Bit of a Kicking Part 2

Onward:

For the sake of fullness, I will briefly address the relentless argument on BVC graduates struggling to find pupillage.

It is correct to say that before commencing the BVC I knew the odds of attaining pupillage. I also was aware of the costs associated with the course, and the potential earnings I could receive thereafter. But I refused to be deterred – as are, regrettably, several passionate and talented individuals. Why? Not through ignorance or delusional, but because this is – as you say – a vocation, and I simply was not willing to accept anything less until I knew I had explored all avenues. My acceptance onto the BVC course gave me the opportunity to pursue my passion and I was not about to turn my back on it. I set out to beat the odds.

Since graduating, I have sought to express neither bitterness nor self-pity (I agree with that). I simply take issue with this radical undermining of the problem.

It was at this stage, still trying to pursue my passion, that I sought employment which would enable me to save sufficient funds to finance a twelve month pupillage. Let me lay out the hurdle I was trying to overcome in no uncertain terms. I was looking to save enough to meet the differential between my predicted monthly outgoings during pupillage and my potential monthly earnings. Whilst I was paying closer to £620 per month in rent at the time – to live somewhere I felt secure, and with friends rather than strangers – I would happily have reduced my outgoings if it were to have made a difference, so I will use the figure for minimum outgoings as I have estimated above – including, of course, my obligatory loan repayment. This, of course, pre-supposes that alternative sources of income – a loan for example – are not available.

As for earnings, since nothing above the pupillage award is guaranteed and since, in any event, cash must be available on a monthly basis for bills and no additional income is available in the first six months, I was forced to calculate on the basis only of that income which is guaranteed.
So the yearly differential would be the estimated outgoings of £15,624, less the potential £10,000 guaranteed income. Thus, it would be necessary to accumulate £462 monthly in savings over the course of one year’s alternative employment. I would be interested to know if the only applications made were to sets which gave only the minimum award.

During that year, my minimal outgoings would continue to amount to £1384 per month, including the added wage-dependant £100 SLC repayment. So my total minimal monthly outgoings, plus my saving for pupillage, would need to amount to a monthly net income of £1846 – or a yearly gross income of £28,077. And please bear in mind that’s the absolute minimum required income.

Well, you certainly can’t earn that sort of income in an entry-level paralegal role. Or, for that matter, any attainable role which would enable the candidate to remain in the field of law.
For my own part, I looked outside of the discipline to attempt to increase my temporary earning potential. Graduate roles would have required a false commitment and were not, of course, immediately available. As for commercial and financial roles, it would seem that BVC graduates face an uphill battle in the struggle to convince employers that they are worthy of an opportunity and have a wealth of valuable, transferrable skills – to the extent that it had been suggested I remove the qualification from my CV altogether.

I was lucky in that, following a temporary assignment, I was offered £27,500 per annum to undertake a non-legal office role. I struggled with the decision, but ultimately accepted the offer, hoping that by the time the twelve month contract expired I would have made some progress in saving towards pupillage.

I struggled to save for months. But – and here’s the extent of my knowledge of economics – if outgoings equal earnings, there’s nothing left to save.

I have a good interview record, and I think my experience speaks to my abilities – but I don’t have delusions of grandeur. I’ll be the first to admit that I may never even have progressed past the interview stage of pupillage rounds.

That does not alter the wider issue, though – that, if I was capable of attaining pupillage, and capable of being an outstanding criminal advocate, the profession would not have benefitted from my talent because I simply do not have the means to undertake a career at the criminal bar. I promise you I am not the only person in this position.

Following a wasted year gaining little valuable legal experience, I finally accepted that I am unable to pursue this avenue and decided, rather, to seek pupillage in a more lucrative discipline or perhaps a solicitor’s training contract. I intend to submit my applications this summer.

You have stated that you “have not heard anyone seriously suggest an alternative way to success than simply being good at it”. No, there is no alternative to success. But without providing the means for young people to support themselves, there are no guarantees that those who are good will be successful. I have sympathy with this, but the reality is that being self-employed is a risk. This exercise was approached on the basis that you needed to be rock solid certain that you would not have to spend more than you earned. Is there not something to be said for taking the risk (always assuming that someone would lend you the money) on the basis that the second year would, at least be better than the first?

