Pupillage and How to Get It.

Huge Announcement

2008-08-28T00:19:00.002+01:00

This Blog is moving. The title above is a link.

Nothing else has changed. I just want somewhere where I can make this look cleaner and uncluttered and where I can make things just as I want them (which will be as soon as I have mastered CSS: i.e. a long time) - or at least a bit more as I wish. I will also get better stats, and you will hopefully find it easier to read and to find your way around. Comments are welcome.

I am not deleting this site yet, but I will be posting and commenting on the other site. Almost all your comments have migrated successfully. I will try and cut and paste the rest.

See you over on the other side...

Desolation Row

2008-08-24T16:06:00.010+01:00

I have the permission of the author of the question below to post my answer:

"Been reading your blog for quite some months now. However, unless I'm mistaken, there is something of an omission from the listings - what should you be feeling if you fail to get a pupillage the first time around?

I'm in that boat. Having done the Oxbridge thing, I went to City and did ok-ish on the conversion course (high commendation with a few distinctions). I got quite a few second round interviews (7 to be precise) but got absolutely nothing apart from a few reserve places that did not materialise. I was, and still am, pretty distraught over the failure and really don't know what to do. For the sake of frankness, I feel pretty much locked into the BVC (having paid the cash, thanks to the beautiful deadlines for finding out about pupillage) and feel like a very undesirable candidate.

At the risk of turning your blog into a psychologist's couch, what should someone like me be thinking? Is the second attempt going to be a fruitless one? Is there going to be any sort of discrimination as a result of the first failure? Having not set the world alight in my conversion course, am I now a less valuable prospect? Should I not apply to the same Chambers, as the outcome will be inevitable? What should I be doing for the horrible intervening year after the BVC?"

Good question.

I am not sure that I can tell you what you ought to be thinking. Surely that is a matter for you. Certainly, how you are feeling will have an effect on what you do. If you really are impossibly discouraged and despondent then it might be best to walk away. A second failure might be too much to take and your own peace of mind is more important than a job.

However, what I think you mainly mean is whether it is worth carrying on, given the matters you identify in your last paragraph. Do you only have one bite of the cherry? Well, back in the day (mine), not getting a pupillage was the end and you went on to something else. Plainly, this is no longer the case. There are large numbers of candidates and ever reducing numbers of pupillages. Some people get lucky second time - I know someone who got lucky the third. There is no reason to think that you are washed up as far as the bar is concerned, simply because you got interviews but no offers.

However, you do have to ask yourself whether the lack of offers is because of something you are doing. It may not be. It is perfectly conceivable that not yet being on the BVC, you lacked an edge that others had. You may not have done mini-pupillages, or researched the sets well enough, or missed out key points on the issues discussed at interview. Only you can say, but you need to be pretty rigorous with yourself about it. It clearly isn't an academic issue given your qualifications: if it were there would have been no interviews. The grade achieved in the conversion course may be important for the magic circle sets, but it is irrelevant to anyone else. The real question for you is why you did not shine in interview.

This is an issue I used to force under my own pupils' noses. If you lose a case, the temptation is to blame your client, your opponent, the witnesses and the Judge. It may all be true. But 99.9% of the time there is something which you could have done to make a difference. People who are going to be good barristers cannot afford to be frightened of the process of self-criticism which identifies what that is.

There is also a question of pride and where it fits into your perception of yourself. If the Chairman of the Committee (or the Judge) takes an instinctive and unreasonable dislike to you, what can you do to stop it happening again? I have encountered people who feel that the question itself dignifies the prejudice (as indeed it does) and therefore refuse to answer it. Such people are principled but tend not to make good barristers. When you do a case it isn't about you - it's about your client. If the Judge will only listen if you wear black and stripes, a plain white shirt and a collar starched like iron then the Judge is idiotic, but get out there and shop. Ditto in interviews - however much it wasn't your fault, what can you do to change?

In reality of course there usually is something you can change and it usually needs changing. Unreasoning prejudice isn't unknown in the legal profession but it's a lot rarer than critics and disappointed applicants (not you) would like to make out. Equally, Judges do have irrational dislikes and they do, occasionally, try to hold people back. But I would say that for every ten barristers who attribute their lack of professional advancement to such causes, only one is right.

I know people at the Bar who have reasonable practices even though they are too fragile or self-obsessed to go through this process of asking what they did wrong. So one can't say it is critical. But I think it is critical if you want to be really good. There is nothing more depressing than hearing a junior tenant seriously blaming someone other than themselves for a disappointing result ('the Judge was just a bastard' is different, providing that it's clear they do not believe that this is the be all and end all) - save possibly when that person is another junior tenant or pupil.

My guess is that you will be able to identify things that could be better and make the necessary changes. My advice is to examine everything from your substantive answers to the way you dressed and ask whether you are satisifed. Your friends can usually answer the question, 'what is it about me that would most turn you off', although I would ensure that they knew you really needed an honest answer and that everyone was completely sober. If the process takes over an hour then the Bar may not be the right profession.

I don't think you are damaged goods at all. I'm not sure I would reapply to the same sets, although without knowing which they were, it is impossible to say for sure. By and large, if they have rejected you then there is no particular reason to think they would feel differently next time round and the risk is that they feel the need to reach a consistent conclusion. Other sets do not need to know and probably won't ask.

If I were you and I got lucky second time around, then if I could afford it or could get a job to fund it, I would go away for a year. Any job you get to mark time is unlikely to be hugely enjoyable. I agree that the timing is unhappy and leads to this problem occurring with depressing frequency. If you need to work, then working as a paralegal is increasingly common and has the benefit of showing you how things work and introducing you to solicitors. Personally speaking, I wouldn't be a candidate on The Apprentice.

The Chance of Success

2008-08-14T18:34:00.007+01:00

Pupillages and tenancies are being hurled around like confetti for those lucky few - to whom we (all of us being nice enough to rejoice in the joys of others) extend our congratulations: and the Bar is drawing its feelers in for the unlucky many.

These are interesting times - as most of you know, this is an ancient Chinese curse. Numbers of pupillages are down - it looks to be by about 50 when non-Olpas Chambers are factored in. Thus, there may be 450+ pupillages on offer, but it won't be many more and could well be many less - perhaps as few as 410. This is a drop of about 140 in 3 years. Meanwhile, the Wood report suggests that there were about 3,700 applicants for the last year in which figures were available.

The difficulty is that existing practices have more of a voice than practices-to-be. Theoretically, everyone can agree that people not doing so well ought not to hold back brilliant and worthy new arrivals. It's dog eat dog and the weak go to the wall. In reality, it's hard to say that to your room-mate. So, when the pressure is on - as it is at present with criminal and family fees down and the credit-crunch starting to bite - it's easy to decide that the best course is to let the current junior tenant consolidate their practice for a year. Net result, as Mr Micawber would say, misery.

This means you have to even better and luckier than previously. It is important not to think that you can't do it, just because you didn't get a pupillage this year. As usual there will be brilliant people who got in, brilliant people who didn't get in (fewer, but still there), good people who got in and who didn't (roughly even numbers) and some appalling choices which Chambers will come to regret, but it seemed good at the time.

There will also be a lot of people whose expectations were hugely inflated and who, frankly, were never going to get a pupillage even from their Mother. These people form a large proportion of applicants for any Chambers that I have ever heard from. They have indifferent academic qualifications for no good reason, they have done nothing of particular interest, they are often not terribly good at expressing themselves in writing or orally and display the range of vocabulary of a gnat. They are always terribly enthusiastic. I am afraid that they are wasting their time.

I have been banging on about this for a while now but the Wood report agrees, so it can be said again. The point is important because there is a risk that the no-hopers drag down the standard of teaching and discussion at the BVC, and they definitely screw up the statistics. In reality I reckon the chance of pupillage is not - as it appears to be statistically - about 1 in 8. Rather it is about 1 in 5 and maybe 4. These are still not great odds but they are a damn sight better than might be the case at first blush.

Before you go to the BVC, put your ambition aside and take a long, hard look at your abilities. Have you got really good results? If not, why not? Can you name a single achievement - of any kind - that stands out? When you measure yourself against the person you think is bound to succeed are you up there with that person? If not, think hard. You are about to spend a lot of money and it may be without any prospect of return. Alternatively, find a barrister and ask them to tell you truthfully whether they can see you succeeding.

Then go to work on your English. Learn a word a day. Practice actually writing; learn where to put an apostrophe; eliminate exclamation marks. Express yourself as simply as possible consistent with what you wish to say - contrary to what seems to be the view of many, it is not impressive use of English to adopt an orotund and prolix manner of expression. Such methods tend to put you in the pompous and boring bracket of a discriminating reader.

I am not trying to discourage people unduly. But the BVC is becoming cluttered - and I use the word advisedly - with those who will not succeed, ever. For those who are not in the market for a UK pupillage that is not a problem. For everyone else it is and a bit of realism would not go amiss.

Holidays

2008-06-26T15:18:00.002+01:00

This blog is on its holidays until the end of July. Any silence will, I trust, be forgiven. Have a good month - hope the exam results and the interview results go your way. Please let me know how you did. More, all being well, in August.

Decision Time

2008-06-18T20:37:00.002+01:00

And the Trumpet waxed exceeding loud (Exodus 19:19 - look it up): the pupil called (I digress only slightly) and Chambers responded with a voice (ditto). And, hopefully, the voice says 'it's you'.

It's that time of year again. Having sweated through University, the BVC, OLPAS, interviews and pupillage there comes the moment when Chambers says either 'yes please' or 'who are you?' You are in the last 5 of The Apprentice except that there may not be a winner at all and you won't be starting on a six-figure salary.

How do you do your best to ensure that you become a tenant? There are a number of comments below suggesting that this is of some concern to some of you.

The bad news is that, if you haven't started by now, you are too late. The quest to move from pupillage to tenancy starts with OLPAS and where you apply. If you are in a provincial set and you have done your work diligently, got on with your pupillage supervisor and those other members of Chambers with whom you have come into contact, been punctual, pleasant to the clerk and polite to the staff, done research willingly and competently and are unlikely to mess up a return then you are probably in. It is as simple as that.

The issue is starkest for those in London sets with more pupils than tenancy vacancies. In such sets, the qualities set out above will only suffice to get you to the starting gate. In addition to the above you will have had to been well spoken of by all, preferably had a recommendation from solicitors and, most unfortunately in my view, have been 'better' than your competition.

What does 'better' mean in this context? I am afraid I have no idea. One would hope that no selection would be made on perceived academic ability alone. In most areas of law, the ability to get on with the client and persuade the Judge is at least as important as that. The same can be said about whether you are the right type of person. Getting on with professional colleagues is important, but decent sets of Chambers are not nowadays looking for clones. The same difficulty applies to support from the clerks' room. There may be assessed work within the pupillage which levels the playing field. There may or may not be a quota as to the number of pupils taken on. Ultimately, it seems to me, someone has to recommend you, that person has to overcome any resistance, whether based on your performance or on the competing claim of another pupil, and that person has to have sufficient belief in you and clout in Chambers to carry the day. Does that sound like a lottery?

Here is a list of things you can do:

Be punctual. Barristers work hard and most come into Chambers in 'roll up the shirt sleeves and get started' mode. Waiting for you will not be high on their agenda or the list of things they want to be patient about.
Work hard. You will often be asked to get something done. It needs to be done on time to the absolute best of your ability. That means giving yourself time to pause for thought. Closing the lid of the computer and thinking 'I've finished - now for the pub' is an error. The pub is probably an ok idea; it's the 'I've finished' that causes the problem. You have to learnt to think about what you have said. Give yourself time and try to consider the arguments against it, the assumptions that underlay it (which you should have expressly stated), the law upon which it is based, the evidence which must be adduced to back up the legal submission. That process is often helped by a night's sleep - which means you need your first draft finished early. And then you need to compare your best effort with your pupillage supervisor's actual work. If they are the same then either you are a genius, or (and I am afraid this is more likely) your supervisor is stressed, pressured and hasn't been careful enough. They sign it and they get sued/lose the solicitor - but it will be your fault. You should be ready for your work to get sent out whilst simultaneously praying that it is not.
Be personally kind. If the set at which you are requires you to knife the opposition you should leave. Baby Barista in The Times is very funny, but she is not a real pupil. The nature of the job means that practitioners are often stressed, always tired, pressured and have forgotten what free time is. Most try mightily to restrain themselves when the option is to vent (in the sense that Krakatoa erupting might be called venting). Most are also trying hard to do a job for the client, with whose case they frequently have sympathy and whom they frequently like. Pupils are not exempt from this and are frequently battling with the unfamiliar and the sense of inadequacy which losing a lot of cases before you have had a chance to win many can bring. Narking people, sarcastic glances, deliberate unpleasantness and so forth are obviously unhelpful to your cause. But you will actually make a good impression if you are capable of offering some support. Making a cup of coffee, knowing when to shut up, knowing when to offer help, knowing when not to say 'about my day off': all these things will establish you as someone who can judge a situation. Being kind is the best way to do it, because the only errors you will make will be those of the not sticking the knife in type.
Be professionally sensible and learn. You will do your own cases during pupillage. You will not sleep the night before; you may (as I did) throw up in the cubicle of the Court toilet immediately before your case is called on; you will believe you see a brilliant point which would have eluded the mind of anyone without a planet sized brain such as the one you now see that you possess, only to find it evaporating like a civil liberty out on the streets alone. In fact, it is the client who should be worrying, but they are safe in the knowledge that their solicitor had recommended you as certain to win the case, because the clerk said would be brilliant on the assurance of the pupillage supervisor who said you might be able to find the Court. Ignorance, for clients, is bliss. What you must do is learn. That means asking what you could have done better and what you should have done. Was the Judge a little worked up? Why? Never mind that you tell you client that the Judge is well known for hating all defendants/claimants/respondents/appellants/people with a surname beginning with Z. What could you have done to stop the Judge being a little worked up? Have you taken a lousy point? Have you spent 20 minutes establishing that a duty of care is owed to other road users, with copious quotations from Donaghue v Stevenson? Have you failed to agree with your opponent that the photographs were accurate, thus requiring her to call the photographer, the chemist who developed them and the camera manufacturer (to show that the lens on that particular batch was without flaw)? Have you missed the main point, whilst labouring the one which sounded so good when last night, over the second bottle, you explained to your significant other exactly how you were going to use it to skewer your opponent? We have all been there. But most of us have not wanted to stay.
Work, rest and play. In that order.
Honestly assess the points you are asked to work on. You may not agree with your pupillage supervisor. Don't disagree to make an impression and check carefully. But if you believe the answer is different, say so. Research the point and say where the original conclusion falls down. And then offer the right answer. Don't cringe and don't make excuses for someone with whom you disagree. And don't rub it in either.
Members of Chambers will generally be only too willing to help you with your work. But they are assisting you - not doing it for you.
Solicitors are the mummy bird delivering the worm to your open beak. Treat them accordingly. Don't keep them waiting. Don't treat them like idiots, servants, your best mate or the Lord of your Manor. This is a professional relationship. Remember names. If people tell you where they are going on holiday, ask if they had a good time when they get back. Be able to tell the difference between developing a relationship and begging. The aim is to get them to ring Chambers and sing your praises. Contrary to what you may believe, they will not do so if offered money (or it won't count if they do). Find out what they want from you (often, asking the question works wonderfully well) and then do it. Find out what they don't want from you (for example a phone call every time you find a new point - however superb) and don't do it.
Work out who carries clout in Chambers. There is always an engine room - usually juniors of between 10 and 15 years call - which brings in a vast amount of work. Meet those people; do things for them; try and get on; try and get to meet their solicitors. There is often a rain-maker - someone who brings in more clients than she can possibly need for herself. Do some work for her if you can. If you have rain-making ability, see if you can demonstrate it. The aim is not to crawl to these people - it is to showcase your talent. If you are any good they will form a favourable judgment without you needing to ask.
Be excited and passionate. A pose of world-weary cynicism does not suit you. Show that you do actually care about justice. Show that you enjoy legal research (if you do), or working up a cross-examination (if you do), or plotting the strategy that, 5 letters down the line, will mean the case settles in your client's favour (if you do). If none of this appeals then you may really be a world-weary cynic. Stop being a barrister and either get medical help or start living.
Enjoy yourself. You are your own boss, surviving on your own talents, beholden to no one (alright, not many people), doing the job you love, which has a real value to us all and will make you a comfortable living. You beat out all the other people to get this far. Even if you don't get tenancy here there are other places. And much better to have really tried than to have always thought 'if only'.
Be honest if asked to assess yourself. Say what you believe you have done well and why. Say what you believe you have not done as well as you could and why. Say what you believe you struggle about and why. If Chambers are any good they know this anyway. This is advocacy - you acknowledge your bad points and hammer home the good. You should never have to say 'I didn't try/work hard enough'. You should always be able to identify a remedial strategy. You are selling yourself so do it properly.

I hope that helps. When (if) interviewed do as below, but add in the things that you will - by now - know your interviewers want/need to hear.

Finally - be lucky. We all need it. Hope that - as PG Wodehouse had it- for you, fate is not, unseen in the background, quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove. No one can make you lucky but you won't be lucky if you ever underestimate it - or ever rely on it.

More on Interviews

2008-06-05T21:52:00.003+01:00

By popular request.

Jewellery: discreet please. Wedding rings are fine - if yours looks like it really belongs on Snoopy Dawg-Dawg then it may require some adjustment. Men's signet rings are fine - half the panel will be wearing them. Masonic rings are not such a good idea these days. Women's rings are fine too, providing that the stone is not the size of a small mountain. But do try not to be the lady on the white horse. Similarly, for women small and smart earrings are not a problem. Some people still think that pearls and diamonds are for evening wear only so I would steer away. The bright red fishing lure - original though it undoubtedly is - should be left at home. Earrings for men are still a huge risk. Necklaces are fine for women, but do try not to convey the impression that you would be at risk of being mugged on your way to court. Once you are a tenant you can be as bling as you like, but less is more at interview. If the panel can see a man's necklace, he is either not sensibly dressed or a time machine has transported everyone back to the 1970's.

Providing that your form was filled in honestly, I see no need to correct the grade you are likely to get. However, at interview you must not tell lies. Consequently, if asked, you must explain the change and be able to explain it. 'I stopped working because going on the lash was much more interesting' is not an acceptable explanation. There is also the tricky matter of an offer being conditional on a particular grade. I don't know if Chambers are doing this, but if so it might be sensible to volunteer that you may have slipped a couple of points. If they want you it is unlikely to matter.

Traditionally Chambers did not worry about the BVC grade. That seems, anecdotally, to be changing. If that is so then a Competent is unlikely to be good enough. The real issue is why that is your grade. A good explanation should be enough. The best advice I can give is to check Chambers own requirements. If they are not looking for a VC or higher then I would not worry about a Competent grade. Whether it is high or low is irrelevant, providing you didn't just scrape through by one or two points.

I agree that the more specialised the pupillage, the more depth to the legal knowledge required. The reason is simple enough: if you want to do patent work then it is presumed that you have bothered to find out quite a lot about it. How else can they distinguish you from the common or garden sociopath applying for such a pupillage?

If the Smarties were on the desk then I would tend to the view that those behind it were not smart.

One final thought. Do not try and make the panel laugh. The strategy is simply too high risk. By all means make a light hearted comment if the occasion arises, if it is appropriate and if it is in tune with the atmosphere. But jokes and comedy routines will not succeed unless you are Emo Phillips (and in some Chambers not even then). Barristers take pupillage selection terribly seriously and the best you will do is to achieve nothing.

Interviews

2008-05-29T18:15:00.003+01:00

Welcome back. A combination of idleness, lack of topics, computers tumbling like ninepins (although it is tenpin bowling - does anyone have an explanation?) and work have meant a long silence.

Anyhow, the OLPAS forms are in and, all over the jurisdiction, Chambers are sifting, applying their equality and diversity policies and fighting over who should be given 45 minutes to change their lives. A little like Britain's Got Talent, although without the premium phone lines or the belly dancing.

I could think of almost nothing to say about the OLPAS form. Bewilderingly, although we are now encouraged to take positive action in respect of under-represented groups, the OLPAS form contains no space for a candidate to say if, for example, they suffer from a disability.

However, insofar as the next step is concerned, I thought I might have something helpful to say. Statistically, most people who get one interview will be offered more than one - and a large number of applicants will not be offered an interview at all. The odds, therefore, significantly shorten at the interview stage. Moreover, this is the chance for a candidate to showcase themselves. I have already posted about this, but it was a long time ago. Regard what comes below as additional information.

First, dress: obviously you have the right to dress as you please. However, those interviewing you will probably be dressed for work. That means conservative colours - dark gray or dark blue are safest. Black can look a little mafiosi-like on men, but is fine for women. Brown is just about ok for women and is not ok for men. It also means toning down the look - wide striped shirts in bold colours are fine when you have pupillage. Blue, pink or white with a small pattern is best for interview. Ties should be discreet. Most barristers wear double cuffed shirts. If you are going to do so, please do not secure them with a lump of gold the size of a small country. Women are fine in trousers, but again the cut should be conservative. Skirts should be of a reasonable length. These are not rules. They are advice. Unless your interview is specifically informal dress - in which case the anxiety quotient will doubtless zoom skyward in the absence of guidance - you should dress formally. And clean your shoes - when formal shoes are dirty they are the first thing anyone notices. If you don't believe me then wear dirty formal shoes and ask your friends.

Second: punctuality. Be on time. Someone will be waiting to let you in because your interview is unlikely to be during working hours. That someone is likely to be a junior tenant. They may not be asked for their views, but if you kept them waiting 20 minutes they might just give them anyway. The panel will try to run to time, but they are allowed to be late. You are not.

Third: the handshake. I mention it because people have said they worry about it. I would ask the person with me before I was shown in. When I interviewed prospective pupils with 2 others handshakes were fine. I have also interviewed with 6 others and handshakes at the beginning and the end would have taken up half the alloted time and would have involved the participants in some bizarre choreography. It may be that handshakes are not expected. If no answer is forthcoming, I would wait for the people interviewing you to give a lead. In any event keep it short, firm and dry.

Fourth: the answers. The panel will have expected you to bone up on the key and topical issues. If you haven't then you better be able to write legal philosophy. Assuming you have, don't feel that disclosing your sources is a bad thing. Let the panel know what books you have read, what internet sites you have visited (obviously in pursuit of legal knowledge), what lectures you have attended. On the other hand, don't let your answer turn into a list. 'I was particularly persuaded with what X said in last year's Reith Lectures and as a result I bought Y's book on Z, which I think really sets out the issues, particularly A...' is about as much name dropping as you can hope to get away with. And make it appropriate - if the above is your answer to whether possession of photographs of people being assaulted is or should be a criminal offence you have missed the point of the question (please note: I am giving nothing away here. I have no idea of the questions to be asked by any set of Chambers, including my own).

There is also nothing wrong, particularly in 'problem' questions, with letting the panel see your reasoning. That is not the same as letting them see you change your mind there and back like a weather vane on speed whilst you scan the room looking for visual clues. We know you do this - the kindly nod might not be to assist you, but to assess whether you have the nerve to hold your own line. You are on your own and you are being asked to demonstrate that you can do a job where conclusions are often the subject of robust challenge.

Fifth: relax. I know this is hard and quite possibly impossible. But the panel are looking to get the best out of you. Chambers are genuinely interested in acquiring talent, developing it and keeping it. It may be that, if you are incapable of relaxing, the job may not be for you. But do try and think of the interview as a conversation between similarly informed parties. The best interviews test your intelligence, ability to think on your feet, judgment and ability to apply knowledge. We can't usually improve much on those. Your legal knowledge can be fixed during and after pupillage so, in most sets of Chambers, it merely needs to be in the ballpark (this may not be true for the magic circle sets). If you are expected to know as much law as someone of 7 years call then, although it will not be much comfort to you, it is the Chambers who have screwed up - not you.

Sixth: your questions. There is always a yawning gap whilst interviewees struggle painfully, and usually visually, to think of the question no one else has asked. Forget it. All possible questions have by now been asked, save the ones so asinine, so inappropriate or so peripheral as to not be worth asking. Ask yourself what you want to know and ask it of the panel. If there isn't anything then say something like 'No, thank you. I did a mini-pupillage here and pumped Ms X for information until her ears bled. I know this is where I want to come.'

Seventh: your exit. I think that, at this point, unless hands are offered, there is no need to shake everyone's hand again. You stand up. You look round. You say, 'thank you very much for the offer of an interview and for letting me say what I wanted to say.' You leave, usually accompanied. Do not say to your companion 'how do you think it went?' They will say 'fine', whether it did or not, and they will label you as (justifiably) nervous. Say goodbye - and go.

Eighth: your manners. I know this probably sounds patronising but do say please and thank you. If I do not have to tell you this, then you are not the person to whom I am speaking. Do open doors for others. Do not chew gum. Do not text when talking to other people, or when other people are with you - even when you are not directly involved in the conversation. These things are rude and you are not helping yourself if you do it. Speak clearly and look at the person asking you the questions. Smile - appropriately (grinning like a maniac when someone is saying 'are you really sure about that answer' is not recommended). If you can do it without being blindingly obvious try and mirror your interlocutor's body language - few things are more flattering and most people will not even realise you are doing it.

I hope that helps. Don't be frightened to fail. Providing you are not mad then say what you really think about the issues. Passion and showing that something matters help to distinguish you - people will make allowances for the fact they may disagree. And be positive - you have got this far. Your chances are reasonable. When Joanie Caucus was applying to law school, the kids she was looking after as a nursery nurse would sit with her and chant 'You Gotta Believe'. Well, you gotta. Good luck.

Mature Entrants

2008-03-09T17:54:00.003Z

The question of whether a mature entrant has an equal chance of obtaining a pupillage has been a fairly frequently asked question, so I thought I would address it in a post.

Yes.

That answer applies generally to the three main classes of people who ask it - those who have done a non-law first degree and worry about falling behind those who read law; those who have taken a number of years out and those who have actually had a different job first.

By and large Chambers are not terribly bothered about your previous history (although if it involves an extended stay at HM Pleasure then that generalisation may not apply to you). They are certainly not worried about a non-law degree and some specialist Bars (such as the Patent Bar) almost require it. However, the same guidelines apply to non-law degrees as to law degrees - the result has to be good and the University has to be good. Moreover, just as some sets are starting to look at your chosen options within a law degree, so it may assist you to stress the use to which your first degree can be put. If it is Management Studies and you are applying to common-law or commercial sets, this may be simple. If it is the Aromatherapy and Therapeutic Bodywork course offered by the University of Greenwich, then you may need to be little more inventive. Perhaps this course has taught you the aromatic preparation required to ensure that witnesses tell the truth?

If you have taken a number of years out, you will have to be prepared to say why. Needing to find your inner child or taking time to chill are not necessarily going to recommend you. Becoming an Olympic Bobsleigher might. Voluntary work, Student Union sabbaticals, sailing the world all seem not to damage prospects. The only point to which attention should be drawn is that these are supposed to be maturing experiences. So more may be expected of you.

