Senior Counsel frequently appearing in the media to persuasively argue a variety of issues, including opposition to legal fee caps, the importance of the judicial review system and the restoration of criminal legal aid fees.
As spokesperson for the representative and professional body of 2,000-plus barristers in Ireland, Guerin (who was lead counsel on the successful defence team for barrister Diarmuid Rossa Phelan in 2025) says one of the main challenges facing the Bar today is furthering the understanding of the value of barristers’ work.
Over coffee in the Distillery Building on Church Street, part of the Law Library complex, Guerin notes that when lawyers are denounced in public debate, frequently the real target is the people they represent.
“Our biggest challenge is to communicate to people what’s at stake when lawyers are being criticised, because no one’s ever going to want to stand up for the lawyers.
“But what’s important is to understand that the lawyers ultimately represent clients and if the legal system is attacked, if the right of access to the legal system is threatened, if the profession of lawyer is threatened, the ultimate loser is the people who would be represented by them and who aren’t.”
The knock-on effect can be seen in our courts with an increase in the number of lay litigants across a whole range of practice areas.
While the “ordinary citizen” is entitled to represent themselves in court, invariably they don’t have the requisite legal knowledge and can sometimes, Guerin says, inadvertently do themselves an injustice.
“Practising lawyers have spent years studying the law, years learning how to practise the law. It is an area of expertise, and if you’re not an expert, you’re at a significant disadvantage.”
There’s a risk that a lay litigant may fail to make a winning point because they don’t know the law, or how to argue the law, how to identify good points and, just as importantly, know what is best left unsaid.
“That’s the greatest risk. It means that someone isn’t getting justice because they have failed to argue a case that would have produced a result for them. And that’s a tragedy if that happens.”
It might astonish those unfamiliar with the Bar’s pay structure that a material threat to the profession is the difficulty of earning a living at different levels and different stages of a career.
“Our structure of solo, self-employed practitioners has one important downside, which is that it takes a few years to get going and to earn an income that’s sufficient to sustain you in the longer term,” Guerin says.
He acknowledges that while some barristers make significant amounts of money, those stories are far from representative of the profession as a whole.
“We have a very significant cohort of people at all times making their way through the early years of the Bar, many of whom actually are engaged in other work outside the Bar to keep body and soul together.”
The solution, he says, is ensuring adequate funding for both civil and criminal legal aid. This would ensure that barristers doing cases which are of immense importance to individual citizens, but don’t carry significant financial rewards, are sufficiently well paid to keep them in the profession until their greater experience enables them to do more difficult, complex and lucrative cases.
“Although progress has been made in relation to criminal legal aid over the last several budgets, all we’re doing is trying to catch up with change, a process that should have been underway since 2016 at the latest.”
Guerin notes that the “massive issues” in relation to civil legal aid require accelerated expedition.
“There are parts of the country where ordinary citizens simply can’t get, in anything like an acceptably timely fashion, the advice they need to deal with really challenging cases concerning family structure simply because the rates of pay that are being offered for that important and difficult work don’t make it economic for lawyers to do the work. So that’s absolutely a crucial policy issue that needs to be addressed.”
While the image of an erudite, poetry-quoting Rumpole of the Bailey remains a beloved archetype, a modern barrister has the benefit of evolving tech and AI at their fingertips.
Does this pose an inherent risk that the humanity of a courtroom might be eroded over the years?
Guerin argues that while new technology is useful for making the vast tracts of material involved in a case more manageable, the primary safeguard remains.
“Justice is still administered by humans, by judges, and always will be,” he says, adding that the protection of justice is shored up by the quality of our judges and lawyers.
“We’re very lucky that we have a system where all our judges are experienced lawyers. So they have spent decades learning, not just about the law and the practice of law, but about the human difficulties that bring people into contact with the law, and that experience is invaluable.”
The Bar Council has put ethical guidance in place with clear rules as to how AI can and cannot be used.
While they are currently being revised with input drawn from practitioner experience to inform refinements, a core principle remains sacrosanct, according to Guerin.
“From an ethical point of view, whatever tools you use in the course of your work as a barrister, you have to take personal responsibility for whatever it is you produce, whether in writing or orally, in court and maintain the standards of independence and of excellence in your work.”
Having practised as a barrister, this writer can attest to the deceptive ease with which accomplished counsels operate when on their feet.
With an almost encyclopaedic grasp of facts and articulate oratory, the good ones make it look very easy. Guerin attributes this to meticulous preparation behind the scenes and says it’s an aspect that might surprise those who are not acquainted with the profession.
“One of the things that people don’t necessarily appreciate is how hard the work is,” he says.
He adds that whether you go to court by choice or because you’ve been brought there, it is a significant act of trust to hand your case over to lawyers.
“People who have the good fortune to have avoided engagement in litigation won’t necessarily understand how much of a responsibility that places on barristers and advocates. You have to stand up in court and speak on someone’s behalf and you would certainly hope that by the time you sit down, they would feel that you’ve said everything they would want to say.”
“Practising lawyers have spent years studying the law, years learning how to practise the law. It is an area of expertise, and if you’re not an expert, you’re at a significant disadvantage.”
Advocating in court on behalf of someone requires a standard not met simply by studying the law.
“That would never be enough to succeed as an advocate.”
With every case having its own unique differences and challenges, meeting the high bar of advocacy can only be satisfied by a significant volume of preparatory labour.
“Barristers don’t do the work in court. It’s done at home, late at night, early in the morning. And that work is hidden.”
Comments (0)