Jack Straw has ditched controversial reforms that would have allowed judges, including former Lord Chancellors, to go back to work as lawyers after a stint on the bench.

The reforms, proposed by Mr Straw’s predecessor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, were aimed at making the job of a judge more attractive, particularly to women. But they have run into strong opposition from judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, who condemned the plans as unworkable, possibly unlawful, counter-productive and damaging to judicial independence.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said that instead of creating a more diverse judiciary, the reforms would expose judges to accusations of bias and damage the public view of them as independent and impartial.

By convention, becoming a judge is a one-way ticket: lawyers exchange a lucrative but less predictable life at the Bar or in a law firm for a fixed salary, a pension and, on the High Court bench, a knighthood. Lord Falconer was determined to relax the rules to encourage younger applicants who were deterred by the prospect of spending the rest of their careers in a job that might not fit with family commitments.

Under the plans, judges could have returned to private practice and take on clients. The lifting of the restriction would have even allowed future Lord Chancellors who sat as judges to become lawyers again. Lord Falconer always said that the reforms could not apply to him because he could not go back to appearing before judges he had appointed. Judges are now appointed by the Judicial Appointments Committee.

Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary, said yesterday: “The Government consulted widely, considering the arguments both for and against allowing former salaried judges to return to practice. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that this would achieve a more diverse judiciary and that therefore the arguments against this change outweigh those for. This proposal will not therefore be implemented.”

The announcement means that the existing set-up, whereby judicial appointments are made for life, will remain in force, although if a judge decides to abandon his or her career – as Mr Justice Laddie did two years ago to take up a legal consultancy – they cannot be stopped.

The changes proposed by Lord Falconer’s would have applied to judges “at any level” and those who decided to become lawyers again could have been allowed to advertise themselves as “ex-judges”.

The paper set out a range of safeguards to prevent favouritism or conflicts of interest, such as a two-year quarantine period before judges could accept jobs with law firms that had appeared before them.

The Judges’ Council opposed the plans, arguing that a change in the convention “would have a serious impact on the standing and status of the judiciary”. The Council of Circuit Judges said that there was no evidence the changes would increase diversity.

The proposals did win the support of the Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Institute of Legal Executives and the Association of Women Solicitors.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• HM Revenue sued over pension scheme tax
• Farepak liquidators to sue former directors
• McCartney and Mills: it's finally over