Changing job is more difficult. There are people who simply had to go out and earn a living at a time when the Bar was a risk. Now, in a much improved financial position, they are returning to what they always wanted to do. There are also people who just wanted a change and, having been successful in one career, now desire success in another. Both categories have the capacity to obtain a pupillage, but it is normally necessary to show exactly why now is the time. Wide eyed enthusiasm is not as convincing a reason as it is in the recently qualified, because people who have already succeeded in something know that the world is not always an oyster, and even if it is, what's inside is often just sand.

The other reason why a job change can often be difficult is the category of applicant broadly defined by the following statement: "I was doing really well in human resources and had just been promoted to vice-deputy assistant in charge of cleaning staff. I thought, 'that's just the push I need' and everyone always said to me that I could talk the hind-leg off a donkey so when I told my boss that the promotion gave me the confidence I needed to be a barrister, she said she thought I'd be brilliant so I decided to go for it. I am the person you need to enthuse all your clients with the desire to get out there and win that case". I exaggerate, but you get the point. You do have to demonstrate why previous success means that you will succeed at the Bar.

Finally, professional advancement, although not terribly age-dependant, is an issue. You have to be at the Bar 10 years to take silk or to sit. In practice that is closer to 20. That means that, if you come to the Bar in your 30s you won't be sitting until your late 40s and silk may be unattainable because, at 50+, you may not feel like the risk. Normally, Chambers are unconcerned by these matters - but it may bother you.

As for applications, I would suggest asking the basic questions without frills (why be a barrister; why here; why now). When you've got the answers straight in your mind you can ask what your previous experience allows you to offer which others may not offer. But it is that way round. As the Bar has just discovered, being a successful TV Producer does not mean you will be a successful barrister. The Bar allows plenty of individual scope - but it is still about serving the public.

Proof

2008-02-22T16:14:00.002Z

I am sitting at my desk looking at a letter. The letter is from a young lady who appeared before me for sentence in January 2006. She had been dealing class A drugs. I imposed a suspended sentence with a Drug Treatment and Testing Order. That was on the lenient side of lenient, but what I had read suggested that it might work and she brought her Mum to court. I asked to hear from Mum, who seemed very sensible. I looked at the young lady. And, without being in the least bit confident about my own prescience, I took a deep breath...

The letter tells me that this young lady is now drug free. She has a job. She is buying a house. She has a daughter who is living with her. She thinks I saved her life, which I think is wrong - she saved her own life (there is little doubt that drugs would have killed her by now) by the actions she took. And the probation service saved her life.

I have never had a letter like that before and I was really very touched that this young lady had taken the trouble to write. The law affects peoples' lives. Sometimes it is nice to have proof that what you do makes a difference.

Blogger Aids

2008-02-22T00:08:00.002Z

Ok, so the numbers have been whirring round rather faster than previously since I was reviewed by Law Careers.Net. I have had about 500 hits in 2 days, which is close to double the usual rate. I suppose I need them more than they need me - a salutary lesson for any barrister.

On the basis that there are new readers; welcome, enjoy reading the blog, feel free to comment freely, don't get offended and keep coming back.

Have a nice weekend and let your thoughts rest with Leeds United. The thought of a second season in the third division (now, in a fine example of grade inflation, known as League 1) is too much to bear.

Career Aids

2008-02-19T15:28:00.002Z

My attention has been drawn to a competitor site to this one which attempts to provide career advice for aspiring barristers. Law Careers.Net provides a pretty comprehensive guide to the basics, complete with a message from the Chairman of the Bar - so it must be respectable.

I want to be honest about this: the way in which my attention was drawn to the site was by an email from them saying they were reviewing the blog and it might be nice if I sent a little puff the other way. Nothing like saying it like it is. That would have been the end of it, save that when I sent my usual response saying that I will only say what I really think, they replied 'ok', which distinguishes them from 99% of people making the same request (also why there are no ads on this site). I think that completes my Nolan disclosure.

The information provided is helpful, but uncritical. The BVC, for example, is covered but there is no hint that the course content and value is debated. I am sure that the providers would argue that this isn't their remit, and they do say that becoming a barrister is 'an expensive, high risk project'. The page entitled 'Bar Practice Areas' is helpful in terms of what to expect and what to do to make yourself an attractive candidate. It is, of course, far too London-centric with only 3 non-London barristers making an appearance (and one of them belongs to a London based set with a provincial annexe). But that is par for the course. The site is also linked to the BPP law school but doesn't seem to push it.

Their review of the legal blogging scene is interesting. I'm not sure I do permit my personal life to 'bleed' into the blog, although the image is striking. But one of the great things about a blog is that no one has to read it, so you can write what you want to write. When, ocassionally, some of the more conservatively minded of my acquaintances have expressed doubts about content and tone, I have rather taken the view that they can try their own approach and we can measure relative success. No one has yet done so, but the possibility is always there.

My own view is that demonstrating that barristers have a life outside the sub-fusc suit is probably useful as far as the public's view of the profession is concerned, and that mature, sensible people are capable of disregarding anything which jars on them if the information provided is helpful. To try and please everyone all of the time is dull, and would render the blog so anodyne that reading an Opinion on a bog-standard road traffic accident in which you were not involved would be preferrable. I hope that my pleasure in the job, my dedication to its basic principles and the reputation of the profession and the quite genuine desire to help those whose father was not (as mine was) in a position to assist is obvious to anyone who doesn't actually want to find fault for some bizarre purpose of their own. If not, then I'm not much of an advocate - in which case I shall wait for the deluge of Very High Cost Cases to come my way.

As far as Law Careers is concerned, the information seems to be reliable and the articles are decently written. You can, I think, use it with confidence. It is not, obviously, remotely as exciting and immediate as this site. That's enough plug for now.

Pathetic

2008-02-12T11:41:00.001Z

Geeklawyer wrote a post about Tony Blair. I think it was a little overstated and I don't agree with it, but that's the house style and it's a free country.

Unfortunately, some moronic Blair supporters disagree with that last proposition and have organised a denial of access to his site.

Vigilantism always makes me nauseous, largely because in my experience the self-righteousness that prompts it is about 1/2 micron thick. There are few things more unpleasant than a house burglar feeling all good about pouring his chamber pot over the head of a sex offender on the basis that 'he deserves it'. The burglar will, of course, be full of remorse for the distress that his actions have caused his victims. Or not.

Anyway can I urge you all to pay Geeklawyer a visit in his squat? Even those of you who don't read him. That way, it should be possible to convey to those who purport to promote free speech by denying it that hypocrisy doesn't work. They won't feel ashamed of themselves because self-righteousness inhibits that as well. But they will be angry which is lots of fun.

Life at the Bar

2008-02-08T14:15:00.001Z

I woke up this morning and realised that it was the first time in 4 weeks that I was not going to spend the day racing around like a maniac. More particularly, last night was the first time since last Saturday night that I had gone to bed earlier than 3am. And I wasn't out clubbing. My case over-ran with the Jury out for a long time and I had an Opening due in the next. Since the next case (due to start Monday) was contained in 42 lever-arch files, the Opening was a long document. I got it down to 42 pages - one per file - which I thought was good going.

Of course, no sooner was it delivered than the case settled. So that's 5 weeks' work down the pan and no money. Of course all those late nights were worth it. Now I have nothing for next week and not much for the week after. My family will be allowed to talk to me about non-urgent matters - this has been banned for the last 4 weeks or so - and walking the dog will not be the opportunity to talk to the junior in the London case. I would like to think he will miss his nightly call, but suspect that he will also be glad to get back to his wife and family.

This is what it can be like. Frantic activity which turns out to be for nothing. Weeks of real pressure and anxiety. And then a complete gap. I do actually have work to do, but I'm not going to do anything until Tuesday. On Monday the dog and I are going to walk to Harewood House, have lunch (me) and come back. We will both have covered 13 odd miles and the dog will have chased things and barked at other things. We will both be knackered but feel much better. I hope my clerk isn't reading this.

Monday was going to be an allegation of a civil conspiracy by state bodies. I am sorry in some ways that it settled, although the client walks away with some money. I had got right into it by the time the Opening was finished and there is now a slight feeling of anti-climax. That's part of the job too, but I never much like it. I console myself with the belief that we would have won, and the knowledge that I can't be proved wrong about that.

As part of the settlement I took no fee for the work done in preparation during the last month or so. I blame Conditional Fee Arrangements myself. They have always been unsatisfactory and in this case my junior and I were in a position of conflict: on the basis of the proposed settlement, the client got what we believed was an acceptable amount and we got nothing. If it fought and we won, we could both have taken most of the rest of the year off. We did the right thing and we know it, but it is uncomfortable nonetheless. Whilst the Government seems content to defame the Bar, I bet no civil-servant ever cites this sort of thing.

A fairly typical month all-in-all. As you read the posts below, please ask yourself if this is what you want. As for me, I love it.

It's All the Fault of the Bar

2008-02-05T17:31:00.001Z

The LSC has pronounced on the new contracts. It boils down to this: 2,300 barristers were offered contracts. 130 signed them - about 6%.

This, however, is not the fault of the LSC and nor does it reflect the terms of the contract being unacceptable. Rather it is the fault of the Bar. The Bar tendered for the contract at the agreed rates and the failure to sign now is a lack of good faith.

This argument suffers from two flaws. Firstly it is untrue. Secondly it is stupid.

It is untrue because I did not know what the rate would be. I was asked if I would allow my name to go forward to be considered for an offer. To do so would potentially assist my solicitors and my Chambers. Not to do so would be to close the door on the work forever. I agreed to allow my name to be added to the tender. At no stage was I told that I would have to do the work for any particular price, still less on any particular terms.

It is stupid because the sight of the Legal Services Commission (stressing the word 'Legal' here) suggesting that pre-contractual negotiations are in any way binding almost beggars belief. They offered me a contract. I looked at the terms and didn't like them. So I said no. They did not change the terms - instead they offered vague and non-enforceable 'assurances' that the contract didn't quite mean what it said. I said 'I don't believe you, so it's still no'. So there is no agreement. What there is, is a whinge that I should have signed before they told me what I was signing.

The lack of good faith inherent in that approach is a disgrace. No government body should attempt to mislead those with whom it works in such a manner.

But I take heart from the fact that the Press Release (which I gather was the way in which the matter was communicated to the Bar Council - what grace and elegance under pressure) is only the public face. Inside the LSC there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth. They will want to know how such misjudgments were made. The public declaration that the names of those who signed would be published (still a blank on the LSC website); the confidence that the Bar could be bullied into signing; the threatening letters sent to the Chairman of the Bar; the overweening confidence. I suspect the government might want to know precisely how they have been dropped in it. I shall endeavour to keep you informed.

Meanwhile the LSC press on without a panel. The rates remain the same but there is no longer any need to commit oneself to the panel. So I can take a case I am offered in Leeds and refuse one in Preston, which seems to me better than the previous position. What's more I can refuse a case because the LSC aren't willing to give me the hours I think I need to prepare it properly. I can say no unless I am paid travel and expenses.

I gather I am to be offered another chance to enter into the deal on less adavantageous terms. That is obviously terribly kind and I am grateful. But I don't think I shall change my mind.

As to the suggestion that the Bar has engaged in activity not in the public interest: if they have evidence that the Bar pressured people not to sign then they should put it in the public domain. If they only have anonymous gossip and wishful thinking they should shut up. Issuing a press release that contains vague hints of unfairness is the sort of moaning a child does until its parents explain that sometimes life is unfair.

Right. I feel better now...

Will the Criminal Bar Last?

2008-01-24T17:52:00.000Z

This seems to be a current faq (as they say in the blog biz). So I thought I would address it.

Yes.

The government is not trying to destroy the criminal bar in my view. What the government - or actually its civil servants - are trying to do is to look as if they are trying to control cost. Barristers (see the Editorial) take up a tiny percentage of the relevant budget. But they are a very visible part and the public (it is felt) recoils from lots of money being paid to help guilty people escape justice. That, coupled with basic jealousy, seems to be the motivation.

I say this because a real attempt to control costs would ensure that listing was entirely efficient, that Judicial time was costed and then wasted if that was the cheapest option, that the Courts were provided with expensive equipment which diminished long-term costs (such as digital recorders), and, crucially, that case planning was judged after the event by lawyers rather than before by civil-servants. In the marketplace that is civil law, this is exactly what happens. That is because the market efficiently regulates cost.

In crime the issue is how big the budget is, not how much ought to be paid per case. The budget is fixed before costs are incurred. Efficiency is thus irrelevant unless there is an actual danger of running out of money (When that happened at the CPS as it did 3 years ago, they simply didn't brief barristers to prosecute in the Magistrates Court and CPS staff did those Courts whilst the work they would otherwise have done waited until April 6th). That leaves those in control with a different agenda - namely to look as if things are being done. The Bar is in the frame.

It seems that about 50 people have signed the VHCC (a large proportion of whom are Higher Court Advocates - i.e. solicitors). Let us assume that my information is out by a factor of 10, so that 500 have signed. That is less than 25% of the total. The work simply cannot be done by that number of people. Moreover, the criminal bar is efficient. Long cases in the hands of inexperienced advocates (and I make no prejudgment about competence at all) last longer. Agreements are not reached. People do not trust their opponent. Judges have to make rulings. Extra evidence is called. The scheme will fail.

One can be reasonably sure that the contracts have not been signed in droves because the LSC website has not published the list of names. Instead, the weasel words 'or after' have been added to the promise to publish the list 'on the 21st January'.

That argument applies to criminal work generally. In the long run there will have to be efficiencies. That means the Bar is needed. The necessary work cannot proceed at the necessary pace without us. At the stage at which real attention needs to be paid to what it costs to run a fair criminal justice system, rather than the masquerade currently being played out, I believe that the Bar will be cherished. At that stage it may be that civil servants may have to be quietly moved on.

I am an optimist but that is not (yet) a crime. Hang in there - we have a share in tomorrow.

Neglect (Updated)

2008-01-16T18:00:00.001Z

I am aware that there has been radio-silence of late and I am sorry. In mitigation, my professional life this week has involved prosecuting one trial (where the need to write a Skeleton Argument on the law meant that I went to bed at 315 on Tuesday night) whilst simultaneously trying to sort out the Opening in the next, whilst also trying to read the contract the Legal Services Commission wishes me to sign in order that I be allowed to work for less money than my plumber on long cases which mean that I can't live at home for 6 months of the year.

This, of course, is what you are striving towards and, lest anyone think the contrary, I am, when awake, hugely enjoying myself.

I shall not be signing the contract proposed by the LSC. There are 3 main reasons for this. The first is that I will be expected to work for about £58 per hour whilst a case is in Court whilst being responsible for my own expenses. Given that a long case demands a hotel room with internet access (access is a term of the contract) and a decent sized desk and that I have to eat, it seems to me that 3 of my hours are likely to be spent on that. Of course, I pay tax on the remaining 3 hours pay, thus providing me with a take home wage of approximately £500 per week not including Chamber's expenses. The comparison with my plumber is, on that basis, more than slightly unfair - to him. Of course, Silks are paid more than juniors...

The second reason is that the LSC demand access to my diary, to ensure that I am telling them the truth when I say I cannot take the case because I have other professional commitments. This, presumably, is their way of building a mutually respectful relationship. I give them information and they assume that I am telling lies. And, if you are wondering whether it can really be true that this is so, check out clause 13.3. Also note that my claim for money based on an hourly rate must be true, accurate and reasonable. So, if my truthful claim that a case needed lots of prep is not reasonable, hey presto - I've worked for free! Oh yes, and - contrary to the Practice Direction - it is not normally reasonable for me to know what the junior is doing and vice versa, so if one of us falls ill the whole case will be aborted.

The third reason is that on 21st January, the LSC intends to publish the list of people who have signed. This is purportedly to let the public know. In reality it is to exert pressure. I can easily imagine the howl of protest that would arise, were the Bar to publish that list. We must even be careful not to 'pressure' other members of the profession into leaving their signature unscrawled on this particularly grubby bit of paper. Leading the charge to accuse Barristers of blackmail would be the LSC and its paymasters. But when the boot is on the other foot it's all ok. If hypocrisy had a smell, civil servants all over the country would be frantically phoning Rentokill.

With the no pressure bit in mind, kindly note that my view is not in any sense advice. I devoutly wish you to make your own mind up about whether you wish to enter into a contractual relationship with privacy-busting, untrustworthy, underpaying hypocrites who will promptly tell the world that you are their kind of person. I hope that is clear.

Update:
There has been an exchange of correspondence between the LSC and the Bar Council (to which Anon refers in the comments - thank you). The LSC suggests that the Bar - or some of it, it is a bit fuzzy but hey - is in breach of the Competition Act (civil wrong) and the Enterprise Act (criminal offence). The Bar Council refutes those suggestions. The letters are here.

Rarely have I seen the Bar more angered. The most common expression in the Robing Room and the one which I used myself was 'disgusting'. To be accused of criminality, without investigation of any type, with every supposition made against you and for the accusation to be utterly without foundation is so inimical to why I do this job that I find myself almost (but not quite) bereft of words.

Still, the upside is that the LSC have achieved a position where shooting themselves in the foot would represent an improvement.

From the hysterical tone of the letter and the willingness to make unfounded allegations, together with the deafening silence regarding the promised list of those who have signed, I deduce that the LSC have fallen victim to their own hubris. Let's hear it for schadenfreunde - that most pleasurable of emotions.

Obviously, the correspondence has demonstrated to me that the LSC are people with whom I can reliably and safely contract and who will treat me with courtesy, dignity and respect. Therefore there is no impediment to my now signing. So, just as soon as Alice has shown me the way through the looking glass, that's what I'll do.

What Type of Law Should I Do (Part V) ?

2007-12-31T13:24:00.000Z

A New Year special...

Media Law
Is this law at all, or simply a chance to rub shoulders with the famous (acceptable) and rich (desirable)? Given that the Courts cannot make their mind up about whether there is a right not to have your photograph taken at any time when you spend 80% of your waking hours showing your knickers to the paparazzi (or 'annoying little prats' as they are known in royal circles) why should this be anyone's speciality?
Still, there it is. Whole firms are devoted to this issue which, given that it involves the meejah, means that their lawyers are often on the TV or the radio explaining to the rest of us why it's ok to take Naomi's photo when she's assessing the length of her tongue against a Russian billionaire's ear, but not when she's coming out of the clinic with that little package saying 'antabuse'. There's even a book on privacy, although obviously I'm not allowed to tell you what it says.
What's more, people are often offended by the fact that there is to be a TV or Radio programme revealing that they keep Nazi uniforms in their bedrooms, or collect money for charities which assist foolish young men to ensure their life is even nastier, shorter and infinitely more brutish than Thomas Hobbes ever envisaged. Oddly, people wishing to be really, really unpleasant to others by depriving them of basic freedoms are terribly keen on exercising those freedoms for themselves, so there's work out there.
Advantages. Daaahhhhling. This is where it's at sweetiepie. Whichever way you look, you're defending freedom so there's a real feelgood factor here. Not the grimy little freedoms like staying out of the nick and being innocent until proven guilty either. Those freedoms are, like, so yesterday. No, this is real freedom - either of the press or of the individual. Coo-el. And best of all, both sides are awash with dosh, so your plumber will bring 2 assistants, an associate and three trainees, thus making his visits indistiguishable from the way you deal with cases at work. Your colleagues will be envious and you will be doing cutting edge work. After all, nothing is more cutting edge than deciding if this is really law or not.
Disadvantages. You have to know who Kate, Amy, Katy, Pete, Blake, Naomi and Peter really are. You have to pretend to care. Worse still, you may end up actually caring. Worse yet, you may have to act for the Royal family (no, not daaahhling Catherine's creation - the real ones) and get to see the photos of the heir to the throne dressed up as what he talked about on the Squidgygate tapes. Yeuw. You will have to look smooth and well-dressed which, for most lawyers, is a challenge which severely cuts into the total number of billable hours in a day. Unless you act for the Royals you will either be past it at 33, or the sort of person with an adolescence so retarded that Peter Pan thinks you are a bit of a baby.

The Size of the Bar

2007-12-17T12:23:00.001Z

TB and MP (I am trying hard not to notice that these initials almost always spell trouble one way or another) have been engaging in some discussion on the post below. It has, frankly (as LawMinx has said), degenerated into handbags at dawn but I reckon that is inevitable when people are both cross and anonymous - the combination does have a tendency to free you up to speak in a way that you otherwise might not.

However, the points raised are important and I want to deal with one of them which touches directly on the purpose of this blog; namely the size of the Bar.

On this matter my sympathies are entirely with TB, which will come as a shock to us both. I am afraid that I believe the Bar will contract - largely, although not exclusively in London, and by perhaps 30%. The reasons are many but two stand out for me.

First, it pays solicitors to do their own advocacy. The Bar persuaded Carter that criminal legal aid should pay a better advocates' fee than a litigators' fee. That was a completely principled stance and it was rightly accepted. However, the solicitors' reaction (fairly predictably) has been to move to litigation.

Secondly, and contentiously, that much of the advocacy the Bar is required to do is not terribly difficult. This has been a well-kept secret for years, although possibly not as well kept as some at the Bar imagined it to be. In reality, solicitors were not terribly interested in doing advocacy until it paid to do so. Consequently, they did not dispute the Bar's contention that all advocacy is specialist, which led some barristers to believe their own publicity.

The truth, however, is that a lot of advocacy is routine. That includes standard pleas of guilty, possession actions, road traffic litigation etc. Please note (what I am saying is quite contentious enough without adding misunderstanding to the mix) that I am not saying solicitors can do this better than the Bar. I am, however, saying that a lot of solicitors do this sort of work as well as a lot of barristers - or just a little bit less well but not enough for it to matter.

There is only so much advocacy to be done. If solicitors are going to do more of it then the Bar will do less. Less work ultimately means less barristers. I am afraid that I do not regard this as the end of civilisation as we know it, although the human cost is going to be unpleasant and likely to be exacerbated by the way in which the Government goes about things. In 1986 the population of this country was much the size it is now, but there were about 40% fewer barristers. Those were good times, but I certainly do not remember anyone campaigning for more barristers because the public were suffering.

The issue is how the Bar manages this decline. I remember the century brief scheme. This was a short-lived proposal that junior members of the Bar did a hearing and a conference (and perhaps an Advice as well - my memory is vague on this) for £100. On my Circuit the idea got short shrift, being seen as a way in which the entrenched middle ranking juniors protected their own practices against able youngsters, by ensuring that those youngsters did minor work for very little pay.

But as the deadly combination of falling rates and less work bites, it is important that the Bar continues to allow young talent to develop. I shall watch the figures with interest and concern - there are fewer pupillages on offer this year than last and it seems to me that the Bar is likely to 'self-regulate' in this area.

With due deference to MP I do not regard this as running down the Bar - from my place atop the greasy pole or otherwise. Staring reality in the face is what we are supposed to be good at. Nor do I resile from the views expressed in the Editorial above. However, the sad fact is that we are being positioned between a rock and a hard-place. If we cannot make room for talented pupils then the Bar will either die from the bottom up, or will become a second profession for those first qualifying as solicitors. If we are to make room for talented pupils then slightly less talented middle-ranking juniors may have to find other ways of making a living. That process will be bloody and bitter.

So, what can be done? Well, firstly we can concentrate on being as good as we can possibly be. When I sit as a Recorder I inevitably do work at what might be called the lower-end of the spectrum. Even on a plea to a bog-standard burglary, people who do a good job stand out and people who can't be bothered do too. Secondly, we could sell ourselves to clients better. Being approachable, collaborating with solicitors and making it clear that we are a specialist resource aimed at litigation and judgement sends out a message. The aim should be to persuade clients that solicitors can do the job but they are unlikely to do it as well. There are two components to achieving that aim. One is that it should be true. The second is that we sell it. I can do the first and I would like someone to tell me how to do the second, other than by way of personal example.

In that context we have a corporate responsibility to do the best we can and to sell the Bar as efficient and reliable. Part of that is not taking the absurd point that solicitor advocates should not be allowed to wear a wig. I do not see the defenders of 'tradition' in black and stripes - why is the wig so much more important? It isn't. Not only have we already 'lost' this argument - the tone of much of our response has not risen above a schoolboy whine. If I were a client, would I want a barrister who insisted that only in his wig was he distinguishable from my solicitor? No, I wouldn't.

When TB says that he would rather have a good solicitor than a good barrister, it seems to me that he is absolutely putting his finger on the problem. Once our role is considered to be secondary then we only have two choices. One is to strenuously try and put our role back in pole position. To do that the advice has to be solid and commercial (including crime - what is the risk/benefit analysis of a plea) and the judgement has to be good. We need to structure the BVC and pupillage to those two issues, which means that pupillage should be delivered by the person(s) best suited to do so. The other is to play second fiddle with good grace. Those aims can be mutually pursued.

I know that MP says he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek and I am happy to accept that. But a cull might be the best way forward. When those little seal pups are knocked on the head it is not necessarily because they are being attacked by sadists, notwithstanding PETA's hysterical outcry to the contrary. It may actually be, as the WWF says, that it is being cruel to be kind. There is a debate there, but we don't have it when the reaction of one or both sides is to acuse the other of deliberate wickedness.

So I would like to see the Bar Council keeping detailed records of people leaving the profession and why. As they are doing. And, at some stage soon, it may be that we have to have a horrible debate about how to allow people in the middle and at the top to exit the profession on the basis that they are not good enough.

There is an alternative, which is to allow barristers to form partnerships. At which stage the laissez-faire attitude about other people with whom one shares Chambers will disappear. It is one thing to worry about the odd return. It is quite another to have your own income directly linked to the performance X puts on in front of your solicitors and to be responsible for X's mistakes. The gap between sharing a Chambers with X and being a legal partner (or even an employer/employee) of X may well be immense. I think on balance the first method would be kinder.

'Tis the season to be jolly - I know, I know. But for those who believe that is based on the fact that Christ existed and died for the sins of others. It isn't based on a myth that there really is a little fat bloke in a red suit who brings you freebies because it's the end of December.

PS: This is a large topic and I am happy to publish guest-posts in response. Please email me if you would like to do that and we can discuss word-count and timings.

A Land Flowing with Wigs - and Honey

2007-12-13T20:23:00.000Z

Honey speaks:
"I find it quite disturbing that this topic gets twice as many replies as "Neuberger" and "Root and Branch" put together. Priorities!"

Quite.

I have a theory about this. Wigs are a topic which guarantees debate because the issues are clear, no one is more of an expert (or less) than anyone else, it's easy to have a view and it is something about which a barrister may, just may, exercise an influence upon. As opposed to, say, Neuberger; where people think that it is a done deal, it's too much effort to sweat it up and you really have to think before you speak because there is a back story which you are not being paid to get up. What Honey does not say (although she would doubtless agree) is that the views on wigs are clearly, succinctly and persuasively expressed.

