There is nothing wrong with using lawyers in sexual misconduct cases

The ideal mix? - a panel of properly trained investigators from which to draw, plus a panel of legally-qualified bods to chair a hearing (flanked by a staff and perhaps a student rep)? Case law suggests that, where the potential penalty is heavy, the ‘reported’ student MUST be allowed a lawyer if he/she wishes (and can afford one!). The task of the Chair is to ensure there is a fair hearing for both parties (reducing the need for either student to have their own lawyer) and also thereby to protect the U from a Judicial review challenge based on alleged procedural defects/unfairness. We have been trying to spell this out in successive editions of The Law of Higher Education!

Thanks for commenting David. There is an understandable reluctance to involve lawyers, but in cases as serious as this I think it is both warranted and helpful. As you say, the role of the Chair is to prevent any imbalance (protecting the University and its stakeholders in the process). I'm not sure about having legally qualified Chairs though and think it might be better (and less intimidating perhaps) for the lawyer to be in an advisory capacity; that said, I can see the pros and cons. I'm grateful for your comment, because suspicious minds might think that the fact that I specialise in this area is my reason for advocating the use of lawyers!