The lack of funding at the junior criminal bar is choking the profession’s access to the brightest and most talented pupils. Do I have the answer? No. But I have to say it sickens me to read articles such as this:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/student/article6740749.ece

And that, supposedly, is to attract candidates who would otherwise not even consider the bar.
You say that pupil-masters give their time “happily” to pupils. Yet, despite criticising the very notion of seeking to acquire riches at the criminal bar as despicable (I think that is a bit overstated), you seem to be seeking some sort of accolade on behalf of your peers in asserting that a pupil’s measly award “comes from the earnings of the barristers in chambers”. Surely it is a privilege to invest in the future of the profession, to support such a “worthwhile and deeply satisfying” vocation, which serves to assist those who would otherwise “be outrageously disadvantaged”? Certainly it is – which is why so many barristers gives their time for free. This is not an idle point. I don’t earn unless I am working. Spending 2 hours going through my pupil’s pleadings isn’t working. But we happily do it. Not to mention those who lecture, supervise, advise, teach on courses, administer the profession, go to schools. All of this is done for free – which means the barrister in question is paying to do it. That is the balance here.

If you truly believe in the worth of the criminal bar, as you plead so passionately in your article, prevent its erosion through not only the increasing numbers of solicitor advocates and CPS advocates, but also the abundantly obviously draining of the best talent into other areas of practice. Campaign for better funding for pupils and junior criminal barristers.

I hope now you can appreciate why these sweeping statements you have made have ignited such condemnation. I don’t think that is accurate although I accept that some people didn’t like it. But I agree the statements were sweeping – it was a 600 word (as I recollect it) article and nuance is tricky.

I have, with my correspondent’s permission, sent this article to the Chairman of the Bar with a request that the Bar Council consider it when setting minimum pupillage awards. In my view the awards may need to be increased, differentiated between London and the provinces,  supported by a Chambers’/Inn loan scheme, tailored to individual need and otherwise reviewed.

I have received an assurance that the Bar Council is enquiring whether the review of pupillage by Derek Wood QC includes funding arrangements. If it does then I will ensure that it considers the points raised in my correspondent’s posts and the comments they attract. If not then I will try and find out when and how funding is going to be addressed and I will tell you.

In fairness the Bar Council told me that they had, the same week, received a complaint that compulsorily funded pupillage reduced opportunity. If that became an excuse for inaction it would be inexcusable. If it serves to show how there are no perfect options and to encourage debate about the least worst option then that would be helpful.

Bit of a Kicking

I have repeatedly asked for people who want to challenge the views I express to write to me and I will print what they send, providing it is sensible and that I can verify that they are genuine. So, when it happens, it would be churlish to ignore it. What appears below has been sent to me by someone who saw the article in Legal Week – where I replied to some complaints about the criminal Bar.

I have their permission to interject occasionally – I have put my comments in red type. Because it is quite a long response I am publishing it in two parts. I think it’s quite persuasive – as Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts alter, I change my mind. What do you do sir?” So, I am thinking.

I must admit that, prior to reading the article mentioned above, I had never heard of you. And having reviewed your blog, I have to say, you seem like a decent bloke (thank you) - well aware of the challenges facing young people seeking pupillage and the infuriating stance of BVC providers.

But unfortunately that doesn’t change the fact that my first reading of your article last month made my blood boil. And I notice that you have, recently, requested someone submit a response, with “real facts and identifiable sources”, to counter your assessment of the situation at the criminal bar.

Well I am not, alas, a practitioner, and thus unable to comment on the attitude of ushers, life in chambers, or the loss-leader culture.

However, it seems you are throwing down this gauntlet on the basis of certain accusations that you are “out of touch”. And what I can do, I believe – through reference to the real facts of my own experience and the identifiable source of, well, basic maths – is to provide the reasoning behind this accusation. In doing so, I will underscore the flawed premise of your article.