There are lessons here. Firstly that the profession and its prospective entrants do not feel that their contributions will make much of a difference on topics of real importance. I truly do not believe that is so. Why should it be? This is a profession when the best argument has a real chance of success. But, if people carry on in this way, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Secondly, that too many people feel that the title barrister entitles them to some sort of free pass. I mention no one by name - if the wig fits, wear it. But wake up and smell the coffee. It ain't so. Just because your profession has fancy dress is not a good reason for you to be marked out. Let's be honest about this: compared to solicitor's finals the BVC is a stroll in the park. The time has long gone when being a barrister guaranteed respect. Now is the time to earn it.

We won't earn anything by being seen to diss the competition. Nor by labouring outdated modes of address and distinctions of dress in an apparent effort to demonstrate unfounded claims to superiority. If we want to be seen as a specialist profession then we had better make sure that we are the best advocates/drafters/advisers around. The mark of a good advocate is someone who does not condescend to his/her opponent.

Thirdly, what do we want to be best at? In my view the tendency to sell ourselves as specialists in substantive topics is a mistake. We all do it because we think that solicitors want it. But solicitors may simply want comprehensive advice, backed by solid judgement, delivered quickly and based on an analysis of relevant authority. Followed by successful advocacy.

I have been against many members of the specialist bars, from commercial to clinical negligence. Virtually all of them have known more law than me when the case started. But finding the pertinent cases, reading and comprehending them is not terribly difficult. You may have a learning curve and it may be steep but barristers are used to working hard. And at the end of the day it's about what I can get your witness to say. At that stage a wide understanding of the law and how it works and interrelates is of more value, in my view, than a deep understanding of a narrow segment. And a cross-examination based on treating the witness as one would a complainant or defendant in a criminal case can deliver benefits which the other side did not anticipate.

Moreover, with a very few exceptions I am not sure that those members of the Bar knew more about the particular area than their equivalents in solicitors' firms. The firms are better resourced, even more specialised and have the benefit of practical dealings with the lay client which gives them an inside track the Bar lacks. So why are the clients paying twice for the same type of expertise?

In other words, comments on wigs are what we do best. And we would all be just as good on Neuberger if we felt involved.

These musing are prompted not only by the comments on wigs, but by my recent need to set out my practice areas for work purposes. I was amazed by how many different areas in which I had experience (legal disclaimer: not the same as expertise). And no one has sued me for not knowing enough. I believe that generalism might be the way forward - with the specialisms being independence, advice, drafting and advocacy.

Maybe this is crazy, nostalgic dreaming. If so put it down to the strain of defending in a case when I believe my client to be innocent - only the 3rd time I can remember it happening to me. But I don't think my mind is wandering.

Wigs (Updated)

2007-12-05T15:43:00.000Z

The public want us to keep them, so we probably will. I can't say I get terribly excited about this and I voted to get rid of them in civil cases, largely because I find the whole outfit so uncomfortable. I suspect that if they went, within a couple of months, no one would remember what it was like to have them. But like Beafteaters uniforms and the changing of the guard the public approves of traditional British customs - of which we are now one. Which is fine - if expensive. It will be interesting to see what the Judges do now. Having announced that they are changing outfits it might be difficult not to go the whole hog, but as the House of Lords already wear suits whilst barristers appear robed it should not present an insupperable problem.

However, solicitor advocates should now be permitted (and perhaps obliged) to wear wigs. The distinction is simply unjustifiable and sends a message about presumed competence from which the Bar should disassociate itself. If a solicitor advocate isn't up to the job then we can demonstrate it by our superior performance. Or not. Otherwise we should go the whole hog and large Court Centres should have a 'worst advocate of the week' competition and make the winner wear a large hat with 'D' on it...

While I am at it, the same goes for a refusal to call solicitors 'my learned friend', substituting 'my friend' instead. These are courtesies, denoting nothing. But if they are going to be used then the discrimination says more about the barrister insisting on it than the solicitor to whom it is applied. If one wants to be that pernickity then one shouldn't call the solicitor 'my friend' unless they are, and one shouldn't call the barrister 'my learned friend' unless you believe it. Given how the Bar can square up in a tense moment, most of us would be choppwould like ing and changing the designations of our opponents throughout a trial of any length.

I would like to welcome the Lord Chief Justice as a reader of this blog. I can't be certain of it but he has just announced:
"The Lord Chief Justice will hand down a practice direction before the Christmas vacation to permit solicitors and other advocates, as formally defined in s27 (9) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, to wear wigs in circumstances where they are worn by members of the Bar.
The practice direction will come into effect on 2 January 2008."

Anyway, it's a possibility. So watch the Ps and Qs or go anonymous. I am assuming that Mr Pineapples is anonymous, but I shall check the Bar List just in case :)

Neuberger

2007-11-27T17:51:00.001Z

Lord Neuberger has published his report and you can find it here.

Lots of proposals about the BVC and imposing a particular standard on all BVC providers. A suggestion that pupillage selection should be made by test rather than interview. Lots of support for getting out to schools (and I would support making all Chambers publish the steps they have taken to become involved in the community). An acknowledgment that if we want the brightest and the best (not always the same thing) to come to the Bar then we have to spread the net wider.

Neuberger also makes the point that the grading standards on the BVC (or at least some of them) offer little help to Chambers or the graduate. So, a hat tip to my anonymous correspondent who made the same point a while ago. Let no one say that this blog does not have its finger on the pulse of the profession.

Feel free to comment. In the meantime, what do we think (pace Anya in a comment below) of a pupil being told that they 'lack refinement'? Am I the only person cringing?

Have You Got What It Takes?

2007-11-23T09:16:00.001Z

I have been reflecting on the do's and don'ts of what is required to succeed at the Bar other than intellect and sheer good fortune. Some solicitors are apparently prepared to tolerate eccentricity, but it seems to me that most are not.

First, in my experience it helps to like other human beings. Barristers who fight shy of social contact with real people are hardly going to endear themselves to solicitors, or be able to cope with individual clients terribly well. That only leaves corporations (also staffed by real people - well some of them anyway) and prosecuting. A little restricting if you are just starting out. Even then, your solicitor may want to talk to you over a coffee and they will know if you are charm itself when there is work to be had, and bored and constantly texting (my daughters do this but I hope they will grow out of it) if not.

Second, it helps to be able to be part of a team. As a pupil or mini-pupil it will seem (and might well be) the case that your part is fairly insignifcant. But the art of working with other people, listening to them and being able to respond to their concerns is something you can watch for and learn, just as much as the art of persuading the Judge. Given that you have done 4 years law or less, and a lot more years basic human interaction than that, it may well be all you can offer at the beginning.

My late Head of Chambers, Brian Walsh QC was a fantastic example of someone who could bring everyone into a case and make them feel that they had a contribution to make - even the lay client. He took that ability with him when it came to Chamber's matters and went out of his way to explain his decisions and talk through people's concerns. That was an approach to which clients also responded which, given that Brian was famous for persuading people to plead guilty, meant that an awful lot of people ended up agreeing with him that it would be best if they admitted what they had done.

Third, don't be pompous. Respect and empathy are more and more important. The old days where the client looked up to you just because you were a barrister have gone - and not a moment too soon. Society is simply less deferential these days: the extent to which that has tipped over into complete incivility is a debate for another time, but clients of all stripes now expect you to treat them decently. Barristers who insist on running the case their way may be tolerated by solicitors but the approach is neither admired nor liked. A recent poll shows barristers believing that they spend enough time with clients, and clients believing the opposite.

Because the Bar is a small profession, people know each other quite well and are prone to gossip. However unbothered you are, it really doesn't help to be thought of as an inadequate human being. Treating other people appropriately will help. Otherwise, when you fall down, and you will, there will be lots of people waiting to say that you had it coming. The Bar is also a competitive profession. As a colleague of mine (now a Judge) used to say, "It's best to be good and to be nice. One can get away with being arrogant and unpleasant providing you're good. But X (name withheld) is crap and and arrogant and unpleasant, so everyone hates them." Don't be X.

Fourth, relying on being a barrister to make you feel important, or to help you feel clever or to help you feel thin is ultimately self-defeating. Either deal with those issues outside the job, or wait until they are sorted before you become a barrister. I passionately believe that this job is about the clients. Most of them know very little about the process to which they are subject and they are frightened. Barristers who do the job primarily because of what they get out of it are betraying the profession. However sad it is that someone has a self-esteem issue, it is wrong for that person to even risk preferring their own interests to those of the people they are retained to help. That is the antithesis of doing the job properly.

Fifthly, if you are someone who needs, or wants, notches on their bedpost, leave the urge at home. No one can control where Cupid's arrow strikes, but setting out to seduce your solicitors, your clients, your roomate or your pupil supervisor is best avoided. I am not saying that your eyes cannot meet your opponent's across a crowded court room - that has certainly happened. But that is different to a drunken encounter after a Chambers party with someone you already know has a partner. If your virtue is not intact, do try to make sure that your dignity is.

Sixthly, never crab your professional colleagues to opponents, solicitors or anyone else. It simply makes you look small and it will get back. Moaning that someone else has had a brief that you wanted, or a red bag when you should have one, or a pupillage, does not make your listener feel sorry for you in a good way. This sort of behaviour is a risk if you start to feel that you need that drink at the end of the day. It helps neither your practice nor your reputation to sit in bars, mouthing off about things that irritate you whilst drinking too much (whilst your significant other - should you have one - is presumably chucking the dinner away in disgust). If you need to drink or to moan then you have a problem. Work it through instead of taking it out on other people or the bottle.

Seventh, don't disguise what you are or where you came from. Although the Bar is a far more diverse profession than it once was, there is a certain tendency to behave, once one has arrived, as if one's background conformed with the public view. I don't think anyone now practising actively denies, for example, that they are Jewish but that was not always the case. If you are the first member of your family to go to university then be proud of it. It will not affect your prospects - any Chambers bothered about that is not a place where you want to be anyway, but I truly doubt that such places still exist. But pretending to be what you aren't, or striving for some type of social acceptance which matters to you, but no one else, is sad and simply contributes to the sterotypes of which we are trying to rid ourselves. Don't be part of the problem.

Eighth, don't pull up the drawbridge. Being worried about internal competition is a give-away to clerks and colleagues. Chambers these days are very much larger than they once were. If the best junior not in your set wants to join your set, only the weak and inadequate will complain. Don't be the person of whom it is apocryphally said that on the occasion of their dinner to mark 40 years at the Bar, the person proposing the toast said, "If X had had his way, none of you would be here tonight". On the same theme, don't kick down the ladders you have climbed up. I suspect this is self-evident. It is deeply unpleasant, and you may meet the people on your way down...

Ninth, try and do something about work/life balance. Have a hinterland. Taking work on holiday, or cancelling holidays may be macho but it's also stupid. You aren't making a statement about the size of your practice (which tend, in any event, to be the equivalent of that sportscar in terms of symbolism) . You are making a statement about your ability to handle your own life and the people in it. No one wants to come second to that massive case. You will work hard anyway, so have friends and do things with them. Try and have friends outside the law and certainly outside Chambers - don't sit around in an incestuous little group with all the perspective of a 2mm fixed lens. By the same token, don't sulk because you can't go skiing or sailing or walking 12 times a year.

Tenth, your professional integrity must be complete. The concept of justice is bigger than you. We can never guarantee to get to the truth (nor can advocates of an inquisitorial system). The truth is known only to those directly involved and to (if you believe in Him or Her) God. That is precisely why the rules are so important. If we cannot guarantee the right result, we must at least guarantee the best opportunity to reach it, and that the same opportunity is extended to everyone. To be a barrister is to be a proud part of that system. That is not just about showing your opponent authorities against them. It is about putting justice first, not taking a short cut to win, not keeping something up your sleeve.

Can you succeed if you don't follow these rules and don't have these qualities? Yes, (except, I believe, for the last) - but it is unlikely. But there is a wider issue. In the days when the job title itself brought respect, a barrister discharged their duty to their profession by not being dishonest. Nowadays, for the profession to retain the respect of the public we have to do a little more than that. I still believe (quaintly and in an old-fashioned way) that we have a corporate responsibility because an independent Bar helps the citizens of this country to have justice. If we let the profession down we ultimately let the clients down.

Finally, I am not saying that everyone can do all of this all of the time and I am certainly not saying that I have done all of this all of the time. But I still aspire to do so, and if I occasionally fall down I try and get back up. I am afraid, however, that if you think these things don't apply to you, there is not much prospect of you being successful and still less of you adding lustre to your profession.

Schools

2007-11-20T16:31:00.000Z

I spoke to the 6th form at a school yesterday - something I regard as important, as you know, and which I wish all barristers would do. Unfortunately it isn't possible to have 6th formers in Chambers - the logistics are just too complicated and there are too many applicants for mini-pupillages. So going to schools and speaking is the only possibility if one wants to ensure that careers advice for the Bar reaches as diverse an audience as possible.

This was a big school and there were about 40 people at the talk. Of those, a staggering 4 already wanted to be barristers and had done an impressive amount of research. They were also quite keen to hear the stories about cases, Judges and murderers, which suggests that the Bar still retains an aura of romance which is quite absent from the normal daily grind.

It was also a Comprehensive, although the 6th Form was a local Centre of Excellence. When I mentioned Cambridge there was an audible reaction, followed by an immediate chorus of 'the job's not for me then'. I did try to point out firstly that you didn't have to go to Oxbridge and secondly that, providing they could get the grades, my audience had as good a chance as anyone else. I hope it worked: I fear it didn't entirely.

If you are reading this and you are a barrister from a state school then the least you could do is offer to go back there and tell them how you did it. Lots of barristers are involved in diversity, but it's like the parable of the ham and eggs - the chicken's involved, but the pig's committed.

Root and Branch

2007-11-15T10:33:00.001Z

Now that I have finished palpitating I am not working, so that I can update you. I am finding that regular blogging is difficult to reconcile with an awful lot of work, some domestic heavy-lifting and the need to find something new to say.

Now, however, there is something. The BSB has begun a root and branch review of the way in which the profession educates its entrants. The academic element (Universities in other words - with the best will in the world the Law A Level is not worth doing in terms of teaching you what you need to know to be able to practice) is being left largely to get on with this itself - if you have anything to say about how you are taught law in terms of balance between exams/assesment and the content of the courses then the point of contact is your Student Union.

But the BSB is reviewing the BVC, Pupillage and Continuing Professional Development and they are doing it seriously and properly. That is to say that the review is being conducted by people qualified to do so and they are obtaining and utilising access to current providers.

I don't think that this will simply be a re-jig, unless that is a genuine recommendation. All issues are open and (almost) all suggestions will be considered (not, I fear, the option of allowing anyone to declare themselves a barrister. Sorry about that). The process is already underway and I gather that Neuberger (publication 27th November) Report on Access to the Profession will have something to say about pupillage and the BVC in that context. So, if you believe that everyone should qualify as a solicitor first, or that Pupillage should come before the BVC, or that we should return to unfunded pupillage, or anything else that can sensibly be proposed, let me know. I will feed back every comment to the Education and Training Committee, I will post the ones that I think may spark further debate (please let me know if you don't want this to happen to your comment) and I will add my own views as well.

You will appreciate that I must respect the confidentiality of the Committee, so sadly there will be no kiss and tell. On the other hand, I do not have to clear what I write. I can safely (I think) say that the methodology of the review of the BVC is already established and we are currently discussing how Pupillage and CPD fits into that. I would welcome views - on the same basis as that set out above. CPD is important to you because the first 3 years of CPD comprise the New Practitioners Programme, where the requirements are more onerous and where you need to do it in order to get your practising certificate renewed. Default later in your career leads to a financial penalty only - at least in the first instance for first time offenders.

Questions:

Do you finish the BVC ready for pupillage? If not, why not? If so, then is anything you are taught on your BVC course extraneous? Please note, this is not a question about the competence of your tutors.
Do you finish pupillage ready for practice? I don't know how many pupils read this blog, but your comments are welcome.
Is the balance between the 'black letter' academic subjects and the practical 'skills based' subjects right from your perspective? This question includes what you have learned at University or on the CPE.
Rate your BVC. Please note - I will pay more attention to non-anonymous comments or comments that provide me with an email address to reply to. You can email me directly on this - address on the left and I will post your comment anonymised if you ask me to. I will also pay more attention to reasoned comments. That you find your tutors' clothes offensive or wish that they had a beard, or that they had classed you as very competent on every piece of work is not reasoned.

I am also interested in your experiences of ratios of students to instructors, both in pupillage and on the BVC, especially in advocacy exercises. If your BVC provider is over-subscribed you should now know about it. If you hadn't been told, would you have noticed?

Then there is the students' side of it. From the Profession's point of view we want competent barristers who adhere to what it still the best Code of Conduct of any profession in my view, with the least defaults and with (more importantly from my perspective) a positive sense of wanting to do the job honestly and in the interests of justice. That is why I am proud to be a barrister. That inevitably means some over-supply (unless only people with offers of pupillage get to do the BVC).

From the students' point of view, is the qualification (non-practising as it now is, of course) worth the aggro, the money, the disappointment and the time? Assume for a moment that you either do not want pupillage (at least in the UK) or do not get it. What is it that would make you think that your time was not wasted? Is there anything? How much aggro, money, disappointment and time is justified by your hopes and dreams, assuming they come to nothing?

I know that this is special pleading because I am on the damn thing after all, but I had not met any of the Education and Training Committee before the meeting we had on Tuesday night and I was impressed (whether they were is another matter). I was also asked specifically what I was hearing on the blog, by the Chairman. So I believe I can honestly say that people are listening.

Lastly, the BVC visits include one to Leeds and if Chambers can spare me I am going to go. So, if you read the blog and want to say hello I will try and fit in some time for that on the same day (currently proposed to be the 4th March 2008 I think). I will keep you posted - let me know.

Remembrance Day

2007-11-11T12:52:00.000Z

Ruthieslaw on today. I recommend it.

Exposed

2007-11-08T11:04:00.000Z

Having just done a podcast with fellow QC Charon (not, however, in my Chambers), I am hyperventilating quietly. As I suspect is the case for most of us, my initial reaction on hearing myself speak is to wonder who that prat is. That was quickly followed by exactly the process I go through as I come out of Court; namely asking myself why I said what I said in the way that I said it and berating myself for not saying other things, whilst simultaneously wondering at my own idiocy (I know how many tenancies there are - 533 - so why did I say I didn't?). I also counted the number of times I said "uuummm", but stopped when I started crying.

If that is to give the impression I didn't enjoy it (surely not - Ed), that would be entirely false. Like most barristers I like the idea of being allowed to pontificate on things. The great American comic Tom Lehrer defines a philospher as someone who enjoys giving advice to people who are happier than he is. If the cap fits...

But do have a listen and see if it helps.

Fame at Last

2007-10-24T17:16:00.000+01:00

Well, sort of. I am apparently having a debate with Dr Tallis. I didn't know that when I wrote the piece, but there you go - and Chambers have put it on our website. Feel free to comment. Now I really am going to Venice.

Sorry

2007-10-23T15:13:00.000+01:00

I have not abandoned you all, but the trial took up a lot of time and was slightly complicated by the acquisition of number 4's virus, from which she naturally recovered in about 48 hours but which seems to like to linger on in adults. Consequently, I have been doing my paperwork and going to bed early.

Now I am leaving for Venice in 24 hours in order to celebrate 20 years of marriage. It seems appropriate to go somewhere where you can conclusively demonstrate to your other half that they do not make you want to jump off a bridge...

More when I get back.

Respec'

2007-10-11T22:01:00.000+01:00

Ask and ye shall receive. Anon left what appears below as a comment on the previous post. But given that s/he has responded quickly, bravely and comprehensively, I post it so it can be given proper prominence.

"I think your post raises a number of issues; I can't hope to cover all of them in 1 reply, so I'll deal with the principal ones for the time being. I'll nail my colours to the mast and admit that I'm linked to one Provider (a very good one at that) and that I've posted a number of times on your Blog. Apologies, therefore, if I repeat points I've already made.

1). The idea that (all?) BVC Providers are engaged in extortion is, in my view, offensive. As I've said before, the level of fees is driven by the demands of the Bar Council in terms of resources, the fact that the Course is a true cost course (not "subsidised" by HEFCE) and the fact that, like it or not, Tutors with real practical experience (and we have some who sit as Deputy DJ's etc.) don't come cheap.
The figures in respect of BVC places versus pupillages aren't hidden and anyone with a genuine commitment to the profession should be able to carry out their own research. No Provider forces students onto its Course - in fact we turn away more than three quarters of those who apply.

2). The idea that you can spot an Outstanding student on day 1 is, in my view, outlandish and smacks of a colouring of judgment or a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are 13 Assessment points on the BVC, the overall grade of Outstanding requiring 8 awards of Oustanding in individual assessments or an aggregate of 85%. Given that many students will have no experience of the vast majority of skills / subjects taught, it would be impossible to identify an "all-rounder" at this early stage.

3). Some Providers hand out awards of Outstanding and Very Competent like Smarties, potentially undermining other Providers' efforts. Fortunately we can rely on our reputation but it does make one wonder whether some students simply look for the "easy" Course.

4). We should ask ourselves why the BSB doesn't police Providers' validated numbers more rigorously / at all. Allowing certain Providers to routinely exceed their numbers distorts the market and may very well have consequences in respect of student quality / satisfaction.

5). We score every application in respect of A levels, degree expected / attained, mini pupillages undertaken, experience of contested advocacy / public speaking etc. Convince me that an admissions test would better this and please explain your barrister sift to a barrister of >15 years' call - is it an interview, is it by committee or by 1 individual, what criteria would be employed etc.

Does this kickstart your debate?"

To answer the last question: Yes. Thank you.

I shall deal with the sift when I'm not doing an opening in a particularly unpleasant cruelty case, whilst simultaneously preparing to cross-examine 4 medical experts in a second case and trying to sort out a strike-out application in a third. Of course, like all barristers, when I'm not that busy I panic that no one wants me. Chambers is used to it.

News From the Frontline

2007-10-11T18:49:00.000+01:00

I have friends (all right, acquaintances) all over the country, one of whom lectures at a BVC course. Wishing to keep themselves up to date they have been following the various debates and one has sent me some information. I have anonymised this, but I have preserved the proportions and the essential message.

Let us assume that this BVC course has 55 people. Of those, 6 got pupillage in the year we are talking about (one of the last 3). That is a success rate of about 12%.

Of those pupils, 4 received the result 'Outstanding'. The staff had predicted 3 of those 4 Outstandings on the first day.

The 2 remaining successful students got their pupillage with the grade 'Very Competent'. They got that grade - and so did 47 other people. As already mentioned there were 4 Outstandings, and there were 2 'Compentents'. 47 people achieved 'Very Competent' and failed to obtain a pupillage.

Some students were told, after the course, that they were unlikely to obtain a pupillage, in the opinion of those practising barristers who had taught them. Those with 'Very Competents' generally rejected the advice on the basis of their grade and at least 5 had another go. That, of course, meant that the next year there were not 55 (assuming the intake to have been the same), but 60 people from this particular BVC competing for the same pupillages.

So where, asks my informant, is the added value of the course? And, says my informant "It is obviously not in the course providers' interest to comment on an individual's prospects; it is the Bar which must do this by way of an admissions test. If the above results are replicated in other institutions it would seem relatively easy to devise a fair test to weed out those who would never get pupillage. Even if the failures were still able to sit the bvc at least they had been fairly appraised and informed of their chances; the rest is up to them."

I agree.

However nice it is to get a Very Competent, it loses its meaning if it is the grade given to 49/55 pupils (89%). I have previously said that your BVC grade is unlikely to be helpful unless it is an Outstanding, and only likely to sink you if it is not a Very Competent - and this is why. Exciting expectations is unfair. Asking for a large sum to complete a course which then provides no grade upon which Chambers will rely is unfair.

I would really welcome comment on this by BVC providers - anonymously if required. If nothing else I would like to be wrong in my rather gloomy view that some people are spending a lot of money for nothing and that those people could be identified before they signed the cheque and warned. After that if they proceed with the course, that's fine - it's a free country.

In an effort to encourage debate I propose that the collective noun for BVC providers might be: an extortion. Yuck.

Collective Nouns

2007-10-08T21:00:00.000+01:00

I thought I would try to assist so that you all know where you are when it comes to interviews. Everyone agrees that these are accurate; use them without fear.

Lawyers: a bore
Silks: an egotism
Circuit Judges: a squabble
High Court Judges: a self-satisfaction
Lay Magistrates: a worry
District Judges (Crime): an irritation
District Judges (Civil): an arbitrariness
Recorders: an ambition
Juniors below 10 years call: an aspiration
Juniors above 10 years call: an envy
Members of Pupillage Committees: a nightmare
Pupillage Applicants: a beg
Pupils: an ASBO (thank you Charon - too good not to include)

All other suggestions welcome.

Here Are the (Frankly Bizarre) Results of the Blog-Readers' Jury

2007-10-07T19:14:00.000+01:00

A whole year's worth of students have now been able to vote in the polls to the left of this post. The results are statistically irrelevant (139/144 votes out of 17,000 visits and, I assume, less than 17,000 visitors) but are worth analysing anyway.

On the BVC question, 48% of voters wanted the bar to be raised to require a 2:1. Why? You are unlikely to obtain an interview without a 2:1 - therefore, the proposed alteration would, in fact, alter nothing. What's more, the pressure would then be on the Universities to lower standards so that a 2:1 was obtained by more people - otherwise why bother to pay for a law degree? This was a truly bizarre vote. The 8% who voted to leave the system as it is were at least being intellectually consistent. Having said that, Anya has put an alternative view in the comments section to which I direct you, because it is worthy of attention.

28% wanted a barrister sift. Why so few? You cannot get pupillage or tenancy without a barrister sift. Why would anyone want to delay it for a year just so that they could shell out £12,000 all of which is absolutely irrecoverable?

I am afraid that there is a strong whiff of inability to receive bad news here. It sounds to me as if the lemmings are voting not to have a signpost at the top of the cliff, in the hope that this means that someone kind has put a trampoline at the bottom. No doubt the legal education providers are cracking open the Bolly even as I write.

60% of those without an offer wanted another go of some description. I can understand that result if there has been no barrister sift. After all, if you have blindly ploughed ahead with the BVC it must be dispiriting when reality finally kicks the door in.

I have real sympathy with those 27% who wanted just one more go - the system is so overwhelmed with candidates who are astonishingly similar that being overlooked is all too easy. But the 33% who believe that multiple applications prove commitment are in a different category. How many people are going to say "this is my ninth year of applications and so far I have failed - but just look at my commitment!"? And, if you aren't going to say that, then why on earth did you answer the question as you did?

A further 24% were prepared to do a job they didn't want to do on the off chance that they might be able to find a way to be a barrister by doing it. Why? This is your life - if you can't be a barrister that's sad, but why on earth not look for something else that you want to do? Even if I grant that half of people answering this way felt they might quite like being a solicitor (and why not?), that leaves 17 people who ought really to be looking for a job in the field of professional masochism - shame there isn't going to be an election then.

Hats off to those who said they would happily join the CPS. At least they know what they want.

This is not meant to sound discouraging. I hope you all succeed and I am absolutely positive that, if I were allowed to speak to each and every final year law/CPE student for as long as I wanted, I would only select about half of those who ultimately succeeded. But I also think I would select 70% of those who would not succeed no matter what. And they would include most of the people in the voting majority on this site.

