Victorian Bar in spat over on-site childcare proposal

A bitter rift over how to spend a $600,000 cash surplus from Senior Counsel fees has split barristers in two camps.

A dispute over how to spend a $600,000 cash surplus from silk registration fees has split Victorian barristers in two groups.

A bitter rift over how to spend an enormous cash surplus from Senior Counsel registration fees has split the Victorian Bar in two camps: those who believe the funds should go to a million-dollar child care centre, and those who say the money should benefit “the whole of the Bar”.

Barristers in Victoria are required to pay $1500 when they are elevated to the prestigious post of silk, with the money understood to be dedicated to administrative fees and the upkeep of the Bar library.

However, The Australian understands Victoria’s chief judge Anne Ferguson wrote to the Bar Council earlier this year saying an excess $600,000 had been accumulated from the fees. And so, she asked the councillors: What do you wish to do with the cash?

One suggestion, posed by vice-president Elizabeth Bennett SC, was to allocate $400,000 of the money to convert the now defunct Dominos cafe below Owen Dixon Chambers West into a childcare centre, with the remaining $200,000 used to set up a scholarship for the Readers Exam.

It is unclear whether the childcare centre would be for the exclusive use of barristers, but The Australian understands the proposition is for the Bar to effectively become the landlord of the space, and lease it to an external commercial operator.

Fifteen of the 21 Bar councillors agreed with Ms Bennett’s proposal, while six disagreed, claiming there is no business case for the centre, and “we cannot have confidence that a childcare centre would be financially viable for (the Bar).”

The site of the proposed Victorian Bar childcare centre is the now-defunct Dominos cafe.

The six councillors - including Gavin Silbert KC, Peter Chadwick KC and Mark Robins KC - circulated an email last week, saying “the $600,000 should only be used for a purpose that benefits the whole of the Bar, and not a small section of it.”

“Alternatively, it should be returned to those members who paid the fees that make up the fund,” the email reads.

The dissenting councillors said it was “premature” to allocate $400,000 to the childcare centre because it “doesn’t have a business case.”

“Last year, Bar Council was broadly informed of a possible fit-out cost of between $1 million to $1.7 million. This was on a “back of the envelope” basis,” the email, also signed by Lana Collaris, Darryl Burnett and Andrea Skinner, reads.

“At present, no proper costing or financial analysis has been undertaken. At this stage, we cannot have any confidence that a childcare centre would be financially viable for BCL or the commercial operator.

“We also note that no opinion has been obtained as to whether the regulator is likely to approve a childcare centre in barristers chambers (where accused and convicted criminals including child sex offenders can be found) and no analysis has been undertaken of barrister demand for a childcare centre.”

They raised questions about insurance premiums and health and safety concerns if a child were to hurt themselves in or around the centre.

“Noting that there may be a non-delegable duty of care owed by the landlord, what happens if a child injures themselves while at the childcare centre? What happens if a child injures themselves in Owen Dixon Chambers West on the way to or from the childcare centre?” the barristers probed.

“What will be the cost of any available insurance premium? Will barristers themselves (particularly criminal barristers) owe a duty of care personally if something was to happen involving a client in circumstances where the barrister knows a childcare centre is on site?”

Gavin Silbert KC.

Lana Collaris.

The six councillors also knocked back the scholarship proposal, saying it was “too narrow and will not have a broad enough beneficial effect on the whole of the Bar or at least a substantial portion of it.”

They instead suggested the money be used to “lessen the financial burden of all members” by reducing bar subscription fees, or donating the full $600,000 to the Barristers Benevolent Fund of Victoria which is available for barristers in distress.

The Bar currently has about $3.5 million in the bank and $6.8 million in investments, the councillors noted.

“All barristers are subject to the vicissitudes of health, accident, or unforeseen change to their financial circumstances. Each of us is subject to those same risks,” the email reads.

“The BBFV has a proud history of coming to the aid of such barristers and their families and such a donation would substantially enhance its resources and capacity to provide such support when needed.”

The six councillors were defeated when the matter was put to a vote last month, with the majority of councillors resolving to suggest to Chief Justice Ferguson that the $600,000 be dedicated to on-site childcare and the Readers Course scholarship.

Bar president Georgina Schoff KC said that the Bar Council has for many years supported the idea of an onsite child care facility.

“Whether it would be appropriate to use some part of the silks fund to realise this project remains to be seen,” she said, adding that she would “communicate with members about the use of the silks fund when it was appropriate to do so.”