The sweeping comments with I take issue are:
1. That pupillage awards ensure pupils can meet essential costs (I said this or something very close to it);
2. That it is feasible to maintain one’s livelihood on a very low income for a sustainable period (and this) and;
3. That anyone who disagrees with these deductions is money-grabbing, shallow and lacking appreciation of the true value of the profession (I’m not sure I said this, although I think it is true of some people).
So, I have taken the liberty of assessing the merits of your statements.

Firstly, are pupillage awards at the criminal bar sufficient to “ensure that a pupil can pay their rent, travel and eat without too much worry”? Well according to the statistics the basic award at the criminal bar for a pupil could be as little as £10,000 (this is accurate).

So what are the costs? Well, a quick search for a Zone 2 flat-share on Gumtree London informs us that even the most basic single room will cost the tenant, on average, £500 per calendar month, or £6083 per annum. That, of course, is not including bills. Let’s assume our pupil shares with four others. Council tax in Zone 2 would amount, on average, to £15 per month. Meanwhile, money comparison websites can give us an average monthly figure for heating and electricity of £20, and the average Thames Water yearly bill gives us another £5 per month. The – let’s face it, for the modern pupil – essential internet connection fee adds a further minimum of £5. The equally obligatory mobile phone, another £30. That all amounts to an additional annual cost of £912.50.

The cost of a Zone 1 & 2 travel card is presently listed by Transport for London as £1,032 per annum. I will assume that the pupil is never required to travel to Zone 3, or to Zone 4… or Surrey… or Kent…

As for food, I defy even the most stringent budgeter to sustain a weekly grocery shop amounting to less than £7 per day, or £50 per week, in London – another £2,607. That amounts to total yearly outgoings of £10,635, which – hey presto – already surpasses the lowest award of £10,000.

This is before allowing for any other costs such as hygiene products, clothes (which would include court-worthy suits), any sort of emergency costs, or – God forbid – a social life, including the obligatory drinks with chambers.

But it is not enough to view pupillage as an isolated event. The BVC is of significant cost to any individual. Unless you are privy to some third party source of financial support, the only option for many a student is the professional development loan. More on my own experience later, but for now I will disclose that the bank loan I took to enable me to pay the course fees and cover one year’s living expenses in London, which was specifically tailored for BVC students, was for £25,000 (which suggests a total living expense for the year of £13,000 without repayments of the loan as BVC fees were about £12k).

There would be a brief repayment holiday on my loan, but ultimately the terms required a minimum repayment of £410 per month. Add this cost to his monthly outgoings, and our pupil is suddenly short of around £460 per month to feed and house himself.

Perhaps we can propose a box under London Bridge?

So how about the case of, as you say, the “almost terminally unfortunate pupil”, who is unable to “earn proper money” between the ages of 25 and 30? Your statement that we would “only” be waiting 5 years for a decent, sensible wage seems to insinuate that it would be frivolous to expect otherwise – surely we can survive without a Mercedes until we’re in our early thirties?

Well I’m afraid that, for those of us without another means of financial support, life simply isn’t that luxurious. It would not be a case of holding out for life’s perks – it would be a constant struggle to make ends meet (this seems a weak point to me – making ends meet is a struggle for many young people).

To save further argument, I will ignore the “anecdotal” evidence that I have heard from various sources, including close personal friends, as well as Alex Deane’s article, regarding the difficulties of receiving fair remuneration as a junior practitioner.  And unfortunately, I was unable to find further analysis of the Bar Council statistics you cite as your frame of reference (the most useful reference to those statistics when googling “barristers’ earnings” was your article!). Try http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/trainingandeducation/CareersHome/Funding/WhatBarristersEarn/ which is where I got my figures, although the link now seems to be broken.

So I will assume our junior is expected to live on a mean of the lower average – or £20,000.
Accounting for tax, such an income would leave our junior an extra £30, monthly, over and above his predicted essential outgoings, for those five years he awaits his “proper wage” (although some years will be better and you can set off your professional expenses against tax which alters the equation considerably). Not to mention an added repayment of around £50 per month to the Student Loans Company through earning over £15,000. And let’s not forget that this would come on top of an already turbulent 12 – 18 months in negative figures – leading, possibly, to further loan repayments.