Please: do mini-pupillages - more than one and in more than one place; look up the junior tenants where you went and compare your academic record to theirs to see if it stands up; compare your real-life experience to theirs (particularly important for mature entrants); try and find someone who will disinterestedly tell you if you will make it in their Chambers (every barrister will tell you that you will make it in someone else's Chambers) - try the person who you did the mini-pupillage with and ask yourself what it means if they don't say yes; ask yourself how hard you are prepared to work to look up the law, discover and arrange the facts, look up your opponent, look up your solicitor, look up your Judge, look up your client, discuss your opponent and your Judge with a colleague, discuss your best point and your worst point with another colleague and if the answer isn't "24 hours straight if necessary" then think again.

After that, if you think you have a decent chance, apply for the BVC.

I can write the "you unsympathetic depressing bastard. What about encouragement and good cheer?" comments myself. But the reality is that there are about 550 pupillages for the 2,500 or so of you BVC students out there. How many of there are you? I don't know for sure because the last figures I have seen on the web relate to 2003. The BSB website says that the provider websites tell you how many places there are - but as far as I can see they don't (something I shall be raising). And the above assumes that you are already on the BVC (see above). However, thanks to 'Anonymous' I can now point you all here and, having done the maths, the numbers are 1816 full time students, and 324 part-time students, making 2140 in all. Given that Anon says that the College of Law regularly exceeds its validated numbers (anyone from there care to comment?), 2,500 looks like a fair assessment.

I believe that the chances are about 1 in 3. That is because the remainder of the candidates have no genuine chance at all. If you are one of those then neither I nor anyone else does you a service by encouraging you to chase a dream without prospect of success. If you can identify yourself as such a person then I am sorry but the Bar is terribly unlikely to be for you.

Ok, thank you for listening. You can all start shouting now...

Administrative Note

2007-09-21T08:28:00.000+01:00

I have no problem with anonymous comments, as I have repeatedly made clear. However, the thread on Universities below has got a little tangled. Can I therefore urge prospective commentators who wish to preserve anonymity to indulge their imaginations and give themselves a nom de plume? When I took Bar Finals one had to invent a name to show that one knew how to sign an Opinion and a Pleading. Thus was Lydia Dustbin born, although the late Fiona Dix-Dyer went one better and referred to herself as Kizmee Hardy throughout. Alternatively, you could be "Pissed-off Student" or "Future Brick Court Tenant". It just helps to make clear who is arguing with who.

Tomorrow is the Day of Atonement - no food or drink for 25 hours and a long time (in my case 10 hours plus) in the Synagogue. Quite apart from the spiritual benefits (religious people demonstrably live longer, which arguably says something about how much the Almighty wants us), I regard it as good training for preparing a long case. For those of you observing the holy month of Ramadan and currently fasting every day, I extend my admiration and hope that it brings the religious and spiritual benefits for which you pray.

What Is a Good University?

2007-09-18T10:27:00.000+01:00

Hoo boy. I am sure that no one ever advised me to sail straight ahead into the trouble that I see brewing. However, I have been asked (by 'Anonymous' - it's all right for him/her) to give a list of good universities. I am doing so because it may help. As will become clear, the sooner this list is assembled on different criteria to peoples' current prejudices the better.

Can I make it clear that this is not a judgement on the Universities. Nor is it a judgement on the students. It is simply a list of what most pupillage committees would, in my view, think was a good university. I may be wrong. I have left out Oxbridge as being self-evident. They are in no particular order.

Durham
Bristol
Kings London
LSE
UCL
Warwick
Manchester
Leeds
Birmingham
Liverpool
Nottingham
York
Sheffield (in Yorkshire anyway)

To which Martin (who has his ear close to the academic ground) adds:
Southampton
Queens
Belfast
SOAS
Aberdeen
Edinburgh
Leicester

And removes York. I certainly agree with the Scots and Irish choices although you don't see too many Scots law degrees in England.

I ought to add that, personally, I always rated Keele as well. They teach law slightly differently and I always found that the people from there had independent minds.

And, after further representations:
Newcastle
Hull
Exeter
Cardiff (better in Wales I suspect)

This is clearly what people would expect. It takes almost no account of non Russell-Group institutions and no account of new universities. But that is how it is.

There are two things that make a difference. Firstly, if you are applying to provincial Chambers then local is almost always a help, even if it is a new university. Secondly, if you have a first I would regard that as more important than where you went. That may not be true of the 'top' commercial sets, although it should be. And I think that a 1st is a 1st, regardless of the breakdown of marks. If that's what your degree certificate says, then that's what you've got. Anywhere that says, 'Not a very good 1st' is to be avoided because the people are likely to be deficient as people.

This list will, hopefully, be out of date soon. As a new generation comes to the Bar I suspect that they will change the perceptions and be on pupillage committees which have different priorities. Where you went to University reflects your A level results. Your A level results reflect your school. Your school reflects the advantages you started off with. We do not, in other words, yet have a reliable method of measuring raw talent. But the sooner we (and indeed Universities) start to look at distance travelled rather than current point, the better the profession will become.

One last point. This list, in my experience, indirectly discriminates against one particular category of applicant, namely Asian women. For reasons that my Mother and her parents would understand perfectly, traditional Asian families are less than keen for their daughters to go away from home. Thus a disproportionate number of good female Asian candidates seem to attend universities (new or old) close to home. Comment from those who really know would, as ever, be helpful.

Scribbler, in an excellent comment which I entirely accept, and urge you all to read, points out that mature students are discriminated against in the same way, often having ties which limit their movements. I agree.

Hands Across the Sea

2007-09-17T17:26:00.000+01:00

I happened on an American site, Defending People: The Art and Science of Criminal Defence Trial Lawyering, the other day and commented on one of the posts about cross-examination. The reply was to highlight this site and to start a debate about whether statements have a use in cross-examination and whether the advice to never ask a question to which you don't know the answer is good.

The site is interesting and Mark Bennett seems to know what he's about. It may be worth a look when you are getting ready for your practical exercises.

To assist further I could publish the lecture I gave last year on cross-examination in civil cases. However it's about 14 pages long, so before I do so one of my technically adept readers (this normally means Martin George but it could be you) will have to tell me how to put it on a separate page. It's nice to give something back...

PS. Thank you Martin. It should now be available if you go here. Actually, if you search the Park Court Chambers website you can get all sorts of useful PDH versions of seminars.

Miscellany-at-Law

2007-09-10T20:12:00.000+01:00

Sorry for being so quiet but three things are happening simultaneously. Firstly, I am really busy and I am finding the work particularly difficult (I had hoped this would stop but it seems not). I also have a lecture to give next week - the detail was late arriving and, when it came, seemed to envisage that I had nothing to do for the next week but research one talk. Not so. Secondly, it is coming up the Jewish New Year and I am trying to get myself sorted out. As it is primarily a spiritual rather than a social event, this is actually quite demanding - I ask myself, is it possible to have too much prayer? Thirdly, I can't really think of anything to say so have not said anything. This follows advice from my pupil master who used to tell me 'when you've finished, stop'.

However, a glance at my bulging in-tray prompts me to recommend a magazine called Counsel. Aggravatingly, Counsel does not have a website, but it is published by Lexis-Nexis and is available to students for half price - i.e.£36 per annum. I have to say that this still seems expensive so I suggest either that a group of you club together, or that you demand that your institution purchases it.

If you already have access to it then do read it. It is not that it is a marvellous literary endeavour, but it gives you a real sense of the issues concerning the profession both great and small. For example, the section in the middle (known as Bar News which used to be a separate publication) this month gives guidance about clerks signing papers for barristers. This is also a job regularly given to pupils. With a bit of wit it should be possible to work that into an interview and thus demonstrate an easy familiarity with the day-to-day issues and a keeness to be up-to-date on professional matters; both of which speak of mini-pupillages closely observed and well spent (but don't overdo it - it is the dressing, not the main course).

This is the time of year at which I am supposed to repent my failings (it may be possible to understand why I have been so busy). Accordingly, if I have unwittingly upset or insulted anyone in either a post or a comment I apologise. If I was slightly brutal, it was motivated by an anxiety to communicate a point I really wanted to make, rather than a wish to be nasty (even you TB). I am genuinely concerned that you are not put off by this blog unless it is because you have made an honest and independent assessment, for whatever reason, that the Bar is not for you. Also, thank you to those of you who have said nice things - it is genuinely encouraging to be told that this blog helps.

Finally, along the same lines as reading Counsel, a list of legal books which have nothing to do with substantive courses but which can be casually dropped into conversation in order to demonstrate a keeness for the law which, strangely, Chambers seem to like. Most of these will have to be obtained at second hand bookshops...

The Novels of Henry Cecil. These are slightly outmoded but good on how the Bar was and to an extent still is. Certainly, your interviewers will wish it was still this way. They are also humorous if not laugh out loud.
Forensic Fables by O (not, please, to be confused with the pornographic author of the same initial). Think Aesop for lawyers. Even your interviewers may not have heard of these but they are excellent and for the cognoscenti.
The Irish RM, and if you can't get the book try the video as it was made into a TV series by (I think) the BBC a few years ago.
The Novels of Cyril Hare. These are crime thrillers written by a barrister. They aren't particularly my thing, but they do portray the Bar with accuracy.
Rumpole. These always make me slightly depressed - no one I know is this cynical. But the Bar is portrayed relatively realistically providing you allow for an exaggeration factor of 500%.
May It Please Your Lordship by ES Turner. This is a potted history of various appalling Judges and will make you feel better about your first Crown Court/County Court appearance, whatever it is.
Miscellany-at-Law by Robert Megarry. Three collections of the weird and wonderful.
The Little World of Don Camillo. This has nothing to do with the law at all but I am currently rereading it for about the 95th time and it is so lovely that I feel like giving it a mention.

There are also books by David Pannick and Geoffrey Robertson which I would be reading if applying to Doughty Street or Blackstone Chambers. However they are more textbooks than light relaxing reads.

Of course, none of you have any spare time. Hah.

New Term, New Beginnings

2007-09-03T11:39:00.001+01:00

Safely back, tanned and rested. Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. My destination remains a secret although that means I am fending off comments about holidays in Skegness. But it included my nephew's Barmitzvah and lots of deli sandwiches (clue).

In the past few weeks lots of you will have handed over cheques ranging from between £7,000 to £12,000 (approx) for your BVC courses. Will you get value for money?

I have done some research which I set out below:

Fees:
ICSL - £12,770 4
College of Law London/Birmingham - £12,080/£9,900
Northumberland - £7,000
BPP London/Leeds - Not published on website but £13,000 – which may explain the silence (Thanks to Seahorse)
Manchester £8,500
Cardiff - Not published but £8,000 + (thanks to Rhadamanthus)
Nottingham - £9,700
Bristol - £8,600

Scholarships:
ICSL - 4 as a rebate
College of Law - No
Northumberland - No
BPP As a rebate and it looks like 7 for both sites
Cardiff - No
Nottingham - No
Bristol - No

Pass statistics - only Bristol

Pupillage Statistics - only Bristol although Manchester includes a warning that pupillage is hard to come by. However, Seahorse was told that the figures were:
Bristol: about 25% (now 30% according to the website)
BPP: 45-60%* (including those with a pupillage before taking up their place)
College of Law: 50%
Northumbria: 10%
Nottingham: 60%

The website's are pretty shoddy on any view. I found the BPP website long on waffle and short on critical information. One can only hope it doesn't produce barristers in the same mould. Cardiff was virtually useless (virtually - ha! Geddit?). Northumberland didn't even really try to sell itself. Manchester, Nottingham, the ICSL and The College of Law sold themselves on the basis of waffle about dedicated teaching and contacts with the Bar. I would have thought that those things were a given, but perhaps not. Only Bristol has the guts to confront the difficult questions and to give truthful answers. Hats-off to them.

When I have a moment I shall get on the phone and ask some questions. In the meantime, if you know what the pass rates/pupillage rates are then please let me know. This would be helpful information.

Having paid your money to take the Chance card, I hope that you are getting decent careers advice. Please let me know.

As a cautionary tale, I have recently spoken to someone who had been advised by their BCL Tutor at Oxford that commercial law was out of the question for them because their BCL (!) result was not good enough. I was able to offer reassurance that getting a place on, and passing, the BCL was good enough for almost everyone, but it did make me wonder why Oxford University allowed such cobblers to be spoken in its name. The same 'advisor' also said that the qualifications held by my caller would 'probably' be good enough for crime and family law. The rampant snobbery implicit in such a comment should, in my view, persuade the University to allow the genius to try his hand at real practice and see how he gets on. I live in hope, but not much expectation...

I think the moral is to ask more than one person. And to read this site of course. In the hope that some of you, at least, are new readers, please read the posts on the top of the list which are designed to take you through the basics. And providing you keep your comments polite (ish), anything goes.

Good luck and try and enjoy yourselves, at least a little. Oh yes, and don't behave like this when you qualify!

Holidays

2007-08-17T15:51:00.000+01:00

This blog is on its holiday from early Sunday morning for 2 whole weeks. About 6 years ago I took my laptop away with me - never again. Holidays are about learning two things. Firstly to say 'I don't care' when someone tells you it's urgent. Secondly, that the world spins round even when you aren't in constant contact with it. Consequently there will be no posts, no comments, not even a postcard.

However, those who are here should feel free to comment as usual. Upcoming topics include the OLPAS form (suggestions for improvement gratefully received), CV's, how good is the BVC course, how good are the BVC providers, how helpful are mini-pupillages to the consumer and how best to spend the year in between applications. Plus any other topics you may like to suggest.

Now that you know what next year holds and things have calmed down a little I hope the next couple of weeks are about r'nr. Even if you didn't get an offer this year and are depressed (though determined to give it another go) you are entitled to a holiday. If you are starting in September/October, believe me you need one.

I am not a good enough person to hope that it stays dry and nice. When I leave the country I want the weather to justify my choice of holiday date. However, I am prepared to hope there are no more floods. Until September...

Deferral of Call Update

2007-08-13T12:48:00.000+01:00

It's a busy day today. The BSB has now published its full report. Pupils are to be described as 'Pupil Barristers' and those who never undertook pupillage will not be on the online register at all. The scheme will, hopefully, come into force in January 2008.

Only the Young Barristers' Committee believed that call should be deferred. According to their response there is agreement as to the issues. It is simply that the YBC reaches a different conclusion.

In my view there are 2 cheers due here. Firstly it would have been a shame to lose the description pupil which, in my view, more accurately describes the position than the word 'trainee'. Secondly, deferral of call is a bad idea. However, the length of the exercise and its (presumed) cost are concerning. There should, in my view, be a better balance between transparency and speed/efficiency.

MA Update (Hat-Tip Publawyer)

2007-08-13T12:19:00.000+01:00

Publawyer has done some research on the vexed question of further degrees about which I posted at the beginning of July. The fact that research has been done is a huge step forward - I have not been able to find any equivalent exercise. The results can be viewed here.

Once one removes the BCL, the doctorates (a quite different level in my view and one that qualifies the holder as a genuine academic) and those MA's which represent a qualification from Harvard or the Sorbonne etc, it seems to me that about 90 of 350 barristers surveyed had a 'standard' MA - about 25%. I would dearly like to know what those courses represented and who provided them.

As you will see, about half the pupils from sets offering large pupillage awards had an MA. But I suspect that the BCL, Harvard et al are included within that figure (a quick search of top tier London Chambers' websites confirms this view). That would mean that of about 180 people surveyed from Chambers with a pupillage award of greater than £30,000, perhaps 40 had a 'standard' MA - about 20%. Again, I would very much like to know who the provider was and what the actual course was. All help gratefully received.

For the time being I remain of the view that a 'standard' MA offers no assistance to getting a pupillage unless directed squarely at the area of law in which Chambers specialises. On the other hand, it clearly doesn't hurt either. And the BCL, Harvard etc are plainly of huge assistance.

Publawyer's take is below: my comments are in purple (I have simply posted his/her last comment below because I have no email address to ask for permission. If I am asked to remove this bit then, of course, I will. In the meantime - many thanks).

"If people think it would be helpful then I'm happy to try and expand on this a bit and separate out the various courses and institutions. One potential problem, from my random sample anyway, is simply that some qualifications are not accurately described. It's tempting to conclude that any such qualification simply isn't relevant - I can understand why some non-relevant qualifications might be included to bolster an online CV (which is effectively what these profiles are), but I can't see any reason why anyone would downplay a BCL or a Harvard qualification, etc.

You're also quite right to point out that figures for the various levels of pupillage awards include all postgraduate qualifications lumped in together. From a quick look at my raw data there are 26 'regular' MAs from the 181 highest paying chambers. That is about 15% rather than the 20% I postulate above. The breakdown is:
24 BCLs
26 LLMs
26 MAs (may include some LLMs simply labelled as "Masters")
8 MPhils
9 PhDs

Things that surprised me included:
1. Almost half those who took on an advanced research course finished with an MPhil and did not progress to a PhD. I am not so surprised. A legal MPhil is only relatively rarely a waystation on the way to a PhD.
2. Some people feel happy to describe their university education as "x College, Oxford" without the merest clue as to the course or class of degree. Probably not Law and almost certainly an indifferent classification...

I suspect all of this isn't going to offer much solace to some of the people who originally asked these questions. If they wanted an extra qualification to boost an unexceptional first degree then a BCL is going to be closed off to them. I would also have thought, but may be way off the mark here, that an extra qualification on it's own is only useful (if it has any merit) in getting past a sift and through to interviews. Once the decision has been made to interview then the eventual decision is surely based more on interview performance. Not my personal view, but certainly tenable.

This is perhaps where an MA might be useful - if you can take enough from the course that you are a better speaker and more accomplished interviewee then it will be of benefit. If you register on a course simply to inflate your CV and fill a gap on the OLPAS form then it isn't going to improve a poor interview performance. This might also explain the high quantites of BCL graduates - the course simply makes better lawyers than a standard MA so they consequently interview better." In my opinion the BCL demands a particularly high intellectual standard and the people who have done it also have the reassurance that such attainment provides.

Deferral of Call

2007-08-08T12:35:00.000+01:00

As you probably know, the BSB has announced that deferral of call is a non-starter. The issue was whether pupillage had to be completed first. The answer is 'no'.

The reasons are that deferring call would deter non-UK students and would make the question, 'who/what is a barrister?' less than clear. Instead there is to be an online register of barristers holding a current practising certificate.

I don't myself favour excluding all those without a pupillage from the profession. Not only do I accept the point about overseas students, but to do so would essentially amount to declaring the BVC only a half-way house (it would be interesting to see any submissions the BVC made on this issue).

The risk would be that good applicants were lost to the profession if you had to have a pupillage before getting a BVC place. If it were possible to have the open competition before the BVC then I would be in favour of doing it that way and simply admitting those with pupillage plus those signing a declaration that they had no intention of practising in this country plus those signing a declaration saying that they intended to seek pupillage later but understood that they could not call themselves a barrister even if they passed the BVC with distinction. But this would put Chambers in the position of acting like a clearing house for all those who failed to achieve a 2.2 - and perhaps any higher offer Chambers demanded - and seems impractical. There is also the question of whether the BVC providers would be prepared to continue on those terms. The economics would appear against them.

There is to be a formal statement issued by the BSB 'shortly'. Whilst the new system will clearly differentiate between practising and non-practising barristers. I don't know how it is going to discriminate between non-practising (never had a pupillage) and non-practising (taking a career break). Perhaps it doesn't matter.

None of this is as good as a sift in my view. The poll currently has the sift at 29% and a 2.1 only qualification at 46%. I think this is a real mistake - we are already screening people on the basis of how they buckle down aged 17-18. Now we want to do it again when they are aged 18/19-21/22. Then they practice (all being well) for 40 years plus - or about 8 times the total combined period of the studying on which they are thereafter judged forever. Are we seriously saying that no one develops intellectually or in terms of effort between the ages of 22 and 65ish?

I am familiar with the argument that such a cut-off allows for certainty. But it doesn't. Not everyone with a 2.1 will get a pupillage. Nor does a 2.1 (which may be all of 1% removed from a 2.2) actually focus on, still less decide, the question of who will be a good barrister. In my view it is a lazy way of sorting out the problem of over-supply. This is an opportunity to try and work out what makes a person a good barrister. We should take it.

Vote now. :)

The, "Does My Arse Ego Look Big In This?" Competition

2007-08-03T14:16:00.000+01:00

The Bar Council is doing its research on Court Dress. This takes the form of a questionnaire sent to all members of the profession. I accept that this is not directly related to pupillage, but it has a indirect relationship because the public perception of the profession is important. Also, this is just too good an opportunity to miss.

I ought to say that I have already answered my questionnaire sensibly and responsibly and sent it back. Although one is allowed anonymity I have waived mine because I don't see why not. My views are simple - suits for all. I would extend this to criminal work as well, but I am content that many people feel that the wig and gown give a degree of anonymity and put young counsel on a par with more experienced practitioners. I don't actually think either of these things are true, but the perception is there and they add a degree of formality. Of course, new practitioners need to treat their wig as I did - tie it to the rear bumper of the car and take it for a mile long outing on a dry day. It won't come back white...

For any other sort of work the reality, as it seems to me, is that if we cannot, simply by our conduct, persuade members of the public that court proceedings are formal, that we are bright and articulate and that the case is as good as its substance then we are failing in such a spectacular way that we could wear crowns and tiaras and it would make no difference. For that reason, and in the interests of equality, I have also said that there should be no distinguishing mark of rank as between silks, juniors and solicitor advocates. This last was particularly hard - if you are tallish and thin with a tendency to stoop there is nothing quite so becoming as a tail-coat. Ah well - the bottom line, in my view, is that if you aren't good enough in a suit, you're not good enough.

I know that opinion polls suggest that the public would like us to retain wigs and gowns - or at least that this is what is said - a fairly careful search of Google reveals reference to such polls but no result which takes one to the poll itself. But I think this is beside the point. The public are taking about heritage. They like heritage. So do I. I think Beafeaters should look like they have just stepped out of a production of The Yeoman of the Guard and I get upset if they don't. But I don't expect them to be the first line of defence for the nation. The risk of the legal profession becoming part of the heritage industry is that, ultimately, it engenders less respect, not more.

I also find it slightly sad that so much effort is put into this issue. Compared to the Government's attempts to give us a criminal justice system slightly better than Burma's, who cares? The Bar Council is, I think, trying to gain the trust of the profession. They should have more faith - by and large people know that they are doing the best they can against tough odds. That some barristers succumb to the temptation to shoot the messenger is natural - but it shouldn't dictate policy.

Still, in an effort to enliven things a little I offer a prize. Traditionally this is a bottle of wine - in this case Leoville-Barton 1994 (not a great year but still very good, I promise). Alternatively, if you are teetotal or just would rather not have the wine I am prepared to offer an hours careers advice (face-to-face or on the phone). The prize is for the most amusing completed questionnaire, with special attention being paid to alternative dress suggestions, as opposed to the Bar Council's own. You do not have to send it in - but you do have to send it to me. The winning entry will be published and the winner can retain anonymity if desired. I reserve the right not to award the prize if nothing makes me laugh out loud - but I would like to get lots of entries and enjoy myself reading them. If you click on the Questionnaire link above it will allow you to fill in the form. My email address is simon.myerson@netserv.net Enjoy

Offers

2007-07-31T10:17:00.000+01:00

Not that a look left is supposed to make you nervous or anything. Besides, if you aren't nervous by now then you should check your vital signs.

Good luck all of you and I hope that things go the way you want. Please let me know.

If shit happens, please don't despair. Be cross, kick the cat, open a bottle of something, drink it, go to sleep - and then wake up, look out of the window and start planning. Trust me on this - there truly are more important things than your job. And please let me know.

For what it is worth - which I accept may not be much - this blog is thinking of you.

By Special Request - IT Law

2007-07-30T22:21:00.000+01:00

IT lawyers think it means IT as in Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Be kind to them. Obviously that particular fantasy needs correcting because no lawyer should put the professional reputation of every other lawyer in jeopardy. But let them think that IT means 'Information Technology', not 'Incredibly Tedious'.

Still, if you need your software patent protecting, have a view on whether Microsoft should incorporate Java, want to use Linux instead of Windows or Macintosh, are prepared to read up on GPL3 and go open source and know about VAX, Visual Basic, COBOL, C, C++, Fox Pro, Fortran, Z80 Assembler, Java, Ruby, Various 4GLs, XML, SQL and HTML, TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, Web application servers and frameworks such as Apache Tomcat and PHP///////////////// - oh I'm sorry, I fell asleep there for a minute. It's just so fascinating. Anyway, the great thing about IT lawyers is that they like to communicate by email (this is what a Blackberry is by the way. If you think - not that I ever did obviously - that you just wrote your message really small in white ink and posted it then you are irredeemably behind the times). So you never have to meet them. Which is a relief.

Advantages. Not everyone is interesting enough to be an IT lawyer so there might not be that much competition. Chambers are very laid back with open neck shirts and jeans the order of the day. This is to put the clients at ease since, obviously, the usual barristers' way of doing this - i.e. with their personality - is closed to IT lawyers. It is a developing area which means that your guess is as good as anyone elses. IT litigation is usually assigned to the Chancery Division so there is at least some chance of you appearing almost normal compared to other lawyers you meet. Your plumber will not be required as you will be able to flush your toilet via your intelliphone and your robot will do the repairs.
Disadvantages. All the Judges look about 16. Perhaps they are. Most of them are not listening to your case anyway because they are negotiating their own contract with a Magic Circle firm. If your Skeleton Argument will not open in 89 programmes running 16 formats with hyperlinks every other word, everyone will laugh at you. Most of your clients are start-ups so you will be paid in share options. This will allow you to wallpaper your house, but not much else. Alternatively you act for Microsoft and people shiver as you approach. Ultimately you are helping people have no free time at all and when you die your punishment will be to write by hand to everyone you ever emailed and tell them the story of your entire life. And you will deserve it.

News Just In

2007-07-27T16:35:00.001+01:00

The reason for the slight sense of mystery pervading this blog recently can now be made clear. I applied to, and have been asked to join, the new Education and Training Committee being run by the Bar Standards Board. It seemed to me that it wasn't terribly helpful to make that public before the powers that be made their decision - but things are different now.

So, please keep commenting. I am not promising to become a mouthpiece for anyone or any group. But I made it clear in my application and my interview (with competencies!) that I ran this blog and that it represented a way for potential barristers to discuss issues concerned with training. I do promise to ensure that the sense of the comments I get are reflected to the Committee. And, if I can swing it, I also promise to clue you in on what is being thought about and discussed. That may not be entirely possible and I believe in group action on confidentiality and matters akin to it. But I will do what I can.

Also, if you have not already done so - please vote in the poll.

The only fly in the ointment was missing the first meeting (last night). This is due to the fact that the DX failed to deliver the notice of my appointment until at least the 24th July, notwithstanding that the letter was dated the 17th July. So I didn't know about it because I wasn't in Chambers on Wednesday or Thursday. I am confident we will overcome the preliminary teething problem. Email is better...

