Source: Shutterstock

By Maxim Kasolowsky

Introduction

John Vater KC is a leading children law specialist at Harcourt Chambers, with extensive experience appearing at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court. His practice focuses on complex child protection cases, including those involving serious physical harm, brain injury, and expert medical evidence. In this interview, he discusses his path to the Family Bar, the qualities essential for practitioners in this field, and the evolving challenges within the family justice system. I met John Vater KC in the final rounds of the Harcourt Chambers Family Law Moot alongside Lord Wilson and other family law practitioners. His passion, insights, and advice motivated me to introduce students to a side of legal practice open to them that regrettably sees little exposure at the University and discussions on career opportunities. 

1. Starting broadly, what was your path to the Family Bar?

I decided that I wanted to be an advocate (barrister) at a pretty early stage. I am not quite sure why, there are no lawyers in my family at all. I thought I might be interested in law as an academic subject and so read Jurisprudence at St Peter’s College. During the course I decided to study family law as a module (largely because rumour had it that, because the Children Act 1989 had only just come into force in those days, the reading lists would be very short!) and had the huge privilege of being taught by John Eekelaar, a towering figure in family law and its development. It then turned out that I enjoyed the subject, was quite good at it, and so it seemed natural to apply for pupillage at sets with a strong family law component. Back in those days most sets of chambers (except those specialising in commercial work, in which I had no interest) were general common law sets undertaking a wide variety of work. But sets were becoming more specialised and so I joined Harcourt Chambers, which was a growing family law set. Before that I joined Gray’s Inn and completed my Bar exams, which in those days had to be studied in London. 

2. What inspired you to specialize in children’s law, and what happened in your career that led you to focus on this area? 

I was always academically interested in children’s law: when I started in the job, it was an exciting and developing area because the Children Act, which fundamentally altered the whole landscape of children’s law, had only recently been implemented. Family work divides into broad categories: money work and children work. I was never much interested in the ‘money’ side because it never really had the ‘human interest’ element of the children’s work, especially the child protection cases, where the stakes for children and families could not be any higher. It seemed to me that, as an advocate, the most challenging work was the work that carried the most responsibility and that was, and is, the children’s work. The advocate touches the lives of people in ways that will be felt forever. That is both a huge privilege and a huge responsibility, and the combination of those factors can amount to huge job satisfaction, in the knowledge that, as an advocate, you have contributed to such monumental decisions. The market (the solicitors) quickly identified that was where my strengths lay, and so over time I became more and more specialised. 

3. What skills or qualities do you think are most critical for students aspiring to work in family law? Are there any specific experiences or training you would recommend to those considering this path?

I think ‘people skills’ are terribly important. Empathy is terribly important (can you see the issues from ‘behind the eyes’ of the protagonists in the case? Do you understand how people behave in extremis?). Resilience is important, emotional and physical (the job can be physically exhausting). Generally, in any advocate, I regard courage as the single most important quality: the courage to be independent, the courage of one’s convictions, the courage to represent, with every fibre of one’s being, an unpopular or even repugnant person or cause. It requires emotional courage, intellectual courage, and sometimes the physical courage to push on, through the exhaustion. Anything ‘people facing’ is good experience for a career at the family Bar. Work in a pub. Work in a factory. Observe people. Read widely. Learn how people behave and notice them.

4. For prospective applicants, what differentiates sets of chambers from each other?

Not much at the family Bar, apart from geography and whether the set is more specialised in money work or children work. The ‘leading’ sets are obvious, and between those four or five sets there is not much difference. 

5. How would you describe the culture of the Family Bar? Do you feel it differs from other practice areas, and if so, how?

For the most part the culture is friendly, supportive, and diverse. It has to be, because of the work we are doing. It is a genuinely broad church, with a real esprit de corps. Most of us realise we are all in it together. I think the emotionally charged and sometimes harrowing nature of the work means we all have to work closer together, with an understanding of our individual positions. I cannot really comment on other corners of the profession. 

6. What is the single biggest change you have experienced since you began practicing, and what future development do you anticipate? 