Would the satisfaction of the work vindicate our struggle? Yes. Would we pursue our passion regardless? Absolutely. If it were an option, I certainly would do so. But the only means by which I, personally, could maintain this position would be by sinking myself further and further into debt. Even if this were a viable option, it is unlikely to be a realistic one in the current financial climate.

And this brings me to your final assertion, as I proposed would be addressed – that those of us who bemoan the state of pupillage awards and income at the criminal bar have little sense of the true value of the vocation, seek only material riches, and probably were not good enough to outshine the competition in any event.

Well, forgive me if I have misread the tone of your statements, but you seem to have overlooked a fundamental point. The lack of pecuniary reward in the earlier years of practice at the criminal bar does not deter only those who would seek to undertake it in order to glory in its riches. It also deters – and in fact, prohibits – some very talented and passionate candidates who do not have access to a significant amount of alternative financial backing. I’m flabbergasted as to how your article could so succinctly dismiss this possibility.

Well, I said that I would evidence my argument with reference to my own background. This is my experience. I graduated Durham University with a good 2:1 in law and some sensible extra-curricular experience. I also waitressed throughout my time at university in order to pay my outgoings. Thereafter, I spent a year working for a small but significant criminal law firm who managed several high profile cases, also volunteering in justice policy research and in court.
(It is probably worth noting at this stage that my wage with the firm was £12,000 per annum. I was living outside of London at this time, yet still found it necessary to supplement my income through part time waitressing.) I graduated the BVC having narrowly missed an outstanding, but with outstanding grades in advocacy. And, following that summer’s OLPAS round, I had ten pupillage interviews lined up with criminal sets.

I attended none of these interviews. Quite simply, I did the math (That’s a shame for the Bar).

There are issues here about which we could quarrel, and I would like to see the maths reworked with professional expenses deducted, but it does begin to look as if – in London at any rate – the minimum award isn’t enough.

I will publish Part 2 later in the week – and tell you what I have done about this communication. Comments are welcome – and thank you to my anonymous correspondent, who took the trouble to tell me rationally why I was talking nonsense. They could be a Judge

Still A Job Worth Doing

I have been debating the value of going to the criminal bar in Legalweek. I am occasionally said to be too gloomy. But it’s not as bad as Alex says. This is still a job worth doing

New Tenants’ Survival Guide: Part 2 Concluded

On with the way to climb the greasy pole…

Thirdly, front it up. Every so often there is a piece of evidence or information which is damning. The Judge peers at you and says pleasantly, ‘But if this is right then it poses a significant problem for you Mr Jones, does it not?’ You say ‘Yes my Lord’. Again, it can be difficult to do – especially if the point is one which you had taken considerable care to obscure. But you have to confront the weaknesses in your case. You win brownie points for dealing with matters this way – the Judge will appreciate the fact that you understand the problem and will be more receptive to what you say next, which will hopefully be something like ‘but not fatal unless your Lordship makes the 2 decisions on law and 3 findings of fact to which I now turn’.

As you go on and know your Judge it can help to get there before the Judge does, starting by saying ‘I anticipate that your Honour will have reservations about this issue because my submission appears to be that no duty of care is owed to a neighbour. Would it be of assistance to deal with that immediately?’. The Judge will not only be grateful for the realism but may also perk up at the prospect of an early day.

However, judgement is key in all things as exemplified by the fourth matter which can help you climb the internal ladder – don’t be a sycophant. Good Judges are as alive to this as anyone (bad Judges less so, alas). Your primary obligation is to your client and his case. Abandoning that case in the face of a demonstration of judicial hostility is unhelpful to your client and to you. If the Judge destroys your case by picking up on its most prominent weakness and you do not have an answer (save – and I have heard it said – ‘I was hoping your Honour wouldn’t raise that point) then for what, precisely, have you been paid? If you have thought about it then you should have an answer and that answer should be pressed – politely to be sure but firmly.

It can happen that, in the course of argument and discussion, you change your mind. So what? You are not being asked to judge the case, nor to believe in it. Clients sometimes like to feel that you believe in their case. The adage that a man who acts for himself has a fool for a lawyer comes to mind. Your job is to take an objective view. Your own feelings are at best irrelevant and at worst an impediment. If you have reassessed then the discussion is with your own client in private. It may be too late to change anything by then. You may change your view back when under less pressure. You know what your case is; you have analysed it and understood it: so, put it. Later on, if you have to retreat, do so having exhaustively discussed the point with your client and your solicitor and do it with grace.