Have a good weekend. I look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible.

Simon (please see post below)

Important Notice

2007-07-27T00:23:00.001+01:00

When you comment and you are addressing me PLEASE call me Simon. It is my name. I don't need the 'Mr' and it makes me feel about 700 years old. I do understand that the intials can be intimidating and that students tend to feel that respect is due. So, look at it this way:

I have teenage children. However you treat me, it will be respectful compared to what I am used to.
There was a time when every barrister called every other by their surname. The reason was that this was a familiar mode of address - everyone was equal. Today's equivalent is first names.

Thank you - really, really.

BVC Redux

2007-07-25T13:52:00.000+01:00

An interesting debate has been going on and, since it is a topic which attracts much interest I thought I would redact the various comments and, using my privilege as blog owner, state my own views.

The points which came up for discussion were:

Whether the Bar give as much weight to degrees from universities other than Oxbridge (and perhaps a few others) as they undoubtedly do to Oxbridge degrees.

Whether Oxbridge candidates generally have an easier ride and are more likely to get pupillage nowadays.

If so, whether that is because Oxbridge demonstrates academic achievement, greater all-round skills (albeit possibly deriving from greater opportunity) or simply social acceptability.

Whether the Bar is doing enough to recognise these concerns, ascertain whether they are real or apparent, and if real, address them.

How the Bar measures academic ability and the value of A levels

Whether the Bar's preoccupations are compatible with the government/society's vision

I think that's a fair summary...

Ok, my views: please note that these are personal only.

I think that the vast majority of Chambers give a 1st from anywhere a great deal of weight. I include ex-polys in that view. I'm not sure that Chambers have a process which weighs Oxbridge 1st against Leeds 1st against Reading 1st against John Moore's 1st (examples picked at random) - mine certainly doesn't. A 1st from anywhere says you are truly bright and will continue to do so, providing institutions do not start getting the reputation of making them easy.

As regards 2.1s I think that Oxbridge starts to count and it counts more the worse your degree is. That is firstly because it makes the job of selection simpler and people are attracted to that. But it also offers some support for the proposition that the final degree mark does not represent the best the candidate can do. At present, if you have a 2.2 from an ex-poly the chances of a pupillage are small enough to make the question of whether you should save your money and not do the BVC a real one.

There is no doubt that Oxbridge offers 'added value' when it comes to experiences and activities. They are big, rich institutions which have been ably led for a long time. And, employers (and Chambers) return year after year because the product is dependable. I think that means that if you want to get to the Bar via another university it may be necessary to try a little harder. And I also think that other universities should be establishing formal networks (the Oxbridge one is largely informal but that's all that is required when so many people know each other or have mutual acquaintances).

In my view there is no doubt that there is a problem with the genuine advantage Oxbridge offers in terms of proof of a certain intellect and opportunity, being confused with the 'done-deal'. It is only an advantage. For too many Chambers there is no need to look further - and that is really the social advantage that Oxbridge brings. In my view a positive effort is needed to eliminate that advantage. It is not based on rigorous analysis, but on sloppy thinking and a casual assumption that 'people like us' = 'a good thing'. Wrong.

The Bar, in my far from humble opinion, is not doing anything like enough. The Speakers for Schools programme is an admirable initiative as I have previously said. But it is a slow burner. What I think is required is that Chambers should publish their criteria for pupillage and their bases of assessment. I believe that these should be expressed as competencies (which is an effing horrible word I accept, but one which has the benefit of clearly meaning what it says) and made available via OLPAS. There should also be a procedure by which scores can be obtained by the Bar Council (and perhaps by disappointed individuals) so that the workings of the system can be objectively assessed.

There are three objections to my proposal. Firstly, it is another layer of time and (less so) money heavy expenditure in a profession in which people do this voluntarily. I agree. But I see no other way of overcoming the problem and my own view is that the disadvantages are overcome by the advantages of a fair and transparent process which inspires public confidence. Particularly in times like these, when the Government is displaying itself at its most untrustworthy and devious (and I have been a Labour voter and member almost all my life) we could do with that.

Secondly, the selection of pupils is a private matter for Chambers. I agree. In principle I would be in favour of letting Chambers opt out - providing that the fact was clearly signified and that Chambers accepted that some organisations (perhaps Government and Local Authorities and the CPS) might legitimately chose to ignore people in those Chambers when it came to allocating work.

Thirdly, that competencies do not provide good advocates and lawyers. I largely, but not entirely, disagree. If that statement is true then it is only because no one has thought hard enough about what competencies are required - and if that is so how good is the current system? Competencies are only ways of describing what Chambers are looking for. It is right, of course, that some qualities can only be estimated (a much better word than 'guessed at'). To that extent the wrong choices may be made. But so what? We have all met people who looked set for a bright future until they met Ms Chardonnay or Mr Glenfiddich. What this is about is setting a public standard which can be objectively assessed.

There would be no reason why Chambers could not define competencies that allowed a degree of 'does s/he fit' to be incorporated. But everyone would know, and if that factor was unduly weighed there would be some redress - even if only by publishing the fact. And people would need training, but again that is hardly an issue in a profession where 12 hours of continuing education a year is the maximum requirement for the majority of practitioners and where attending the Bar Conference (worthwhile as that is) gets you half way there.

In my view, some degree of 'distance travelled' should be incorporated into any competency requirements. I need to be careful to spare blushes here but I know two barristers. One went from a sink school to a good redbrick. The other went from a basic comp to Oxbridge. Both share the title of the quickest learners I have ever come across. The point is that educational attainment needs to be seen in context. At the moment we barely even try to do that.

I am suggesting no more than the system currently run for judicial appointment and silk. Those systems are often laughed at and I agree with that as well. But the reasons are not that the ideas behind the system are foolish. Rather they place too rigid a reliance on systems and less on actual assessment, and it takes too long - the silk application now seems to take over a year. I think, paradoxically, that is because the concerns with fairness manifest themselves in an exercise for referees that can take over an hour per applicant and a form that can easily take an applicant over 3 hours to fill in.

What I am advocating is a clear statement of what is required and criteria that force the interviewers'/assessors' minds to those criteria. At that stage the 'feel' factor comes in. Properly applied I believe in feel. Chambers have recruited on it for a very long time and it has usually turned out decent barristers. There is no reason to think it won't continue to do so. But the added factors should ensure, so far as it is possible, that the new recruits are also standing on a level track when the gun goes off. That's the point.

This would require a degree of trust on the part of the potential recruits as well. It is unfashionable to trust these days. People feel it far better (fun?) to seek justification of everything to the nth degree. But, in reality, society cannot operate like that. Calls on an individual or a body to justify themselves should be made when there is real evidence of something wrong, not just because people don't like the person, the profession or the decision. Or we will end up employing more people to check up on other people than to actually do the job - precisely the complaint now made about the NHS and the Education system of course. Those who can't - make sure other people can't either.

Feel free to comment. All barristers sound like their mind is made up whenever they say anything, but I am truly listening. I think the debate on the BVC was a pretty good one. Thank you - and keep going.

Blawgs

2007-07-19T11:24:00.000+01:00

Having spent some time recently trawling the world of legal blogs - or 'blawgs' as they are called - I have been impressed by the diversity (there's that word again) of what's on offer. Moreover, many of the sites have linked to me, for which I am grateful.

I have updated my Links section to return the compliment, and moved it to make life easier. I don't want to review the blog of any law student, because some of them comment here and it's wholly invidious for them and for me. However, I do want to make it clear that I read them, enjoy them and then cite them when I am talking to other members of the Bar about the state of legal education and pupillage prospects.

Other blawgs seem to fall into three categories: professional; knowledge-based and lighter discursive/gossip. Of the first I disclaim entirely any knowledge of solicitor blogs, save where I have come across the site by accident - as with John Bolch (see below). As to barristers - Legal Beagle (http://legalbeagleuk.blogspot.com/) has her finger on the pulse and Pupilblog (http://pupilblog.blogspot.com/) will give you a valuable insight into what is to come.

Of the knowledge based category, Martin George (http://www.martingeorge.org/) and John Bolch (http://www.familylore.co.uk/) are worth a read. Both have an academic take but are far from dry and are reliable sources of up to date legal information (although this is NOT a warranty). In the interests of transparency I disclose that Martin has commented here.

Of the discursive/gossip blawgs, Charon QC (http://charonqc.wordpress.com/) and Geeklawyer (http://blog.geeklawyer.org/) seem to be the most widely read. Both have linked to me and have mentioned particular posts on particular ocassions. Charon has 'self-awarded' silk - a far easier and cheaper process than the one I went through, and much to be recommended in my view. Geeklawyer is a barrister who is clearly an IT person as well. They deal with issues around the law, gossip, polemic (especially Geeklawyer) and the - often intense - world of the blawgger.

Which brings me to Ruthie's Law (http://ruthieslaw.wordpress.com/). This is a site with solid posts on criminal law, by the eponymous Ruthie and her (purported?) co-blogger 'Victorian Maiden'. The latter writes as if she has had a diet of Barbara Cartland and Mr Pooter's Diary fed to her since birth. Ruthie has a devoted fan club and clearly knows every blawgger in the world. If you like that sort of thing (I do) you will enjoy yourself.

Finally Liadnan (http://liadnan.livejournal.com/) seems to be a lawyer but has a more general blog which includes comment on current events as well as legal matters. All very laid back and casual.

As far as I know I am the only Silk blogging, other than in an official/semi official capacity as at the Bar Council. Victorian Maiden is said to be a Silk (by Ruthie) but doesn't show up in my search of the Bar Directory. However, many blawggers are anonymous so it is difficult to tell who is who. I have no problem with anonymity or Noms de Plumes: this blog is up front because it offers advice about a serious subject.

What is interesting is that blawgs encourage equality - as Troubled Barrister so regularly demonstrates here :). That seems to me to be a good thing.

P.S. I meant to ask: can someone email and tell me how to make the description of the blog include the link to it? Other people do that and I am useless. I know I am asking for free advice but come on people - look below and tell me I'm not entitled. Thank you (whoever you are) in advance...

PPS: And a word for Nearly Legal who has commented on this post and reminded me about his (I think, but it might be her) blog and triggered my guilt complex (what the hell do you expect - I'm Jewish). And a final word for Martin George who has let me show off by both embedding a link and knowing what to call it.

Speakers for Schools

2007-07-17T23:16:00.000+01:00

This is a Bar Council project which is hugely worthwhile. It sends barristers into any school that asks, armed with a slideshow and a template for a talk about the Bar. The aim is to reach the places we have not yet reached. Private schools tend (not always) to have decent careers advice. State schools tend not to be able to help about the Bar.

Why do I mention this? Well, you are off on your mini-pupillages. When your mpMaster (sounds like a rap artist but that is likely to be as close as it gets) asks what brought you to the Bar - and most do because it is a 'get them talking' type question - you fix them with your baby blues and say 'The Speakers for Schools project. It's brilliant. I bet you do it, don't you? No? You should - you'd be fantastic'.

You have killed two birds with one stone. You have flattered your mpM and s/he will remember it (try and tone it down a bit if you are of the same sex and heterosexual). You have done good for the future generations and the legal gods will smile upon you - when they have finished litigating in about 1,000,000,000 years time.

Also ring your school if you are still allowed contact and tell them to get in touch with Marissa Booker at the Bar Council.

Thank you for reading this public service announcement. I am off to try and hack Troubled Barrister's blog...

Light Relief

2007-07-15T13:16:00.000+01:00

This is very little to do with pupillage, but is possibly the best Judgement to be published this (or any other) year. It compares with the aprocyphal Judgement in the House of Lords, where the 4th Law Lord said 'I do not think there is anything I can usefully add' and the 5th Law Lord said 'I agree'.

It also shows what can happen when you mix up your brain and a certain spot about 3 1/2 feet further down and towards the back...

Go here, and enjoy: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/720.html

Countdown

2007-07-11T22:51:00.000+01:00

To those whose results are published in The Times today, well done and I hope you did as well as you wished. I rather like the thought of being labelled 'Competent' etc. When I did Bar Finals it was graded like a University exam and I got a Desmond, which was a good result. I was marshalling when the results came out and my 'friends' who were supposed to ring me went out drinking instead, leaving me waiting. I refused to drink the Champagne the Judges had got on ice for me until the Butler (yes, really) came in with a message he had 'taken from a rather drunk young gentleman who informs me he is certain of its accuracy, sir'.

The last I remember of the evening was my Judge going to bed, leaving me playing snooker with another resident/inmate of the lodgings with more stamina. The cue appeared to be curved about 60 degrees. I am certain that this was real and in no way attributable to drink. I was given the next morning off...

For those who have less than 3 weeks to go before Summer Season offers can be made, I wish you all good luck. Soon some - I hope all - of you will be flushed with success and dizzy with excitement. You will do as I did: go out with your mates, get pissed, ring home and fail entirely to recognise your own mother's voice - insisting that she is someone else. Or something like that.

When you have calmed down and sobered up do me a favour. Let me know what (if anything) I have suggested has worked for you. And let me know your thoughts on the OLPAS form and how it could be improved.

I have not forgotten the posts required. But I am waiting to see if I can offer rather more practical help than has previously been possible. That may not eventuate in which case I will tell you why not. I am not being deliberately cryptic - merely discrete. It is an unusual feeling.

The BVC - Again (and Update)

2007-07-08T11:34:00.000+01:00

I don't so this very often, but I am posting a comment left on the previous BVC thread by Becky. Firstly, I think it's exceptionally well argued (the fact that she supports a sift is only a small part of that - honest). Secondly, it exemplifies what total idiots some bright, well qualified people can be - and how lacking in basic good manners and empathy.

For what it's worth I think that London lags behind the provinces in this area. I am also less inclined to be kind than Becky. There is a degree of like chosing like. But there is also a need to see what one considers vital to professional success reflected back at you by the candidates. That is why diversity is such an issue and why people need to understand it. You don't actually need a brilliant degree to be a good barrister. You don't need to have understood business since you were 5 either - we don't ask the criminal bar to demonstrate its knowledge of how to jemmy a window. And self-confident people with an eye on what is best for the profession shouldn't need to see themselves in a candidate for pupillage.

Anyway, here is Becky's comment. She didn't leave an email address so I couldn't ask for permission. If she wants me to take it down, I will. So catch it whilst it's hot.

"For all the noble ideas that are being thrown at us by members of the Bar today, is there really the will to do anything about this particular chestnut? Your point about ½ day selection would be a victory for common sense. I would like to see the selection taken out of the hands of BVC providers (merciless, money grabbers that they are) and put back into the hands of the professionals. Full day workshops and a proper interview to decide on a person’s aptitude combined with a written exam and a bit of advocacy alongside the paper sift. That way at least it could be guaranteed that those who are making the cut do have some prospect of success in return for their money. Only then is the competition genuine for the pupillage afterwards (within the sterile confines of the concept admittedly).

However, this does cause me to itch all over. Allow me to indulge in a moment of comment on my situation. I have a good degree from a top 10 university with an excellent law department. I have interesting experiences (involving actual read life advocacy, none of your mooting for me). I got big scholarships from my Inn and university (based on merit I should add). I get interviews. I suspect it's not my attitude because I have had no negative feedback (there were people who more committed than you, that’s all…how? No really, HOW?)

I am not barrister-bashing (although the more removed from the profession I become, the more I do), but dear me, it is an old boys network isn’t it? I could make you gasp in horror as I recount my favourite interview story (its better with my impression, honest), from an unnameable London Chambers, where I was asked what my parents did for a living and had to endure a gasp and a round of ‘they must be so proud’ (incidentally, they are both cleaners and they are very proud).

What can I do in the face of such attitudes? And that’s the problem for most of us. Whatever we do with BVC entry numbers, further training, re-educating the selectors, you cannot get past the attitudes. Completely without blame, the vast majority of those who make the decisions are public schooled, privileged. Like chooses like, bless ‘em. I can understand that. We chose friends for our shared characteristics, be it sense of humour or common experience.

This does throw up a problem though. The Bar is becoming endemically worse. The competition is tough, therefore those getting chosen are from largely the same backgrounds (broad brush) because they are perceived as those most likely to be successful based on old stereotpyes. When I was at Bar School last year, the 7 people who had pupillage were Oxbridge bar one. To be frank, with a notable exception, they were no better than many others and a lot worse than some. The Bar can’t change society. It can’t do anything about inequality in education, distribution of means or any of the other variables that hamper the selection for pupillage. It can do something about levelling the playing field based on aptitude, as discussed, and I think this would inevitably trickle down to the profession. If the profession trusted the selectors at Bar School, they would be assured that those coming at them for pupillage must have some modicum of ability and then they could make decisions at interviews based on, what I consider to be the important things: relevant experiences, knowledge of the area, etc. Depressing.

But as my grandfather says, the percentage of those from different backgrounds now is better than it was, and that’s an encouraging thought, isn’t it? And I for one know I will be there for all of my precious 5 years trying my hardest to impress."

UPDATE: Lawyer 2 Be has discussed this matter at http://lawyer-2-be.blogspot.com/2007/07/calculating-risk.html. It is an interesting post and gives food for thought. The comments are also worth a read.

How Was it For You?

2007-07-06T18:58:00.000+01:00

My father was a Circuit Judge and we agreed early on that I would not appear in front of him. I breached the rule only once - when a bone-idle High Court Judge buggered off early on a Friday and left my very young client with no one in front of whom to plead guilty to a baby-shaking manslaughter save my father (to whom some mad person had given a license to try murders). Much negotiation later it was agreed that he would take the plea. I asked for a psychiatric report. He agreed I could have one. I asked for 6 weeks. He replied, "Mr Myerson, if you practised regularly in this court you would know that my invariable practice is to allow three weeks for the preparation of such a report." I suggested that he might make an exception. He replied, "Mr Myerson, I know of no reason to depart from my usual practice in this case. Do you?" I bowed so low that my wig stayed on only by a miracle and replied, "As you Honour pleases" in my most insulting and withering tone. I left the court.

Outside, the usher came up to me and handed me a note from the Judge. I opened it expecting perhaps an apology of sorts. The note said, "How was it for you?"

I mention this because I have been sitting this week and have had one of my former pupils before me doing a trial of some difficulty. I have always had a good deal of confidence in this particular pupil and they did not disappoint me (I am assuming they will not read this...). There were times when I was very proud. When I ruled against them on every conceivable point - as justice demanded, I might add - they too bowed low and said "As your Honour pleases" in as insulting a tone as they could manage. And afterwards I asked, "How was it for you?"

The reply, which I envy, was "Considering how you've been doing what you've been doing to me for the last two days, not too bad, especially now you've let go of my balls".

I thought it was very funny and I'm still laughing. Have a good weekend.

M.A.s and Other Further Academic Degrees

2007-07-01T17:04:00.000+01:00

This seems to be a big issue out there in the real world. I claim no real expertise - Cambridge gives you a free MA if you can stay alive for 3 years after you graduate. Maybe they feel that surviving the college food qualifies you for something. I went back with a group of my friends in gorgeous June weather (an ironic thought as my garden is currently 6 inches underwater and the dog's rubber duck is floating serenely under my study window). It was so nice by the river, drinking beer that there was a serious discussion as to whether the ceremony was worth going to.

However, in those far-off days the Bar was expanding. Nowadays people are looking for an edge and there is much debate about whether an MA provides it.

I have done some research on this and there are some clear conclusions. Unfortunately, they are the ones you could probably guess for yourself. Firstly, if you can do something like the BCL, or go to Harvard or the Sorbonne it helps. I suspect that is more because of what such qualifications say about your intellect than about what you learn on the degree course itself. If you want to go to one of the top commercial sets then you will either need such a degree or you need to have the top first in your year.

However, from there on down, there are no indications that having an MA is of material assistance. At middle ranking commercial sets, top criminal sets and top family sets the only MAs in sight are Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, The Sorbonne etc. And, even then, they are few and far between. The picture is the same at top provincial sets - if you get the chance to do the BCL etc then do it. Otherwise, given the number of people who do not have one, an MA does not seem to be an issue.

If one looks at poor sets (no names - it's more than my life is worth) then an MA is equally absent as a distinguishing mark.

Those findings match my own views and those of other people at the Bar to whom I have spoken. An MA, unless it speaks for you own intellectual prowess or (just possibly) it is bang on the money in terms of the area of law in which you wish to practice, is not going to get you a pupillage.

That isn't to say don't do it. The acquisition of knowledge for its own sake is one of humanity's noblest endeavours. If it helps you, interests you or answers a long felt need then by all means go ahead. Just don't expect it to give you an edge when you apply for pupillage.

I ought also to say that an MA - or any post-graduate degree - doesn't make you a better advocate either. Part of the problem today is that barristers are specialising too early. That means that those doing non-criminal and non-family work are not being trained in how to really get at a witness (unlike their Heads of Chambers, who almost invariably started off with a mixed practice). The net result is that whilst a lot of legal points are taken and Skeleton Arguments groan under the citation of authority for basic propositions, the actual business of extracting the facts and challenging the evidence is generally done better at the Criminal and Family bars than elsewhere. That, I am confident, will be a deeply unpopular view. Nevertheless, I hold it. Another post, another time...

As to what does give you an edge. It's still the usual (see below). A good degree; a good University; an interesting CV. In no particular order I list below some of the things that candidates did which made them stand out when I, or the people who I have consulted for this piece, interviewed them. These were things done after University, either because the people involved wanted a break or because they couldn't get a pupillage:

Worked for the guys in the USA who try and save death row prisoners
Qualified as a foreign lawyer
Spent a year working with earthquake victims in Armenia
Ran a Student Union
Lectured in law

Some Issues for the New A-G

2007-06-23T23:57:00.000+01:00

As Peter Goldsmith goes, it seems apposite to take a moment to reflect on the main issue for his successor which affects the Bar - the 'world-class prosecuting service' which is (allegedly) the CPS.

This is not a post about competence. Apart from anything else like discretion or tact, 2 things hold me back here. First I have a practice and Myersonettes need - nay demand - shoes, usually by the truckload. Second, Mrs M is a Crown Prosecutor and I retain a healthy respect for the integrity of my body parts (I ought to add, lest some of you were having unkind thoughts about my sources of income, that in 21 years of legal life together, Mrs M and I have adhered to a pact made when we were young and idealistic and she has never, ever, briefed me. Life is quite stormy enough without having to exchange full and frank views on the quality of the Brief or the sufficiency of the cross-examination over breakfast. But I digress).

The CPS is pursuing 'vertical integration'. That is to say, for those who do not speak corporatese, that the same lawyer does the pre-charge advice, charges, sees the case through committal and then prosecutes it in the Crown Court. I profoundly disagree with the concept. Mainly because in promoting 'ownership of the case' the CPS is promoting something which seems to me to be inimical to justice. Cases should not be owned - they should be dispassionately prosecuted. And that means an objective look at the strengths and weaknesses, which I fear they will not receive when an individual's end-of-year assessment is bound up with whether there is a conviction. It encourages failures to disclose, less than comprehensive reviews of unused material and tensions between the Prosecutor's duty to 'their' case and the duty to the Court.

I stress that I do not regard CPS lawyers as either incompetent or dishonest (see above). I would make the same comments if the idea was that the same barrister - not employed by the CPS - had the same role. Or if the defence functioned in an equivalent manner. The old bird on the top of the Bailey has her eyes bound for a reason. She is not bothered about who it is or what it is - her only concern is holding the scales so they are exactly horizontal until the tribunal of fact decides the case.

I do not believe that the CPS can be a world class prosecuting service if its aims are not first and foremost to achieve justice. However good the people and however good the systems, if they, rather than the pursuit of justice, are the main event then the focus is lost. It simply has to be the case that everything else must be subordinate to the need to achieve justice as best we can.

And, whilst I'm at it, I also believe that one mistake is too many. In an adverserial legal system (still the best option - a post for another time) there are lots of things that can go wrong. Witnesses can lie; investigation can be incompetent; barristers can be stupid; juries can be insane; judges can let their opinion show (or worse conceal their opinion and let it show only under a cloak of pretended objectivity). But all those things are human error and the system is designed to try and eliminate them. Vertical integration is a different issue: it inserts into the system a designed area of difficulty and tension that will inevitably lead to failure. Then what do we say - 'whoops I owned the case so entirely that I wouldn't let anyone else even look at it, let alone tell me I was wrong. Sorry.'?

I have talked about this to people with responsibility for it. They suggest two justifications. The first is job satisfaction for CPS lawyers. The second is budget. I believe these are the same answers. Job satisfaction is predicated on the basis that CPS lawyers want to prosecute as advocates. Some certainly do - but not all. And for those who do, the number who also want to give the pre-charge advice etc is vanishingly small. The CPS is aiming at the bar - offering interesting to work to those who might not get it in their current job. And they are doing it because Higher Courts Advocates (HCAs in the jargon) are cheaper than having to pay the Bar what Carter says is a fair sum for the work we do.

So, how much is this country prepared to compromise so that the new A-G can say that he has reduced the money spent on fat-cat lawyers? If the answer is that the costs are more important than the results then the Criminal Bar is in danger.

With that in mind, I also wish the Bar would think harder about pronouncements which satisfy some sense of moral righteousness but which, on examination, seem to me to be shallow and selfish. Specifically I refer to people who 'only defend' or 'only do work I believe in'. We are not supposed to believe in our clients - we are supposed to represent them. We are hookers, not lovers. And, if it's ok for barristers to only do work they believe in, then why shouldn't CPS lawyers 'own' their cases?

Moreover, every barrister who only does work they believe in, is taking advantage of a professional colleague who will accept whatever comes along. The irony being that it is the former who parade their consciences as if they were entitled to kudos (and who obtain the work of that band of solicitors who believe that the barrister must be on the side of what they define as the angels and against what they define as the bad guys).

Next, we have to address our minds to how we can reduce costs and deal with competition. There are genuine issues there and 'they shall not pass' is about as effective a defence as a chocolate teapot. Are we really such poor advocates that we can be manipulated into a defence of our position in which we happily cast ourselves as the self-interested party?

I am fully aware that this is kicking against the pricks. But most of my readers are still to make their minds up about this issue. And if I can influence you, then there may come a time when we can reverse what is looking distressingly like a trend. It is all I can do, it being surpassingly unlikely that there will ever be an Attorney-General Myerson known to history.

There are lots of issues wrapped up in this - for example the definition of a 'successful outcome' forced on the CPS and the Government's political agenda regarding more convictions. Whether I address these things in detail depends on the response - there seems little point in talking about this unless you want to read about it. Let me know.

What Type of Judge Will I Get?

2007-06-14T18:03:00.000+01:00

As Troubled Barrister has suggested a couple of other Judges, I thought I would add them in. However, Flasher LJ is a Judge too far, even for this blog.