I think the biggest change is the impact of successive governments degrading the justice system generally: resources are scarce and delays are longer. As a consequence, we seem endlessly trying to find efficiencies in the system, some of which might risk ‘cutting corners’. I’m afraid I do not see that changing. 

7. Family law is often less publicized than criminal or commercial law. What do you think the public and particularly students misunderstand about the work family barristers do?

I think that because the work is less publicised, the public and students perhaps can be forgiven for failing to appreciate just how far the work we do reaches into our society, in the short but also in the long term. The decisions taken in these Courts have a lifelong impact upon children and families. The stakes are higher than anywhere else in our justice system as a consequence. An adoption Order, once it is lawfully made, can never be reversed and changes a child’s identity forever. Those sorts of decisions change our society, and their ramifications are felt for generations. I also think there is a common misconception that family law isn’t really ‘law’. One of the great attractions of family law is that specialising in it engages a whole range of different legal questions. As a children’s lawyer I need to know about: immigration law; education law; international law; social security law; judicial review/administrative law; medical law; mental health law; and criminal law. I spend a lot of time reading and learning about medicine, and a lot of time in Court cross examining the world’s leading medical experts about, for example, brain injuries. I have had to cross examine digital forensic experts, structural engineers and geneticists. At 1pm today I will be meeting one of the world’s leading psychiatrists to have a discussion about a case, along with various other parties to it. On the ‘money’ side, the family lawyer needs to know company law; pensions law; tax law; some commercial law; property and Chancery law; insolvency law; and trusts law. I don’t really think students (and sometimes academics) appreciate just how much law there really is in family law. 

8. What does the work of a Family barrister consist of outside of advocacy and going to Court? 

There is also advisory work (opinions on merits/points of law in writing), and of course much negotiating takes place out of court. I sit as an arbitrator (deciding some categories of children’s cases). I also undertake round table meetings between parties in an attempt to work cases out, or give parties ‘early neutral evaluation’ of their cases in an attempt to broker agreement. Some barristers also act as mediators.

9. Generally, the perception of lawyers with a practice like yours is that it is emotionally draining and requires one to maintain a distance from clients. How do you manage that? Is this even true to begin with?

Of course it can be emotionally draining, especially when it is so very important to ‘get behind the eyes’ of one’s client (and indeed the opposing parties). The material can be deeply harrowing and as an advocate it is important to be able to ‘bear true witness’ to the events you are having to explore through the evidence. I certainly accept that it does have an impact (there are some things one cannot ‘unremember’) although others might say they are entirely unaffected. Speaking for myself, I think my professional training and experience both insulates me and has taught me the ‘warning signs’, at which point I will take some time off and pursue other interests, maybe for a few days. I think I would start to worry much more if I didn’t feel an impact from time to time. Wellbeing is something we take seriously at the Family Bar and many chambers (including my own) also offer an independent and confidential counselling service to members should they find that useful. To my mind, doing a job which never has any impact upon me, from which I cannot learn about myself, is pointless.

10. Family law is deeply connected to societal values and norms. As British society becomes increasingly diverse in thought, culture, and religious or faith backgrounds, how do you see family law adapting to reflect this diversity? 

I think we are adapting much more quickly in family law than in other areas, because this increasing diversity is so much more present and rapidly apparent. Without wishing to sound too lawyerly, certainly the broad discretionary tools at the disposal of the Court in children cases encourages versatility and adaptability, and it is mandatory for the Court to take these issues into account where the CA 1989 s1(3) ‘welfare checklist’ is engaged. Ultimately, of course, the ‘paramountcy principle’ (the child’s interests are paramount) is sovereign in children’s law. But family law is where these movements and changes are first felt in our justice system. We are always at the vanguard.

11. During my mini-pupillages, I observed that many cases involved individuals and children from diverse linguistic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. At times, these differences appeared to add layers of complexity to the case. Do you think the current framework is well-equipped to address these challenges, or are further changes needed?

I do think the tools are available, and indeed are applied; see what I have said above about the principles upon which the Court applies its discretion. I sometimes worry that as resources become more and more scarce, the adaptability of the process might reduce.