HH Judge Adjournment
Whilst the Courts' Administration still defines 'throughput' as cases dealt with in a day or a week, this model simply stands alone. He is held up as a shining example of judicial efficiency by the administration - who thus demonstrate that, as every barrister suspects, they know nothing. His Honour's technique - and his outstanding record at dealing with 25 cases a day (many of them trials) - is simple: he adjourns, everything.
In vain do opposing barristers argue that everything is ready and the Defendant's lack of a psychiatrist's report for trial is due only to the fact that such a report was first requested yesterday evening. HH says, 'Although the request may have been a little late, the evidence is necessary to have a fair trial.' In vain does the Prosecution point out that the Defendant has a previous report demonstrating that he is as well balanced as Defence Counsel (Prosecuting Counsel by this stage is justifiably hesitant about using himself as an example), and told the police that he felt fine. HH says, 'In my experience reliance on a previous report is dangerous and representing that there is no problem may well be a symptom'.
HH adjourns things that the parties are ready to deal with. Nothing is ever quite ready for justice to be done. Cases have birthday parties and HH sends a card. Barristers take silk, go on the bench, retire or die and HH simply allows an adjournment for the newly instructed brief to 'Become thoroughly familar with the papers, as justice requires'.
Disadvantages. Nothing ever happens. Life in this model's Court is like the movie 'Groundhog Day'. The apoplexy quotient is correspondingly high. Oddly enough, constant adjournments are exhausting because the sense of ennui that pervades HH's courtroom produces the same effect as the poppy field in the Wizard of Oz. Skills atrophy. If HH ever does a trial it is such a surprise that barristers end up saying 'Oh, alright', when the Defendant says that it was his twin brother wot did it.
Advantages. It's not exactly testing. HH is usually frightfully nice. You can happily take 2 trials a day because the one in HH Judge Adjournment's Court is going off. If your solicitor is new or from out of town you can say 'This Judge is an absolute bastard. If we can get him to adjourn it, it'll be a brilliant result'. Providing you keep your solicitor out of Court before your case is called on, she'll think you're Marshall-Hall (a once famous barrister of who few have now heard).
Suggested Line. 'It may be that your Honour feels that the interests of justice require a short adjournment.' Or. 'I think I have sufficient experience to discern your Honour's reaction.'

District Judge Mad
This model has decided that he is going to do whatever he wants. He figures that almost no one appeals the DJ, especially on trials. Moreover, constant isolation doing box-work in his room has got him talking to his files, his computer, his pictures and himself. His increasingly bizarre sense of justice gets free reign, whilst he smiles benignly and silently dares the representatives to tell him that he's a teapot.
Authority is for other people. DJ Mad knows what's right - and it's normally that 2+2 = 22. Every decision has a warped logic behind it. One can see the patterns but the conclusion is always something counter intuitive - for example, 2 cars colliding head on in the middle of the road and neither party being to blame.
Procedural applications are slightly better because DJ Mad has sufficient insight to know that someone else may try the action. But still - why not give the parties leave to rely on a surveyor in a clinical negligence action? After all, the Claimant may need to move house. DJ Mad, in short, puts the 'section' into 'discretion'. One day the men in white coats will come and DJ Mad will be trying to make them divorce each other as he is led away.
Disadvantages. As close as litigation gets to Russian roulette. You never know what textbooks or authorities you will need, because in what passes for this model's mind, parallel connections are to be found everywhere. Talking to the wall may well be more productive. More than a day before this model can so dislocate you from reality that you find the Usher attractive.
Advantages. The single biggest incentive to settle the case. Watching the eyes spin round can be curiously entertaining. Your sense of responsibility can take a sabbatical because, in this Court, nothing matters. You can try out the submission that your roomates have been telling you is bonkers and, if it succeeds, you will know they were right.
Suggested line. 'Sir, I submit that if you find La-La the most interesting Telleytubby there should be Judgement for the Claimant.' Or. 'What's the similarity between something that you pick up and pour out which is short and stout, and a District Judge?'

What Type of Judge Will I Get?

2007-06-11T16:21:00.001+01:00

Ok, so this is the bit where I wave goodbye to career advancement. What the hell, it was only a dream anyway. However, I ought to make it clear that the only resemblence to any Judge living or dead which may be found below is entirely coincidental and/or exists only in the overfeverish imagination of those who think they may have found/be a template. These are archetypes: if you think it's Judge Z, it isn't. If you think it's you, then you may need to change...

The Honourable Mr Justice Important
You will recognise this one without trouble. Phrases like 'the dignity of the Court' tend to crop up on a regular basis. They are the person who, when approached by junior members of their former chambers who ask what to call them now that they are knighted, reply 'Judge'.
Lacking a sense of humour, they must be dealt with carefully. Unless attempts to deflate the judicial ego are deftly done, with rapier-like sharpness, all you are doing is buying yourself a long lecture on the discourtesy of counsel. On the other hand, rapier-like sharpness is unlikely to be detected by this model and you had better hope for a bright jury if you want that laugh.
Disadvantages. If they don't like your case you will be interrupted every time you make a good point. This is because no one is allowed to be more important in Court than them. If your opponent is a sycophant (or judges it politic to be so temporarily) then these interruptions will occur at wearyingingly regular intervals. Consequently, your case needs piloting with more than usual skill. If you can quote what they have said in a previous case, this will be accounted thorough and careful research. Equally, believing that importance is all, means that a superior court decision on all fours with your case is unlikely to be distinguished.
Advantages. Particularly in a jury trial this model can be encouraged to lose it in front of the jury. Complaints, threats to report you, accusations of unfair conduct, can all be incredibly useful if the jury are on your side. Also, gentle teasing will bring pleasure to both you and your opponent and, as this model tends to be rumbled by his bretheren, no one will really listen when he moans about you.
Suggested line. 'Your Lordship of course, immediately points to the most obvious difficulty in my case. Let me address that now.' Readers will note that a change in tone and particular emphasis on particular words can make this complimentary or insulting. '

HH Judge Machine QC
You feed in the problem, the brain ticks, retrieves and asseses the information and out comes the result. Neither engaged, nor bored, HH Judge M is the epitome of the Government's dream of what a Judge should be. When sentencing exercises are conducted HH Judge M sits right in the middle of the bracket. On the rare occasions when leave to appeal is granted, the Court refuse to intefere on the basis that they do not tinker with sentences.
HH Judge M is much sought after by his professional colleagues. They can be certain that when he describes the difference between an extended sentence and a longer than commensurate sentence he is absolutely accurate. That he neither blinks nor smiles is something they are prepared to ignore, although it is slightly odd. In front of the jury Judge M is capable of smiling, but this is clearly in response to some bit of internal circuitry sending a message saying 'the humanoids are stretching their oral opening and turning it up at the corner. Copy forthwith'.
Disadvantages. HH Judge M is unmoved by the human comedies and tragedies that make up the cases with which he must deal. Passion is dealt with by note taking. He treats triumph and disaster just the same - by failing to recognise either. Your skills are irrelevant. There is a right answer and your case either possesses it or it does not. Prison overcrowding is not his problem. Nor is the mental hospital's decision to release the psychopath because he is not suffering from a treatable condition.
Advantages. Your skills are irrelevant. This might be good news. You need not research the law because HH Judge M already knows it. He is not interested in whether you do - it simply exists. Even if your ignorance is revealed HH Judge M will never mention it to his colleagues, because he is incapable of a sufficient degree of human interaction. Your client will recognise that you could do nothing to influence the result. He may conclude that he did not require you, but the brief fee will already be yours.
Suggested line. Would your Honour like me to pass up my computer, which has the relevant test set up as a stand alone programme?

Mr Recorder Energetic
Youthful (in his mind anyway) and keen, this model is determined to make his mark. He has bought into the whole Civil/Criminal Procedure Rules mindset and is determined to manage the case, the evidence, counsel and - if possible - the result. Bouncing onto the Bench with a cheery 'Good Morning' (no stuffy old-fashioned bowing for him) he proceeds to call on the first case with what he conceives to be business-like speed.
'Throughput' and 'efficiency' are his buzzwords - and he has buzzwords. The maximum amount of justice in the minimum amount of time. Possibly reflecting his approach in practice, the effect on a witness of a slow build up followed by some difficult questions is simply lost on him. Time limits are issued and applied to every possible matter. Challenged he at first displays imperturbable good nature - 'Come now Mr X; surely the CPR says...'. But if pressed he can pass from tetchy to hostile in the blink of an eye. The key is to understand that this model believes that lack of talent can be overcome by a slavish adherence to the money saving mantras of the Ministry of Justice. Look upon his works, you mighty, and despair.
Disadvantages. So keen that he can be difficult to take before midday or a couple of drinks - for many of the barristers before him this is the same time. Justice is less important than procedure. Worse, he believes that justice is the same thing as procedure. He will almost certainly be younger than you - curiously this applies whatever your age. Normally what you do with bouncy things is kick them - and you will feel the same about this - not being able to do it may bring forward the fatal heart attack.
Advantages. Childishly easy to manipulate - know the CPR and he'll eat out of your palm. Difficult to insult - either through certitude or a skin like a rhino - so clutching your head and audibly muttering 'Oh Lord' to vent your feelings will not register. Can be successfully diverted to ordering separate trials of all issues to your financial benefit. Often a good source of anecdote.
Suggested line. As your Honour sees, a proper application of CPR 24.12.3(i)(a)(bb)(iv) indicates that the issue must be taken at PCMH supported by a skeleton and highlighted copies of all authorities... I'm sorry Your Honour; that sounded like a groan of sexual satisfaction.

HH Judge Old-Timer QC
The precise opposite of the previous model, this Judge believes that justice stopped in about 1999. Actually he has a point, but HHJ O-T makes it too often and too obviously. Will appear to be working extremely hard, only to reveal that he has been constructing an example which means that he has to send someone to prison for putting their tongue out at a policewoman. That this is totally irrelevant is unimportant to him. Victor Meldrew is his role model.
Consequently, you need to remember the old terminology. Forget PCMH and revert to PDH - or better still PTR. Refer him to the Probation Report, not the PSR. Use lots of Latin and do not translate it - to HHJ O-T this is a bond simultaneously flattering and cosy. This model will actually try and do what is right, rather that what the statute says. It is your job to ensure that what he does is just about acceptable within the Act. This is a task equivalent to trying to steer a Bull through a small gap in a hedge when the gap is covered with a bright red cloth.
Possibly prone to be the teensiest bit self-regarding HHJ O-T has a bad habit of saying things that are not simply non P-C but are actively offensive. In his mind, rape still has something to do with the length of the skirt. He may not say so - but you know he thinks so, and he knows you know he thinks so. Consequently, some conversations take place in code.
Disadvantages. Prone to miss the statutory/procedure rules test by miles - mainly due to not aiming at it. Thus your fantastic result can turn to ashes in the Court of Appeal. Distressing habit of trying to discover the truth can lead to counsel actually having to think. Lecture on iniquity of government - amusing on the first occasion - can be head-clutchingly boring the 35th time. Tentative expression of a view that, for example, making it clear that all legal representatives owe an overriding duty to litigate sensibly, will lead to judicial explosion because, for HHJ O-T, anything post 1999 is appalling.
Advantages. Will respond to your ability (or not). Will talk during the case thus enabling you to know, and react to, how he is thinking. Is usually fair and wants to do the right thing. Most post 1999 criminal legislation is badly drafted and dreadful, so not much of a problem if this model says so. If your oppo is an HCA you start with a huge advantage. As his views can be anticipated with confidence you can flatter in secure conditions. If your oppo does this too, the trial transcript can read like a love-in.
Suggested line. Your Honour may think it fortunate that neither the draftsman nor the Rules Committee have yet addressed this issue, as a consequence of which the decision is entirely in your Honour's discretion. NB: this will be the reality whether you say it or not.

HH Judge Bored
When Her Honour was the only woman in Chambers and every floor had a glass ceiling, she dreamed of this moment. Now, 3 years in, the next 17 years spread out before her like an endless vista of cabbage fields - boring, uninspiring, smelly and with the consequences of contact being wholly appalling. The grass, to coin a phrase, was yellower: as is HH's eye when she contemplates those lucky bastards who stayed at the Bar.
Her reaction takes two forms. A barely concealed (and in some cases unconcealed) contempt for the work being put in front of her and the manner of its performance. And a volunteering for every single committee that exists. HHJ Bored is on the Court User committee; the Judicial Studies Board, the Parole Board, the local Liason Probation Committee. She is the official judicial delegate to the Court of the University. The point of all this is that each meeting counts as a sitting day - thus it is that HHJ Bored manages to sit only 20 weeks a year, which is a relief to all concerned.
Every so often this model gets a case which interests her. At such moments she becomes pleasant, helpful and appreciative of counsels' efforts. When you go back to the Robing Room and say how easy you found her, no one will believe you. Worse people may believe there is some sort of attraction there and your social career will be over. This may be why HHJ Bored never gets a good press. Stories about her are legion and all are unflattering. She is the person who, told that all that was left in her list was the Mareva Injunction told the clerk to give her 5 minutes to look at the papers and then show Mr and Mrs Mareva in.
Disadvantages. However hard you try it will not be good enough. There is a real risk that, if you are not on top of your game, HHJ Bored will spend her time working out ways to make your life miserable. Often a first cousin of Important J (see above), saying what you want to say might make things worse. HHJ Bored once said, 'The last time I heard a submission so dishonest it came from the lips of the Iraqi Minister of Information.' No adjustment is made for age or experience and consequently the young tend to suffer disproportionately. Bizzarely, perhaps because of all the Committees, this model may actually have influence.
Advantages. Your client will understand that the result was beyond your influence and may actually help you feel better. Your oppo will get it as badly as you - HH has no favourites. There can be a certain perverse satisfaction in boring this model further. The Robing Room will be uniformly sympathetic, and grateful - if you are before this model then they are not. Because this model tends to think they know it all, there are occasions where the Court of Appeal can be invited to make the most embarrassing of all findings; namely that the Judge failed to listen to the evidence. This is hugely satisfying.
Suggested line. We will need to go through all 1,000 pages with all 20 witnesses. Medic!

HH Judge Near-Retirement
After 20 years, this model can see retirement on the near horizon. Demob happy doesn't begin to describe his mood, but there is also an abiding fear - either of immediate senility as a result of having nothing to do, or due to the prospect of the next 15 years in the night and day company of Mrs N-R who he vaguely remembers talking to before he acquired his busy practice but who, since then, has been the housekeeper.
Consequently, every case is marked by a positively abandoned attitude to time estimates, a need to investigate every issue at its most intellectual level, and a wish to tease counsel. Rumours of HH Judge N-R walking down the judicial corridor saying to his usher, 'I really got them going there didn't I?' are likely to be true.
Disadvantages. Given that the focus of the case is likely to be deliberately lost, you may well be driven to distraction. Fundamentally kind-hearted (or made so by the immanent retirement) HH Judge N-R will not actually make you return the case that starts 10 days after the case he is trying is supposed to finish - he will merely adjourn you part heard 6 or 7 times. By the 5th day on which the case has overrun you have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome and are unwilling to disappoint him by failing to argue each trivial point.
Advantages. The refreshers are good. You don't actually have to pay attention to the case, as the result will have been decided before HH Judge N-R sat on the first day. If you are laid-back or not very busy and your opponent is neither then the wind-up opportunities are unparalleled. There is always the chance that the Judge will reward performance rather than technical merit.
Suggested line. This 5 day case now having concluded, may I express the wish that your Honour's retirement is spent as happily as I have spent the last 7 weeks.

Oh Go On Then

2007-06-07T15:56:00.000+01:00

By special request

Employment Law
Used to be known as Labour Law until lawyers cottoned on to the fact that Thatcher would veto the appointment of anyone using such a title. Then known as Industrial Law until lawyers cottoned on to the fact that Thatcher would veto the appointment of anyone claiming to support or be connected with Industry. Then should, truthfully, have been know as unemployment law but that seemed unduly negative, even for lawyers.
So this is about Trade Unions, the right to strike, the right to freely assemble, the right to a fair wage regardless of your sex, race, age, nationality or orientation. It is therefore, respectively irrelevant, unused, politically correct and earnest. If you are a left leaning lawyer and the Human Rights lot won't have you, employment law is right up your street. As it is also about how to sack your workforce and pay any compensation in the form of future share options in a yet to be floated wholly-owned subsidiary registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands it is also right up the Strasse of the right leaning lawyer.
You must be earnest. An Employment Law silk who shall be nameless, once opposed me in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. There had been a lock-in at a pub for a wedding. To humour the village policeman who didn't want this to be clear to all and sundry, at 2am the door into the little ginnel (snicket if you're from the South) at the back was opened and out came the revellers. My client, the barman, kissed the bride, the groom and the barmaid. The Barmaid complained of sexual harrassment and discrimination - presumably the discrimination was because he didn't kiss the dog. Losing in Leeds (now there's a surprise) services of specialist counsel were retained for the appeal.
The case was outlined with much impassioned reference to personal dignity and human rights. The Judge said, 'that's all very well, but can you tell me, in a nutshell, your client's complaint?' Counsel said 'Sir, in a nutshell, my client's complaint is that she was kissed in the back passage.' The Judge, not missing a beat, said 'I can see why she might complain about that'.
Advantages. You will be on the side of right, whichever side you're on. Client respect is a throwback to old-fashioned personal injury days. Lots of law, all based on what is reasonable. Superb chance to act for the Allied Mushroom Growers and other arcane organisations. If you have a sense of humour you will enjoy yourself (see above). Good range of advocacy work - from Tribunals to House of Lords via EAT. Good crossover potential with contract/economic torts/public law.
Disadvantages. Highest proportion of numpties (thank you Lawminx) in the business (see above). Equality of arms means sacked worker gets you, and Bastard Enterprises Plc get Silk from London who wrote the book and knows the Tribunal Chairperson by their maiden name. Tribunal Chairperson says this is ok. Silk smiles serenely. After using all the comparators available, taking into account hours worked, you will discover your plumber's apprentice is laughing at you.

What Type of Law Should I Do (Part III) ?

2007-06-05T18:15:00.000+01:00

This is the final installment in the series. Please read the cautionary note at the beginning of Part I.

Professional Negligence
This is what happens when fellow professionals are alleged to have got it wrong. Anyone expecting kinship, concern and empathy does not understand the Bar. The defining emotion is schadenfreude. You name it - accountants, doctors, surveyors, dentists, engineers, architects and (especially) solicitors - all will be sued, defended, and, above all, charged. That is why they have insurance policies, after all. And that is why their clients are paying for the premiums. Everyone wins.
This is negligence with knobs on. Big issues are causation: the building didn't fall down because the architect specified papier-mache for the foundations, but because the Contractor exceeded the maximum load by one brick. Or: Mr Blogs' decease was not the result of the surgeon sewing him up using a knitting pattern but because he was already suffering from a savage cold which unpredictably reacted with his antibiotics making control of his condition impossible. Also damages - the house isn't worth any less because the solicitor failed to discover that the ground floor is split equally between the rats living under the decayed floorboards and the squatters who cause that decay when not attending music festivals.
Also, it's not negligent if a substantial proportion of the profession would have done the same. So this is bean feast time for expert witnesses to come along and ride their own hobby hourses up and down the corridors of the Courthouse, at someone else's expense, all in the cause of justice. It's a wonderful world.
Advantages. The train goes slowly and even the guard's van gets gravy, so your plumber will respect you (and fear you if he regards himself as a professional). Unless an actual crime has been committed there is always a defence - and sometimes even then. A finding of negligence is feared by professionals so the boring trial bit is rarely necessary but there's lots of work to do before the parties settle. You are either a fierce battler for consumer rights (cheers) or a stalwart defender of professional standards and campaigner against the 'there's no such thing as an accident culture' (cheers). Good mix between court work and law.
Disadvantages. You will immediately be infected by 'it's going to happen to me' disease. Clinical negligence barristers are hypochondriacs; surveyor's negligence barristers typically die in a fall from a roof etc. There is so much case law that your Skeleton Argument is alive and weighs about as much as Nicholas Soames. You are increasingly pigeonholed into smaller and smaller areas of specialisation, ending up doing only cases where the accountant valued the contingent liabilities without regard to the comments of the Secretary at the AGM. If it happens to you (and it will) everyone will laugh their heads off and even your children will shun you.

Tax
When a scheme to allow you to keep your own money makes Gordon Brown scowl, Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs must put the smile back on his face and restore him to his usual sunny self. First they try before the Special Commissioners; then the General Commissioners; then the High Court, then the Court of Appeal, then (frequently) the House of Lords and (if all else fails) Europe. If none of that works then normally MI6 assassinate you. Then Gordie smiles again and everyone is happy.
This happens all the time because every year the tax boys try and close down the loopholes identified the previous year and every year the people who don't want to fund the miracle that is the NHS try to identify new loopholes. There is a Finance Act every year. The Finance Act 2006 has 180 sections and 26 schedules. It is considered a masterpiece of brevity. When you add VAT, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax and The Excess Consumption of Oxygen (More than 20 Breaths a Minute) Tax you can see what a big job it is.
Advantages. Your plumber will worship the ground you walk on. You will be part of an elite because there are only about 50 tax barristers. One set of papers equals work for 4 months. What you are doing is socially useful. The work is intellectually demanding. There's always at least one tax lawyer in the House of Lords because it's embarrassing when no one there understands the case. Somerset House is the most beautiful government building in the country and HMRC are based there.
Disadvantages. Have you ever read a tax statute? Before you get the intellectual excitement you have to learn to stay awake whilst reading material normally available to chronic insomniacs on a prescription only basis. Even accountants will think you are dull. Other barristers will consult you regularly - but will insist it is only by telephone. Your indemnity limit will need to be in the tens of millions or you will be a failure and your Chambers will make you go and do something less taxing (geddit?) - like bringing peace to the Middle East.

Intellectual Property
This is contract law for things that you have seen in your head. If you can't see or touch it but you've made it then you can copyright it. If you can only see it through a mega-microscope and touch it in laboratory conditions then you patent it. If you can see and touch it then you trademark it. If you can see it but not touch it then you register it. If you can't see it, touch it, or patent it then you need to consider sectioning yourself. Got that? Also you have to know how to take your computer apart, describe what each bit does, rebuild it and show that it's working better. Throwing it at the wall and shouting 'work, you bastard' is unacceptable.
A scientific background helps. That means you need two degrees where most of us find one difficult enough. You will spend your life dealing with abstruse science and almost as abstruse law. You will be dealing with the fall out when an intellectual property right is infringed - in other words music companies will use you to ensure that no one can copy a CD without paying them for it. You will also be engaged in ensuring that people don't own their own ideas but have to give them to their employer/record company, like they promised to do when they were offered that contract aged 21 which paid enough to buy a proper supply of Clearasil.
Advantages. On the scientific side your brain is already as big as a planet so it's nice to meet other people like you. And that arrangement works for everyone as it keeps you away from normal people. On the arts side you get to meet and act for pop stars and they will teach how to really trash the Robing Room. Cooo-el! Also you will be the only type of barrister who understands how to dress. Your plumber will come out in exchange for autographs or that new machine for pulling tampons out of the u-bend.
Disadvantages. People always want to know what George or Mick was really like and whether you smoked pot with them. You will not be allowed to answer even though you're bursting to say, like, how good that skank was. Or, no one will understand what you do at all and you will live a life so lonely that you will envy your goldfish. One way and another all your clients will be mad and, in the end, you will stop realising it.

Defamation
This is what happens when you import the school playground into the law. 'Miss, Miss, Kevin said I smell Miss. Tell him off, Miss' is replaced by 'My client's reputation, members of the Jury, was profoundly adversely affected by the Defendant's disgraceful assertion that his body odour was overly normative'. The Judge plays the role of the teacher except that he can't send anyone to the naughty corner, nor can he smack the parties round the ear - profoundly though he may wish to do both.
Instead he has to indulge them in a 25 day hearing whilst all their friends come to say a) that the Claimant smells of roses even when he has just finished his kick-boxing class; b) the friend is so appalled by the allegation that the Claimant smells that he (the friend) is now able to communicate with the Claimant only when holding a handkerchief drenched in 'Eau for Justice' which retails at £55 per millilitre and, if used in London, can be smelt in Paris; and c) consequently the Claimant's reputation, previously both sweet and spotless is now defiled and equivalent to a Turkish wrestler's jockstrap after the Turkish wrestler has won Olympic gold.
On the other hand, given the current fascination with "respec'", 'rep' and the (only just) human right not to be offended by anything ever, this area is arguably the cutting edge of the legal sword. It has an Act of Parliament all to itself - so it's obviously miles more important than, say, what you're promised in a General Election.
Advantages. Money, money, money. A small and supportive group of professional colleagues. Everything is set out in the Act so you can't go wrong on the procedure. The National Press will know your name. You get to pick up the 'sword of truth and justice' and stick it in the opposition. You get to make the odd jury speech. You will truly know how to defend the indefensible so a second career in politics will be yours for the asking.
Disadvantages. The sense of ennui which inevitably comes when you spend all your time giving children what they want. Your clients are not terribly likeable and have to be extracted from their own backsides. Every so often some Silk who has cut his teeth on crime comes and asks your clients really rude questions - and you lose. The last remaining procedure bound stronghold of the law. Compared to what you do the Plumber has a job of national importance.

International Law
Talk about getting the difficult bit over with in the title. This particular moveable feast is based on the comity of Nations. All you need to know about that is that there has not been one war-free year since the League of Nations was created. The USSR and the USA spent 40 years sticking their tongues out at each other whilst persuading vast numbers of (usually poor and non-white) people to fight surrogate battles on their behalfs. Meanwhile they regularly accused each other of being in breach of UN resolutions. This is International Law - the only type of law where there is no agreed system, no definitions, no sanctions and no compulsory court. What there is, however, are lawyers.
Nowadays, whichever particularly blatant act of genocide and aggression that has come top of the poll of things the public are most upset by is the subject of a 'War Crimes Tribunal'. This is where a Nigerian Judge deals with a Serbian defendant in a Dutch Court, with Spanish staff and mixed English and Greek lawyers all following French procedure. Once everyone has stopped walking out, the Defendant is on his eighth set of lawyers and the Judge has been replaced five times the Defendant is convicted and sent to the American Prison he'd been in since his initial detention approximately seven years before his trial began. Justice.
Advantages. No one can tell you you're wrong because they're still making the law up and you can have your turn just as much as anyone else. If you tell the government what it wants to hear you may get a Cabinet post. You can walk out and go shopping if you're bored and no one will bat an eyelid. It sounds incredibly posh. You get to travel to exotic and interesting places. Your clients are interesting. You may actually make law. The Today Program knows your name.
Disadvantages. If you don't get your client off you'd better hope he never returns to power. Neither Rwanda nor Sierra Leone appear to have a Harvey Nichols. You have to learn Serbo-Croat. Your clients are psychopaths or (worse) the Foreign Office. Your plumber will be working for your American counterparts. Your brief is whatever suits the politicians and your instructions are to justify their actions. Your competitors will be queuing up to tell the Today Program that you are incompetent and your client's actions are illegal.

What Type of Law Should I Do (Part II) ?

2007-06-04T20:02:00.000+01:00

Commercial
Arguably the place where the cats are fattest, this is the creme-de-la-creme of legal work - at least according to those involved in it. These are disputes between high worth individuals or (more exciting) companies or (so exciting it's practically sex) banks or (you won't want sex after you've done a case like this) governments. They are arguing about money - which for some reason which makes you despair of the state of education in this country, everyone spells P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E.
This is an area in which solicitors need barristers who specialise. Bizzarely the barristers need not specialise in advocacy but in a particular area of law - which the solicitor already claims to know perfectly well. Only the cynical would say that the specialisation is required to sooth the solicitor's ego or justify his hourly rate. The aim is not to go to trial, but rather to 'resolve' the matter - either by settlement or, increasingly, by 'alternative dispute resolution' (please note that it is the resolution which is alternative, not the dispute - an alternative dispute normally exacerbates the problem, except for the lawyers obviously). This does not mean dressing up in your best tie-dye and playing music until the parties hug each other, though that might be worth a try. It means that another lawyer is paid to put the parties in separate rooms and ask them what they want until they simultaneously scream 'A settlement - and PLEASE let us out'. This is called mediation.
Advantages. Your plumber will call you 'Sir' or 'Madam'. He may even use you. There is real law involved and lots of chances to argue it. Other lawyers will regard you with envy and respect - a highly addictive combination to many. Your clerk will be able to say 'Ms X does not sneeze for less than £500'. The business press may know your name. Historically this is the best route to the High Court bench. Lots of opportunity to be led and lots of work in front of the Master which, despite the title, is nothing to do with sado-masochism but is an awful lot more impressive than saying you're in front of the District Judge although they are the same thing. Also, you can go into room 101.
Disadvantages. Ain't got no soul. Money can't buy you love (although, if you're at the Commercial Bar, the presumption is that money can buy you, love). You are a cog in a large machine and you will never feel more important than your solicitor unless you get to the top of a very greasy pole. For every Pollock there are 500 tiddlers. Judges expect fearsome competence. Masters can be vicious (just about the only thing they have in common with sado-masochists). Room 101 is hot and stuffy. Insurance, Re-Insurance, sub-prime market, subrogation, vertical vs horiozontal internal restructuring, zzzzzzzzzzz.

Shipping
This is law about ships and as such you will be part of our island's glorious seafaring past. Note, that's past. Sadly the uniform is still subfusc and not bell bottoms and gold buttons. There is 'wet' shipping which deals with what happens when we do not put the drunken sailor in the scuppers with the hosepipe on him, but instead let him stay on the bridge and drive the boat or whatever the hell you call it. And there is 'dry' shipping which deals with the fascinations of bills of lading, charterparties and contracts of affreightment. In other words, contract law with a boatload of funny names for things.
Occasionally someone is able to arrest a ship. This is a way of securing your client's debt (unless anyone has a prior legal charge - I do hope you're following all this) and you don't even have to caution it or offer it a solicitor. On the other hand, you can't beat the crap out of it in the back of the van either. For shipping lawyers, arresting a ship is just about the most fun anyone can have. Consequently, if shipping is for you, you'll know.
Advantages. Your plumber will be begging to be your plumber. You get foreign travel. How to load a 100,000 ton cargo vessel can be unexpectedly interesting. There is even more law than at the Commercial bar and you get lots of private international and European law as well. When space travel becomes the next commercial paradigm you will be incredibly well-positioned. More shipping lawyers have made the House of Lords than any other kind of lawyer. A lot of the action happens relatively quickly and so there is lots of opportunity to think on your feet.
Disadvantages. The foreign travel is usually to the type of place to which we used to send gunships. The sea looks the same wherever it is. It's a ship for Pete's sake - how excited can you get about 600,000 tonnes of rusting metal floating in a stew of sewage? You won't do a case on your own until you're 35. Flags of convenience are adversely affecting the market - how keen are you to be Liberia's ace litigator? Quite.

Public Law
This is judicial review, enquiries and stuff like that. It started off being about the Crown's prerogative remedies aimed at protecting the citizen from the despotic acts of public authorities. The despotic acts of the Crown were allowed because, basically, if not the King would have your innards fed to the ducks whilst you watched. Now it is about protecting huge commercial enterprises from the decisions of idiotic local authorites, ensuring that councils can't use the special needs budget redecorating the councillors' offices and stopping the Home Office deporting illegal immigrants back to almost certain death.
It is also how the government avoids the embarrassing things that happen to it becoming even more embarrassing by enquiring into them. The principle here is that it needs a senior Judge/retired civil servant with an army of administrative help and expensive bought in legal expertise to listen to all interested parties and then say what should be done in the future. This is not so anything is actually done, but in order to deflect criticism, bore the pants off everyone who was once interested and ensure that the recommendations for change only arrive when everyone has forgotten what happened apart from the loony in the green sports jacket who has become so obsessive about it that he is entirely ignored.
Advantages. Given that government in all its forms is more bullying and cynical now than it has ever been, there's lots of work about. It is one of the few areas where even the Treasury is politically careful about getting rid of legal aid. You genuinely have the opportunity to right wrongs. You can actually argue about matters of principle and real importance. Your professional colleagues will assume that you are clever. Enquiries can make you a media star. The barrister is almost always in the driving seat.
Disadvantages. Unless you're the government/local authority it's hard to win because they only have to be reasonable. The average Judge thinks that foxhunting, cold showers, beating small boys and locking people up for being disrespectful to them is reasonable - so what chance do you have? Never mind laugh a minute - it's barely a laugh a century. You have to find the National Health (Implementation of Financial Adjustments) Adjustment Order (No 77) 2004 interesting. You may go through your entire career never having cross-examined anybody.

Chancery
This evokes thoughts of dusty barristers in dusty rooms taking for ever to decide whether a charitable object is cy-pres. And that is accurate. Commercial chancery work is now indistinguishable from commercial work, except that the Judges are even more difficult. Traditional chancery work is about charities, trusts and land. You will be asked for your Opinion (capital O) on more and more abstruse matters, all turning on whether the plan shows that the tree was planted on the left side of the gatepost, or whether the Will says 'to enjoy for her life' or 'to be hers for her life'.
Chancery is also very focussed on remedies. Basically you can make a trustee account for how he bought his last tube of toothpaste. This is known as 'taking an account' although it should be known as 'Undertaking an exercise so anal as to be attractive only to obsessive-compulsives'. You can can also look into other people's bank accounts even though you have never met them and their only connection with you is that they may have sold your trustee the toothpaste. This is known as 'tracing' although it should be known as 'being a nosey bastard'.
Advantages. It is very traditional. Your colleagues will think you are clever. The plumber will think you are clever - especially when you spend 7 hours telling him how the drafting of his bill means that he should pay you. You will think you are clever. The work can be quietly fascinating, demanding fine drafting skills and an appreciation of the subtleties of thought and laguage. Your clients will be awe struck by you.
Disadvantages. You may never go into Court, let alone actually cross-examine. You may get hives at the very idea of going into Court. People rely on your advice and then find out that it was useless 20 years later when you are in no fit state to defend yourself. Your idea of a party will involve sherry and a quiet game of draughts. You will think that one party a year is plenty.

Human Rights
This is the trendy new area of the law, much admired by the intelligentsia (to be distinguished from the intelligent). You must understand that, until the passing of the Human Rights Act this country wasn't bothered about protecting its citizens and all that stuff about habeaus corpus, innocent until proven guilty, prerogative remedies and equitable relief were just for show and yet another example of how the Capitalist class oppressed the workers.
Human rights involves lots of European Court of Human Rights' cases which, unlike our cases, might have a different result if tried 5 years down the line, because standards change. That means you never actually lose. And they involve everything - from your human right to get married and flog your wedding photos to 2,000,000,000 people via one magazine rather than another, to your human right not to be kept locked up by some dodgy foreign diplomat who's nicked your passport and wants you to be his next concubine. And, rather like the Emperor's New Clothes, no one will say that the result would have been the same before we had Human Rights.
Advantages. Achingly trendy, this is the barrister's only chance to be considered hip. Newspaper columnists might know your name. Your plumber will know your name. In its desperate effort to avoid being labelled racist, sexist, ageist, anti-anything ist the government will pay for the Windswept Beach Islanders to sue the European Union for trading with the Great Satan, right here in the UK. You get to name your Chambers after a Movie. You get to feel good about yourself.
Disadvantages. The Conservatives want to abolish the Act (and possibly the actual rights, although in this they differ not one whit from the Labour Party) and believe that you are the Great Satan. Today's trend is tomorrow's disposable. The further north you go, the more unprintable your professional colleagues' opinion of you becomes. Your speciality does not actually exist. You are admired by the intelligentsia.

What Type of Law Should I Do?

2007-06-03T17:48:00.000+01:00

In case you have been wondering, I set out below a guide to some different areas of practice. The essential messages are ones I will defend, although I happily acknowledge that they demonstrate my own prejudices. However, should you be tempted to quote me I ought to point out that there are times when my tongue is in my cheek...

Criminal (posh)
Known as 'White collar' so that all your friends know you don't defend muggers and shoplifters. Will draw extensive and tedious parallels with commercial work. DON'T ask whether the white collar criminal barrister actually does commercial work - you will make them cry. Will make much of massive knowledge of accounts - only a white collar lawyer believes that comparing himself to an accountant is a good thing.
Used to be a good payer with emphasis on fraud. As fraud now means 6 months in Wolverhampton at a rate of pay your plumber would sneer at, white collar barristers now talk about regulatory work. This is how they describe cases about men falling into tumble dryers at the factory.
Advantages. Clients are usually fairly bright, if arguably dishonest. Much work has to be done before guilty plea can be advised. Clients usually on bail so can come to Chambers for cons. Size of brief impresses professional colleagues. Good opportunities to be led. Can get government (as opposed to CPS) work which looks good on CV. Can quote actual authorities, as not much on regulatory work in Archbold, thus appearing to be a proper lawyer. Can address jury as you have wanted to do since you were 8. Legal press might know your name. Your solicitor will know lots about the case and will be able to help you. After the case there will be a confiscation hearing which will provide a further fee.
Disadvantages. It's still crime so non-criminal barristers will snear at you whilst paying lip-service to how important the work is. The rates of pay are so low that for pre-trial hearings you can make more money not buying your train ticket to Wolverhampton. The client will trust you exactly as far as you run his defence. Trials tend to last a long time - so you better like your leader and all your colleagues in the same case. Judges feel the pressure and get tetchy due to fear of presiding over next Jubilee Line case. If you lose for the Government they might want to know how it happened. Clients on bail so can demand cons in Chambers. Hard work. Your solicitor will know lots about the case and will want to know why you don't. Your client will be more worried about the confiscation than the prison sentence.

Crime (bog standard)
This is one of the places where law interacts with the average person. You can exercise your commitment to help the downtrodden - and prosecute (most burglaries are committed within 1/2 mile of the burglar's home). Or you can cheerfully run the same defence that worked for your client's uncle the last time - usually with the same alibi witnesses. You will find out more about sex with children, animals and the dead than you ever wanted to know. You will learn the best way to steal a car, fire a house, deceive an elderly person and kick someone on the ground. If you learn lots about all these things, someone may ask you to become a Judge.
Advantages. All your friends will know what you do because they will have watched Rumpole. Clients are normally grateful - win, lose or draw. Life is varied. This is what 'Barristering' is all about. National Press might know your name. Other lawyers might actually be interested in what you do. You also get to do the jury speech - and the jury might actually understand your case. Criminal Bar tends to be friendly and supportive. If so inclined, this is an area where you can parade your conscience by only defending (except for Rapists obviously) which can help you get work from like minded solicitors. Your solicitor is normally absent and sends a clerk who will be nice about you if you buy them lunch. Given the complexity of sentencing you can regularly double your money in the Court of Appeal.
Disadvantages. Although things may be a little better for the junior bar, paywise your plumber is still laughing at you. Other Barristers think that what you do isn't really law. You have to spend time in prison, which is enough to depress anyone. Occasionally you have to defend someone innocent and will lose sleep. If your career doesn't take off the CPS will seem an attractive option. There are actually only 5 mitigations and only 4 defences so it can be grindingly dull to be doing the same thing 10 years on. When you lose the plot you will be lucky if the solicitor's clerk knows what day it is. The Government passes about 3 badly drafted major acts per Parliament - all of which are knee jerk responses to what the Daily Mail says - and you have to learn about them.

Family Work (Children)
This is known as 'public' work. It deals with care and adoption. You will end up knowing even more about sex with children than if you had done crime. Lots of work take place before District Judges and the Magistrates Court, and the Family Division High Court Bench has a reputation of promoting those whom it likes. The public will think that you help those who accuse hard working parents of abuse on little or no evidence - and they will be right. They will also think that you help those who have successfully abused kids for years and mislead social services - and they will be right about that as well.
There is a complex interplay between the Council (usually good but sometimes bad), the parents (usually bad but sometimes good), the Guardian (usually like the newspaper - i.e. pretending to be open minded but actually operating on a set of fixed principles only disclosed under pressure), the Grandparents (usually bewildered but sometimes bad), the Social Services (usually defensive) and the foster parents (usually outraged). This can make life stressful.
Advantages. The work is genuinely important. The Family courts tend to try to help people. Less chance than average of Judge shouting at you. Can produce happy moments - adoptions usually end with everyone in tears. As family breakdown increases there is lots of work around. You don't have to robe. You will be part of a caring community.
Disadvantages. Your plumber is still giggling at you and the government is trying to drive fees down further. 'Good bye and don't worry about never seeing little Damien again' is more difficult to say than ' you'll be out in 5'. Your clients are often lying their head off and will not cheerfully admit it to you afterwards. No jury speeches. You will be part of a caring community.

Family (Money)
Known as 'private' work. This is what happens when multi-millionaires divorce. However, it is also what happens when Kevin Bloggs divorces Sharon. And unless you're lucky, that's the brief coming your way. You will become expert on the sharing of state benefits and how to rehouse people who aren't employed. You will also have to deal with the custody arrangements in cases where the social services don't think the children need assistance (admittedly rare). Whether the constant stream of inarticulate and disadvantaged people who lack the skills to live together make you think you are helping humanity or make you want to top yourself will depend on your temperament.
If you ever get to the stage where your clients have money, your solicitors will be super smooth, have designer clothes, be national personalities and possess nicknames like 'The Rottweiler' or 'The Velvet Glove'. Their ego will be adjusted accordingly and you will be judged on your social skills as much as on your legal ability. Your clients will hate each other and whether you find their constant attempts to win the moral high ground nauseatingly hypocritical or simply common sense will depend on your temperament.
Advantages. Loads of work. Your clients are rarely in prison. Much of the job is done in negotiations between counsel at Court with the consequent possibilities of a long and convivial 'working lunch'. If you get good work, your plumber may actually come out the first time you call him, although for the first 10 years or so he will still go to nicer hotels on holiday than you do. The bitterer the case the longer it goes on. The National Press may know your name and be interested in your views. Your granny might see your case on the front page of The Times - although you will have to explain to her that you were the 3rd junior.
Disadvantages. Clients are so unreasonable as to be untrue. It can be depressing to see a child's contact with its parent being traded for a little less/more money per week. You will have to sympathise with your client if their ex has cheated even if after an hour with them you actually understand why. At the top end you are simply part of the entourage - and less important than 'The Rottweiler' (for some Barristers this is the end of the world). Also, the money may be good but, compared to your client, you are a charity case.

Personal Injury Work
This used to be how the Government looked after the workers. Most cases were for miners, factory workers or railwaymen. The Government paid both sides via legal aid/Union subsidies and support for Nationalised Industry. The Judges ensured that the Claimant (in those far off golden days known as the Plaintiff) won - but not too much. Everyone was friendly. If you were for the Plaintiff your client regularly confused you with God. If you were for the Defendant everyone was helpful and respectful. The work was not, frankly, difficult.
Well, forget that. Nowadays this is how people recover money for being crashed into on the roads or tripping up in the street. It is the cutting edge of 'no win, no fee' which means that you will get paid if you are lucky. It is also more complicated than you would believe. If the injury has lasting effects you will need a crystal ball to predict what state your client is going to be in in 10, then 20, then 30 years' time. You will then need to work out how much he needs to invest tomorrow to acquire the price of the 4th replacement walking stick which he will probably need in 26 years time. Isn't that interesting?
Advantages. It's a job. If you're crap at it you'll be doing your own plumbing so will be spared the plumber's condescension. If you're good at it you will be able to afford to pay the plumber not to talk at all. There is always the possibility that you actually help someone. You will be dealing with claims assessors and insurers so you will always be able to feel morally superior to someone. The Judge will be grateful if you are competent and will let you get on with it. Money talks, so you may end up in the House of Lords on some recondite point which will affect whether accident victims can keep their own houses or have to sell them before the local authority provides someone to help wipe their bottoms.
Disadvantages. You will have to have an enormous throughput to make the job pay. 50 Advices a week can drive anyone demented. You will find yourself doing £2,000 cases as well as £200,000 cases even if you are doing well. You may face the soul-destroying task of fighting an unwinnable case 'on principle' - the principle being that Claimants'/Defendants' insurers should understand that they will have to risk their money rather than assume they'll get a settlement. Alternatively, your next 3 weeks work will settle the day before its due to start and no one will bother to tell you until you get to Court to find your case isn't listed. Your work will be done by Chambers on a group contract basis and when the contract is re-negotiated you will find you are earning less but doing the same.

Still to come: Commercial, Shipping, Public Law, Human Rights.

Sermon

2007-05-31T11:30:00.000+01:00

Good morning,

I am sitting in front of my computer dealing with a case in the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal. It is already problematic as it is one of those cases in which you totally accept your clients' innocence - thus piling on the pressure (ask any barrister - defending the guilty is always easier). In addition I have a streaming cold, a temperature and a feeling that I'm crossing the Atlantic on a particularly small boat in a particularly heavy storm - all kindly donated by Myersonette No 3 who is celebrating her own recovery by buying new clothes in town and thus further condemning me to sit here earning the money to help her do it.

To top it off, I am seeking further particulars of the case against us: you would think that a 34 page Statement (of the case against my clients) with 450 pages of enclosures would be able to do that - but you would be wrong. I am on p18 of the request and I have already asked 129 questions and I am up to p14 of the Statement.

And guess what: I love it. Obviously I could do without the cold etc but the opportunity to try genuinely to achieve justice, in an intellectually stimulating way, for which (let's not forget this) I get paid still seems to me to be unreal.

What has brought this on? Well, Troubled Barrister has had a go at me on the BVC post (see comments) and has accused me of being too gloomy. I don't agree - but perhaps he has a point. Anyway, this is a pleasant distraction from yet more questions about how my clients can be supposed to understand what they are said to have done without the undoubted - but sadly absent - benefit of being clairvoyant. And if I can still enjoy myself with all this going on then the job has to be worth doing.

I actually believe in justice. This job is all about speaking for those who can't speak for themselves, resolving disputes after which people can get on with their lives, ensuring that business is honest and trying to make the places we live in safe for all. It doesn't always succeed, but it's always a worthwhile thing to do. The Old Testament says 'Justice, justice you must pursue'. One of the classic commentaries asks why 'justice' is repeated and comes up with two answers. Firstly, to teach us that we really MUST pursue it. Secondly to acknowledge that it isn't always possible - but the system must be as fair as we can make it.

If this sounds preachy I apologise. But it sometimes helps to remind myself (and now you obviously) that there is a genuine reason for doing what we do.

I shall now sink back into the comforting waters of cynicism, illness and self-pity and work for money.

The BVC - Infallible Tool, Necessary Evil, or Total Crap?

2007-05-25T11:22:00.000+01:00

BVC provision is a problem. They were created to broaden the choice from one provider - the ICSL. That was desirable because local authorities had stopped giving grants for Bar School (you will all be too young to remember what grants were, but once upon a time in a golden land called 60s-90s Britain the government paid for you to be educated) and the cost of living in London was enormous. Also, in the late 80s - 90s, the good times were there for the Bar and people believed that they would last for ever.

Now we produce about 3,000 people pa with the vocational qualification. Of those, all but the 500 odd who get pupillage (employed and independent) have nothing of value save what they actually learned. And it costs a fortune (the ICSL cost me £6,000 in 1985 - I remember the pain of handing over the cheque).

There is an ethical debate about when we should shut the door on being a barrister. At present that is the final stage - i.e. everyone can compete for pupillage. Were we to move it back and make entry to the BVC the sifting point then a number of consequences would seem to flow. Firstly, some BVC providers would close, because the economies of scale would not permit them to carry on. Secondly, we would have to decide what criteria would apply. It seems to me unlikely that Chambers would wish to chose pupils 3 years before they arrived - if only because the decision to offer pupillage is usually taken at the last minute and because there's many a slip. Yet 3 years would probably be required so that pupillage could be offered in the second year and the BVC place obtained in the 3rd year.

It is also probably the case that costs would not go down - indeed might even go up because the course would have to be delievered to fewer people. Then we would have to deal with the question of how many people got to go on the BVC course - you couldn't really confine it to those who only had pupillage because they may drop out and leave the Chambers without a pupil they wanted. And Chambers' needs can change over 3 years, particularly if a mid-ranking junior really takes off and has returns coming out of their ears. And what about the people who want the qualification to go to a different country and practice there? Do we only let them in if they promise to go? What if the country they wish to go to doesn't chose its pupils for another 2 years?

And, finally, what of all the people who would say ' I would be a brilliant barrister but my academic performance isn't my strongest point'? How else are we to judge entry to the BVC/the obtaining of pupillage if the entire exercise is taking place in the 2nd year? Normally mini-pupillages are undertaken when the student knows some law. If the BVC is pupillage dependent and the exercise is being conducted in the 2nd year then how many informed mini-pupillages will be done? And if we chose some other criteria to limit entry to the BVC that can only be academic.

On the other hand I am afraid that my experience shows that too many people who have no realistic chance of obtaining pupillage believe the contrary. To some extent they are grown-ups and must bear the consequences of their own decisions. However, when I see a candidate with a 2.2 from a not terribly distinguished university, who went to a decent school (and thus cannot rely on any argument based on differential), has done nothing special either of an extra-curricular nature or within their degree (for example a first in a dissertation on remedies and a letter saying they can produce really good work but can't handle all the subjects to the same standard within a tight timetable), and who produces an Olpas form that looks like 300 other peoples' Olpas form - I think that person has wasted time, money and effort and should have been disillusioned early.

In reality my favoured system is a barrister sift, where a panel of about 5 people spends 1/2 day with a group of potential applicants and then either says yes or no (the coercive option) or gives advice (the gentle option). And in these days where no profession is allowed to regulate itself that is about as likely as Satan being elected God.

So once again, because we refuse to trust anybody, we don't believe in feel and we attribute every decision which goes against us to a sinister conspiracy or the 'old boys' network', we allow blunt tools like exam results to dictate the lives of thousands of people, or we leave it to the market and allow the suppliers to grow rich on a course which only 20% of their consumers will benefit from. Good hey?

I would welcome comment. This is one of the things that genuinely makes me angry.

Temporary Absence

2007-05-22T19:50:00.000+01:00

In about an hour's time it is the start of the festival of Shavuot (Pentecost). As an orthodox Jew I will be off to synagogue, followed by staying up all night learning (yes really). The festival lasts for 2 days during which we don't have the TV on, answer the phone, drive a car, or use the computer. For those of you aghast at these deprivations and wondering how we survive the answer is that we pray, read, talk, sleep, learn and talk some more.

So, I won't be answering questions (including on TSR) or posting until late Thursday night/Friday morning. I'm not being rude and I haven't gone away for good - I know how you all worry :)

More anon.

Becoming a Solicitor First? (hat-tip B2B)

2007-05-21T19:25:00.000+01:00

Whether to do this is just about the number 1 question and, as chance would have it, I have a cunning plan ready to hand. It is NOT mine - it belongs to Barrister2Be who has kindly given his permission for me to publish it.

Now, I do not warrant that this will succeed and it demands dedication. But I can't detect any obvious flaw. Further reports are welcome. So, thanks B2B and here it is:

"No Pupillage – What next?

If you are reading this then you have no doubt passed the Bar Vocational Course and
have not found that elusive pupillage. Most people I know have been totally
demoralised by the whole pupillage application process and either end up doing ad-hoc para-legal work in the hope it will enhance their c.v. or give up any dream that they once had of becoming a barrister. Lets face it, the system sucks but we knew what the odds were when we started the BVC, the people who make a success of bad situation are the ones who don’t give up at the first hurdle. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and read on.

Do your own research

In life you get out what you put in and I am not therefore going to quote every applicable Law Society / Bar Council regulation in respect of this document. These are available on the relevant web sites. You are trained in legal research, so if there is anything you are not sure about, then you are well qualified to do your own research, lets face it you paid just short of £10000 for the privilege of calling yourself a non practising barrister, almost a bit like cash for honours.

This is not legal or Career advice

This is not meant to be legal advice or otherwise, it is provided in good faith only, it may contain errors, for which I will not be held responsible. You are an adult with a legal mind which is no doubt far superior to mine, so don't rely on anything I tell you.

The Bar Council / Law Society

After looking at the Bar Council and Law Society Regulations in respect to qualification, it transpires that there is a solution to this problem and that it is possible to become a practising barrister without having to find a pupillage.

The Solution in a nutshell

You become a solicitor wih higher rights

You then have two options

You can then transfer back to the bar and apply for a waiver of pupillage from the bar council and they will more than likely grant it, if you obtain higher rights in both criminal and civil proceedings. You will then need to find a set of chambers to take you on as a probationary tenant.

Continue working as a solicitor advocate and enjoy the same rights of audience as a barrister, although you don't get to wear a wig, it could be argued that you are saving yourself a couple of hundred quid, however if you are anything like me, I want the bloody wig.

How do you go about it – that's elementary my dear Watson !

QLTT

The first thing you need to do is apply to the law society for a certificate of eligibility to sit the Qualified lawyers transfer test. This form is obtainable from the law society. You send the completed form with a certified copy of your degree or GDL certificate, Certificate of admission to your INN and BVC certificate along with a nice fat cheque for £400.00. Don't moan that you have no money, if you are hungry enough you will find a legal way to obtain it. If you have been a naughty boy in the past and have a police record, then you need to be aware that the Law Society perform a mandatory CRB check prior to admission. Lets face it they dont want a convicted fraudster running off with all grannys money do they?

The Law society then write back to you and tell you that you need to sit the Solicitors Accounts and Professional Conduct element of the Exam. The exams are open book and you can resit as often as you want, so if you are grey matter challenged or an old bastard like me with a crap memory, it wont matter, you will pass in time.

You then need to enrol with an approved provider in order to sit the test. This will cost you £250 which will register you for three attempts at the test. Each attempt will cost you in the region of £90. BBP and Central Law Training are approved testing organisations. They can also provide distance learning and face to face tutoring if required, the fees for this will vary between £250 and £900 depending on what option is taken. I would recommend the distance learning option with BPP as the materials are concise and go and do a book keeping course at your local college of further education if you don't feel confident in this area.

If you have reached this point, you should now be at the following stage
■ Have obtained your certificate of eligibility
■ Have registered with a course provider
■ Decided on your mode of study
■ Brush up on accounts at your local college if required

You sit the QLTT and pass.

You now need to obtain 24 months legal experience and cover three areas of law which is a mixture of contentious and non contentious areas of practice. If you have prior experience you can apply to the law society for a reduction in this period. You will now need to start job hunting, ideally look for temporary contracts, these can be found on web sites such as totally legal. I suggest you work in areas that reflect the area in which you finally want to work. As you will be at the bottom of the pile, you will no doubt be meeting Council on a regular basis, this is where you have to shine and impress them with your hard work and knowledge.

HIGHER RIGHTS

As soon as you have your certificate of eligibility for the QLTT you must then apply to the Law society for a wavier in order to start the process by which you obtain higher rights.

There are various routes to higher rights but the route which is applicable to a non practising barrister is “development route”. The law society will exempt a non practising barrister from having to have training and assessment towards higher rights. The only requirement that you will have to adhere to is the requirement to create a portfolio, you will need a mentor to assist you with this who can either be a Solicitor or a practising Barrister. Examples of portfolio's can be found on the law society website along with what is required by your mentor.

The Waiver that you apply for will allow you to start building your portfolio prior to been admitted on the solicitors roll. To apply for the waiver you must write to Paul Harrison, Solicitors Regulation Authority, DX 19114 Redditch. I could have made you sweat for this address but i am not totally heartless..

You must complete 4 of chapters in the portfolio prior to admission on the Solicitors roll (or you will have delays later on), the final chapter you can only do when you have your rights of audience as it is a requirement to have completed an advocacy exercise before a real court. Just keep your mentor sweet during your time with him or her, even if it means baby sitting on a Saturday night. They are helping you remember not vice versa.

RECAP

You are now at the stage where you should be:

l You have passed your QLTT exam (if you fail just try again)
l Working during the day gaining the required legal experience
l Completing one chapter of your Higher Rights portfolio at least every 3 Months.

WHATS NEXT

Once you have completed your 24 months experience you then apply to be admitted on the Solicitors roll,

Assuming you are admitted you are now a solicitor with rights of audience in the lower courts, you now must complete the last chapter in your portfolio with the aid of your mentor and send off your application for higher rights along with the portfolio. Full details are on the Law societies web site.

If all you meet the required standard in respect of the portfolio then you will be given your higher rights and you are now a solicitor advocate, with the same rights of audience as a practising Barrister.

YOUR OPTIONS

Work as a solicitor advocate

You can apply to transfer back to the bar and you will be given the following exemptions

l If you have civil higher rights then you will get a 6 month reduction in pupillage

l If you have criminal higher rights then you will get a 6 month reduction in pupillage

l If you have both then you will be exempt from pupillage

l All you now need to do is find a chambers to take you on as a probationary tenant, remember all the contacts you made with Counsel when doing your legal experience requirement, if you impressed them I am sure you will find your tenancy.

TIMELINE

The whole process should take two years or less depending on your exemption for previous legal experience. I think you will agree with me that you will be more attractive to chambers as a probationary tenant then a pupil who has to learn on the job at Chambers expense.

QUESTIONS

How many people are up for pupillage each year? To many to mention

What are your odds of getting a pupillage? If pupillage was a horse I would not bet on it.

FINAL THOUGHTS

There is always more than one route to a destination

Good Luck in your quest"

For more from our man in the law society corner trying on his wig and gown - go here: http://barrister2b.blogspot.com/

All Beginnings Are Difficult

2007-05-20T12:15:00.000+01:00

I have been reflecting on when you might first seek a mini-pupillage and whether any one time is better than any other. This is prompted by judging a moot in which neither of the winners had yet done a mini-pupillage, although both were certain about going to the Bar.

Most Chambers draw a sharp distinction between students and school-children. Just check the number of websites which make it clear that work experience isn't available. Most Chambers, as far as I can tell, draw no distinction between either law students and non-law students or University students and BVC students. Nor is much, if any, distinction made between first years and third years.

That means that Chambers have a basic expectation that the mini-pupil will be interested in the Bar and have some knowledge of the law. That is on a par with a barrister's basic beliefs - namely that what they do is a) fascinating; and b) vital. You may not share this view...

In which case the best advice I can give is to chose a set for that first mini-pupillage (you know, the one where you're just sussing out whether you can ever be old enough or farty enough to do the job) which you are likely never to want to go to again, even as the office junior. And also not to ask basic questions but to look it up instead. There are two really good books for this purpose - both I fear may be out of print but second hand bookshops should be able to help.

The first is Henry Cecil's 'Brief to Counsel'. This was written over 50 years ago and much of the detail is out of date. However, it is still outstanding for the tone which accurately reflects the way that barristers think (and should think in my view). Cecil - actually the pseudonym of HH Judge Leon - also wrote some amusingish legal novels. The second is Glanville-Williams 'Learning the Law' which is an easily assimilated basic introduction to legal concepts. If you do not find it fairly easy and you are over 19 then think again about the law.

Those two books should stop you making a complete fool of yourself and may even give you that veneer of knowledge that makes you an attractive candidate. Remember that barristers expect you to know the law - that's why you have paid a fortune for your education. The 'added value' is the ability to talk with a degree of confidence and knowledge about how the profession operates - how Judges take to people who only take good points; how clients like business minded advice. Add a mini-pupillage to that mix and you should be able to head for the sets you want to join with some confidence. But it's a hell of a risk to head for the dream place first, especially as most Chambers will only let you have one mini-pupillage in total.

Most sets book early and allocate on a first come first served basis. So I would apply at Christmas in my first year and expect to do my first mini-pupillage in the summer. Then you have time to assimilate the experience, get some more law under your belt, decide if the Bar is really for you, do your research and apply for the mini-pupillages that really matter in your second year and onwards.

If you convert then the timetable is necessarily shorter. But I would still be looking for a mini-pupillage in my third year and I would still read Glanville-Williams' book (at least) before I started. By the stage I am discussing, you must know you want to try for the law and you must be wondering about the Bar. It isn't exactly unfair to expect you to have done a little reading up.

I know that this sounds incredibly basic, but it is astonishing how many people do not do these things. Most barristers are very happy to have people tagging along with them - at the very least a student is likely to take them at their own valuation for a day or so and this is deeply satisfying - but the pleasure quickly dissipates when the mini-pupil asks, 'Please could you tell me who the person all on his own on that big bench up there is?' Especially if you are cross-examining at the time. And especially as the mini-pupil has used a preposition to end a sentence with (more on grammar another time).

Very occasionally someone like this makes it and becomes a member of a Chambers. Invariably they feel that asking obvious questions has served them well, and they keep doing it. I remember the outstanding question 'What is it about this incident that you least remember?' being asked by one such person. The witness, unsurprisingly, was stuck for an answer - a fact treated as a triumph by the barrister concerned.

Another such example, who was anxious to tell all and sundry that he did 'mainly civil and mainly big-value commercial work' was persuaded by the boys and girls at the criminal bar that, just as the County Court Practice was called 'The Green Book (because it was green) and the Supreme Court Practice was called 'The White Book' (because it was white - are we barristers logical or what?), Archbold (the bible of the criminal practitioner) should be called The Red Book (because it was, with elegant inevitability, red). In fact Archbold is called (Criminal Barristers being simple souls) 'Archbold'. Court was crowded to watch the results...

The point is that mini-pupillage is a time for you to assess your own reaction to the job. If the thought of doing the preliminary spade-work fills you with revulsion or you don't quite see what is wrong with the above stories then it might really be better to do something else.

An Excellent Prospect - Or Not

2007-05-14T20:44:00.000+01:00

Having been asked to expand regarding interviews, I have dug around a bit and present the results below. Please note - this is a far from scientific sample.

Most Chambers have some idea of what sort of work they want the prospective pupil to do. They are also looking for specific qualities. Normally these include academic aptitude, aptitude for the job, motivation and the all important 'clubability' - or 'will work well as part of a team' as it is now known in these PC times in which we rejoice.

Academic aptitude is not necessarily a 1st class degree. I suspect that in some of the 'top sets' (as they like to think of themselves) it does mean that. But, having been in this game for 20 years and having been against a fair number of people from these sets I have yet to meet a case which requires a 1st class degree. You may have guessed that I do not have one. And I wasn't even this close. Still, there are some areas of law where bursting with brains helps - providing it is aligned to other qualities. More important is an orderly mind. So I wouldn't peddle your academic qualifications above all else and expect to succeed - one of the very worst interviewees I ever saw had an Oxbridge 1st. They were so convinced they were correct that they had omitted to include a reverse gear in their toolbox. We said, 'don't call us'.

But, as I have said below, it's easy to weed people out by saying a 2i or above is required. So, if you got a Desmond, get a letter from your academic tutor saying that it was all the fault of the hayfever/sad death of your hamster/physical inability to revise without inflicting gbh on yourself - and attach it to the form.

Motivation should be self-explanatory. This job has risks. Acknowledge them and say why they appeal. Then bore in on the town and the specific set. Be in a position to answer basic questions. Saying you want to come to Leeds because you've always loved the castle indicates low motivation.

Job aptitude is a little like motivation. It is your opportunity to show that you can be a barrister. Normally you are asked a test question - this seems to be the pattern in most chambers. The answer is unlikely to be legal. The problem is practical or ethical and is aimed at eliciting your response to a real-life situation where you have to think on your feet, under pressure. Do not moan about this - it is what really happens.

The best advice I can give is to slice up the problem into its component parts; work out which one comes first and give your honest view. Yes, your judgment is being tested and you may get it wrong. Better in interview than with a real client (I appreciate that you may disagree about this). Take your time if required - I know people at the Bar whose instant decisions are almost always wrong. But the good ones always buy the time they need. Don't fall into the trap of looking for visual clues to the right answer - there almost certainly isn't one.

Clubability is the issue of whether you will get on and fit in. Please do not take a stand here on the basis of sexism/racism/anti-semitism/anti-islamism/anti-moronic fascists for an all-white Britain. Of course there are racist barristers - and sexist ones, etc. But the Bar is actually a pretty meritocratic profession and heading in the right direction. Barristers have a number of things in common: they are at the sharp end and like it, so they tend to have egos and believe they are right. They do serious work with serious consequences, so they tend to take themselves seriously. They are a small profession, so they tend to have in-jokes and like gossip. And - shock horror - they look for people who will adapt easily to the culture.

Now, you may or you may not enjoy this type of atmosphere. You may or may not be offended by it. But everyone in the Chambers is self-employed. They are not paying you (except for your pupillage award) and they are not assessing you for a partnership. They are looking for people to work with others and take Chambers forward. They are entitled to decide that based upon their assessment of you and of Chambers. And that applies across the board: there are well known 'left-wing' sets of Chambers. Try being interviewed there and saying that you want to dedicate your personal life and professional abilities to prosecuting welfare cheats.

So, you may be discriminated against - I truly hope you are not and I believe you should complain if you are - but you may also just not give a very good impression. Don't assume the former until you can dismiss the latter.

Also, my own personal view is that really good barristers are not hugely egotistical, self-regarding or dependant on gossip for their own self-regard. And that might be a good way to assess whether you want to be in the Chambers who are interviewing you... But sadly, the boot is usually on the other foot.

All necessary information is usually obtained through question and answer. I hear that there are some Chambers who set a written question or test. Information would be helpful, but I suspect that this is nothing more than a convenience for busy people who find it easier to read it than to see it. Ultimately there is an interview, and it's not just what you say, it's the way that you say it. My best advice is to relax and be yourself. Humour is fine if gentle, well-judged and not your primary motif. Otherwise be polite, play it straight, and try to be you - on your best behaviour obviously, not down at the pub with your mates, half-pissed going on falling-over and hooting over the hilarious sight of someone trying to eat crisps through their nostrils.

I do recommend asking to spend a day or so in Chambers before saying yes to an offer - most sets have some sort of arrangement like this these days. It is a way of meeting the junior tenants who may be more congenial company for you. It is a way of seeing whether the people get on, where the social centre lies and whether you like what you may be joining. Some Chambers have bullies, some have cliques. If you have more than one offer (lucky soul) you may actually be in the position of having to turn a set down. Even though moving Chambers is more acceptable than it once was, it is sensible to approach the decision on the basis that these people will be your colleagues for a long time.

An Introduction

2007-05-04T10:01:00.000+01:00

I have fiddled with the timings so that this site reads downwards in logical order. Start here and keep going.

I would welcome comment about the site and how helpful you find it. I'm not in a position to promise a reply - please don't expect one - but I will if I can. Nothing you say about the page will affect your chances of interview, but if you want to be really rude a pseudonym would be a wise move. Until 2003 I was the grandly titled Head of Pupillage for the above set of chambers. Having spent the last few years fielding the queries it seemed to me that some general information might be helpful. This doesn't pretend to be a definitive guide. My experience is provincial rather than metropolitan. Nonetheless if it helps ease the pain for you it will all have been worthwhile.

What I have set out to do is to provide some basic rules regarding mini-pupillages and the general discussions that they involve. I have then dealt with pupillage applications and pupillage interviews. Finally I have included a section on obtaining a third six pupillage or a tenancy at a new set. The last few years have been an eye opener in three respects: firstly I had not appreciated how many pupils the London sets were chucking out. Secondly, I had not appreciated how irritating it was to get the same request time and again, with a total lack of the information that I wanted. Thirdly, I have been surprised by the numbers coming into the profession, given the general atmosphere of doom and gloom. Perhaps it really is worse to be a Solicitor.

However, all this eye opening means that provincial sets are wondering whether the multi-pupil approach isn't for them after all. We've not done it before but, hey, we're told it's what you guys want and we get the advantage of internal competition. Feedback on this would be helpful. I can only deal with OLPAS. Chambers is a member for better or worse. We do it for you, in the interests of fairness for all. Those Chambers who do not subscribe doubtless have good reason - go and get help from them.

So, when it comes to filling in your application, remember that most pupillage officers are reading 300+ forms. Do try and make the information which makes you special stand out. If you are only applying to sets in one geographical area, say so. If you're spreading your net wide then you have to indicate why you are applying to sets in places with which you seem to have no connection. Results count. They are, in fact, a pretty poor guide to form at the common law bar but you go on what you've got. Oxbridge counts - sorry but there it is. Increasingly, differential counts - the worse your school the more weight given to a good university degree. If your school was a comp make sure your reader knows it. I think this is a good thing. If you have had the advantage (and it almost always IS an advantage) of private education there's nothing unfair about expecting you to do better than if you went to a comp - that's why your Mummy and Daddy shelled out all that dosh in the first place, after all.

Also, it appears that the reduction in money available to students (there are 2 theories about this: either it's the Government's fault or you're all taking too many holidays) means that a number of people are deliberately going to Universities close to home. Most pupillage officers deliberately went as far away from home as they could. So, if the reason you went to a "new university" is geographical, say so. It is still the case the those institutions are perceived as inferior. There is an element of catch-up here, in the sense that the bright new products of the ex-polytechnics have not yet made sufficient impact to change perceptions. I am aware that this is not politically correct but it is true, and so you are entitled to know it.

Interesting backgrounds/activities count. Don't clutter up the form. If you've spent a year teaching Cambodian children how to revenge themselves on the USA don't hide it amongst your account of your 2 weeks on Kibbutz. On the other hand, if your extra-curricular activity includes teaching Osama bin Laden how to revenge himself on the USA, the English Bar probably isn't for you.

If your results were poor don't try and excuse them. If you can't explain in one line, you can't explain. Better to say something along the lines of, "my referees will willingly indicate their confidence that my results did not begin to indicate my true aptitude."

Finally a word about admitting to being a lawyer in public. The present Government (for which I have always voted - but just you wait until next time you bastards) neatly makes the case for why lawyers are so necessary in a fair society. It's always easy to take the cheap way out, but sometimes those who are difficult, injured, ill, or just plain wicked need help. Most people don't give it, either because they can't or because they won't. Most lawyers truly believe that what they do helps society to operate fairly. So do I. You can be proud of what you are going to do. Being paid doesn't make you a parasite - politicians are paid as well.

In the meantime you can judge between those whose knees jerk every time they encounter a problem and those who like to think it through first. How many Acts have been passed in the last 8 years that affect the Criminal Law? Look it up. Soon, no doubt, there will be legislation to stop non-approved careers advice. In the meantime read on...

The Mini Pupillage

2007-05-04T09:53:00.000+01:00

You should do these. Remember that the vast majority of mini-pupillages these days are assessed. There is, therefore, an element of risk.

It pays to:
1. Write your application letter on the basis that it's as hard to get a mini-pupillage as it is to get an interview.
2. Say why you want to go to that set of Chambers.
3. Apply early. I emphasise this point. Often first come is first served.

It pays not to:
1. Do your first mini-pupillage at your dream set.
2. Fail to clue yourself up on the place you're going to and the type of work they do.
3. Fail to turn up at all, or fail to turn up on time every day, or ask for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday off. Don't laugh - it happens. Actually, do laugh; if the competition wants to commit hari-kiri why should you worry?
4. Fail to dress the part. I'm sure I shouldn't have to say this but Court Dress still means something. Think about the message you're sending in your velvet jeans (female) or sarong (male). It might just be me getting old but I don't think so.

Once in Chambers you will inevitably come into contact with the members. Ask, why are they called 'members' of Chambers? Right. So, unless you have specifically been told that you are being looked over with a view to an offer, it is unlikely that your mini-pupillage will register with anyone to whom you are not directly attached. Therefore, please don't tell everyone about your burning desire to be a barrister. They already know. Everyone has a burning desire etc etc...

Your aim as regards your mini-pupil master should be for him/her to say what a joy you were to have around. No-one but the poshest or most pretentious sets expects you to be at a stage to contribute very much. Everyone remembers the mini-pupil whose company they enjoyed.
If you're given something to do don't say that you can't do it - the person who asked you already knows. Do the best you can with the knowledge you have.

Remember, in most sets everyone who takes you somewhere will add something to your record. By and large the decision to interview you or not will be made very shortly after you leave.
Also, you should expect the person you're with to buy your lunch. If they don't then think twice before applying. You are entitled to be looked after properly and that means that your pupil-master should be nice to you as well as the other way round.

Don't be aggravating. This is important. We know you're nervous. But asking bloody silly questions shouldn't make you feel better. If you can look it up then you should have done that already. If you have looked it up and can't find the answer it's either a very good question or a very bad one. Well, this is a job centring on judgment. Choose.

Don't be a space invader. If your mini-pupil master's trolley is running over your feet, you're too close.

Do enter into the spirit of it all - go for a drink, have a laugh. But try and be average. I had a pupil who drank so much on their first weekend out with Chambers that they suffered an embarrassing accident... No one will ever forget but ask yourself, is that why you want to be remembered? And if the answer to that question is 'yes' then stand for Parliament.

The Application

2007-05-04T09:45:00.000+01:00

The key information is:

Your class of degree. I'm really sorry to say this but if you don't have an exceptional reason for your result then a 2:2 is no good. Yes, it's unfair. Yes, Megarry VC got a 3rd. But if you had to read 300 forms and throw 285 away and you could get rid of 190 by adopting this approach you would, wouldn't you?

Your geographical home if applying to the provinces. Local candidates still tend to get preference. If you come from Wales, why do you want to practice in Leeds? It's not as if our sheep are any more attractive surely?

What you want to do at the bar. Just on a personal note - if you want to be an advocate that's fine by me. It isn't necessary to specialise in contract law to get damages for someone who's had a crap holiday - although there are some snotty solicitors who say it is. What are their hourly rates? But you should have some idea as between crime/civil/family. Obviously, the more specialist the sets you are applying to, the more this information will have to be precise.

Why you want to do it at the type of Chambers to which you have applied. Don't be put off by the fact that the form is general. It's what fortune tellers call a cold reading - "you will get a tax bill from the Inland Revenue". So, "a mixture of practices means I can preserve my options as long as possible". Or, "I have wanted to ensure that as many armed robbers as possible walk the streets of Manchester since my Uncle Jimmy went inside".

Whatever makes you stand out from the crowd.

The Interview

2007-05-04T08:30:00.000+01:00

These are tough. You will be expected to know something about recent developments and proposals for the legal system. You may even be expected to have a view about it. If so, please give your honest opinion. Most barristers have high quality bull detectors (obviously as they all own country estates) and, as you are not a Judge, telling them what they want to hear is irrelevant and will not assist you. If you are applying for a specialist pupillage you will be expected to be up to date with recent developments. If you claim knowledge of any particular subject you will be expected to demonstrate it.

Take your time. Don't expect to get every answer right - there probably isn't one right answer.
If you've applied to the pupillage factories ask yourself what they want and aim to demonstrate it. If you've applied to sets where pupillages are with a view remember that the sub-plot is whether the panel think you can get along with the members of Chambers. DON'T diss the opposition - either other Chambers (gossip gets around) or your fellow interviewees. It sounds dreadful.

You will do better if you relax. If you can't relax you will do better if you acknowledge to the panel that you are finding it difficult to relax. You might have to be relaxed to indicate that you aren't relaxed - just think of it as a tricky submission to a misanthropic High Court Judge.

Panels will make allowances, but they will want to give pupillages to people who don't require allowances to be made. Don't fail to appreciate, and bone up on, what the panel expects you to know. Know the sort of work Chambers does, the number of tenants and the number of silks. Don't over-flatter your listeners. They will know if they really are the premier woodworking law set in the West of England. Say why the set is right for you. Only say why you are right for the set if specifically asked, or if you can promise that your Uncle George can provide work for every junior tenant until 2012 (preferably in his capacity as a solicitor).

Also, and it is bizarre that I have to say this, we can tell if we are really your number one choice or not. It must be all that cross-examination honing our already rapier-sharp legal skills. Speaking personally, anyone who gives me the impression that we'll do if that fantastic set they really, really want to go to doesn't come up with an offer can walk back to their BVC course - preferrably on their knees. So try and be enthusiastic, even if it's largely bullshit.

If At First You Don't Succeed - Third Sixes and Probabtionary Tenancies

2007-05-04T08:25:00.000+01:00

If you aren't taken on and you want to look around for another set please try and remember that you are starting with a problem. You are a reject. Think about this before you go to a factory.

You must say why you were not taken on. If the truth is that you did not ask to be considered for tenancy then you must prove it. If you just didn't make the cut, please bear the following in mind:

1. You would have stayed in London if offered a tenancy. Why, now, do you want to come to the provinces? We provincials are chippy. You have to flatter us.

2. There probably won't be room. Most sets you are applying to already have a pupil who they expect to take on (!). If there is room for you it is because you are too good to miss. Sell yourself hard. References from the pupil master you've just left are not the way to do it. Either s/he didn't like you enough to get you in, or s/he has no clout in their own Chambers.

3. You've been on your feet for some time. You should, therefore, know more about the Chambers you are applying to than you did about the sets you applied to for pupillage. You also know more people who can give you the low down. Use it. Flattery has to be at least semi-believeable. See if you can say what you would add to Chambers. Look at the website - see what seminars have just been given. Are you a good fit? Can you tell the speaker what they got wrong? Can you do that tactfully?

4. The poor sod you're writing to has enough on his plate without listening to you moan. It is easiest to send out the standard, "I'm sorry we have no room" letter. Don't give them an opportunity to do it. Remember, it is a legitimate test of your ability to ask whether you have told the person you need to convince everything they need to know.

5. So say why Leeds (only an example but you could do worse), why you haven't got tenancy, whether you applied for pupillage, whether you were interviewed, what has happened in the meantime to make you a better candidate, why these Chambers, what work you have done and want to do, whether you have a local base. Type the letter - your handwriting is dreadful. Address it to the right person (not, please, "Tenancy"). Make an effort.

Most of you do not need this information - yet. Statistics show that about 30% of you will need it next year. Don't kid yourself - I reckon that I would not get a pupillage nowadays let alone a tenancy and it is getting harder every year.

A Pause for Thought

2007-05-04T08:20:00.000+01:00

A number of people have asked me whether their failure to get an offer is as a result of their CV being inadequate. Almost always the answer is that it is substantively fine. But it is appallingly presented. What I said above about application forms applies in spades to CVs. Get some help if necessary. What almost every experienced barrister knows and almost every new barrister can't bring themselves to admit is that, for a large proportion of the time (big secret coming) it isn't very difficult. There, I've said it. But it does require good judgment - you are persuading people to do things, after all. And it is not unreasonable to assess your judgment when you send us things like a CV.

If it is not working out for you it may be because being a barrister is not for you. I know people who I believe will make brilliant barristers, who have tried 3 or 4 times to get a pupillage and have only been successful on the last occasion. And that is because previously they have either come up against future High Court Judges, or because the panel got it wrong (which happens). However, most people who are turned down have either set their sights too high in terms of the Chambers they want to join, or are just not going to cut it. I know this is harsh (or way harsh if you are in your first year) but it is also true.

I believe that to be a good barrister requires a degree of emotional intelligence, maturity and judgement. Some people take longer to acquire those qualities than others; some people never acquire them. Now may not be the right time for you. There are plenty of people who have been solictors first (what does that say about the emotional intelligence etc of solicitors? Not a lot - it's a bigger profession and there are roles which can keep you away from human contact entirely, if you exlude from the definition of 'human' the partners, as most solicitors do).

This is not meant to be patronising: you are going into a profession which is self-employed. You need robust health. You need to accept that no work = no money. You need the self-confidence to go on after losing 8 on the trot (something that happened to a pupil of mine after their first case). And, ultimately you need to succeed - especially if you are planning on having any dependants. So, there may come a time when 'I am dedicated to being a barrister' becomes 'I was dedicated to being a barrister but ultimately decided it was better that I did something else'. There is no disgrace in changing your mind.

Next: the government is commited to you not being wealthy. That is fine - the consequences for the public will be the subject of a further post because it is unclear that this is actually a bad idea - except for barristers obviously. But you must understand it. If you are going to do publicly funded work the effect of the legal aid regulations is that your income will be restricted. To go through the glass ceiling will involve doing private work. If you are going to do private work then the sky is still the limit - just remember that for every Apollo rocket there are thousands of hang-gliders...

If you fail don't whinge. It may not be your fault but it is unlikely to be anybody else's. Sometimes the luck of the draw is not with you. Fine, you have a legal qualification which is useful. You have a brain, friends and (I hope) your health. The world doesn't owe you a living. Get on with it (this is also useful advice for clients who have just been sent to prison).

Final Speech

2007-05-04T08:15:00.000+01:00

Getting a pupillage is hard. On the other hand, I went on a dire mini-pupillage where everyone moaned on and on about how the job was buggered. It was so depressing that I swore I would never do that.

Whatever the financial risks and downsides, if you are the sort of person who cannot envisage working for anyone else; who likes risk; who would rather back their own judgement than do what someone else dictates; who wants the glory of success and is prepared to be the fan when things fail; who wants to go to bed at 4am if they want and rise at 11 if they want, just providing it gets done; who looks at the sharp end as being something they thrust in, rather than something that hits their back: if you are that sort of person then let me make it clear that this is a WONDERFUL job and well worth going for.

In which case, just do it right. And, borrowing a suggestion from The Hitch Hikers Guide -

Good Luck
(actually that's wrong as I have just realised - but I mean it anyway - and it should be replaced with)

Don't Panic