Fifthly, be prepared. Neither your Judge nor your opponent will give you any credit for a brilliant skin-of-your teeth performance unless the matter to which you are reacting is really brand new. Unless you are one of the very few geniuses (and there are a few) who genuinely require no real preparation time, do the prep. The man who once said to my father as the prosecution opened its case ‘I’m so glad I haven’t read this. It lets me get a jury’s eye view’ was one of those people who didn’t need the prep time; the case was simple and he wasn’t telling the truth anyway.

Sixth, be pleasant. Of course you can always mash your opponent’s face into the floor and make his client cry. You can sometimes humiliate the Judge. But unless these really are critical parts of your case (they may be – it’s amazing how many people are prepared to settle after something bruising has happened) don’t do it. You will meet your opponent and your Judge again. If they dislike you then the next time will not be smooth. As you go along you will inevitably make mistakes: you will need your opponent’s forbearance and the Judge’s kindliness. Whether you will have them will be very largely up to you. That does not mean you must not press the advantage, should you have it. But don’t be nasty or brutal for fun.

Next, play a part in the profession. Everything the Bar does save work is voluntary. We regulate ourselves; we educate ourselves; we entertain ourselves; we promote the profession ourselves; we look after each other in sickness and health; we guide ourselves; we help each other; we organise events for ourselves. All of those things take a massive amount of work: they benefit everyone and it helps to be a part of it.

The paths to professional involvement are the specialist bar associations, the circuits, the Inns, the bar Council and the BSB. There is also plenty of work to be done within individual sets of Chambers. Of course, barristers are as prone to anyone else to comments about politicians and pushers. But still, get involved. Find something you enjoy doing and which you think you do well and then offer your services. You will meet people whose company you will enjoy, you will learn things from them, you will actually be contributing to your profession and – if asked – they may one day say nice things about you. But it does need to be in that order.

Finally, be unfailingly kind and gracious about everyone else. This is, of course, impossible. So in default of that do be prepared to take it. Don’t expect your status as person first with the news of Bloggins’ unfortunate misquote in front of HH Judge Sarcastic to make you immune and, if you laugh at the misfortune of others, you should be prepared to not only laugh at your own but to tell others about them. Have a sense of humour and learn to laugh at yourself.

At bottom, what Barristers and Judges are doing when talking about each other is assessing whether the person being talked about has reached the level at which he is incompetent. That is to some extent an objective view. The internal ladder is its subjective element. People will judge you kindly if you have climbed it. That is not only because they think well of you but also because you are actually good at the job. Of course, you don’t have to climb the internal ladder. Plenty of barristers are content with a niche they find for themselves and are not troubled by ambition. There is nothing at all wrong with that – such people tend to be happy, married (still) and relaxed. Naturally people hate them.

However, the Bar is unique because it offers the chance of a change of career at a time when other people in other jobs are being gently sidelined and put out to grass. If you can give yourself that opportunity it is sensible. You may not take it when, in 30 years time, the decision looms, but it’s nice to have the choice.

Podcast

The podcast I did with Charon QC for the College of Law series is now up and can be found here. I hope it helps.

New Tenants’ Survival Guide: Part 2

The internal ladder: possibly the only ladder you have to climb of whose existence you are ignorant.

You might have thought that this job was easy. You get a pupillage, a tenancy, your clerks get you work, you do the work well, professional success is yours. Well, up to a point Lord Copper.

The internal ladder is the route to professional success. It is certainly true that, save in a minority of cases, you can’t climb it unless you are good at your job, but being good at your job is not enough. If you want to be a Recorder, a Judge, a Tribunal Chairperson or even Queen’s Counsel, you must also scale the internal ladder. By which I mean that you must attract the attention, respect and ultimately (you hope) admiration of those whose support you will need to succeed professionally. These people never used to be solicitors and are not often solicitors now. You need solicitors to support you externally – to give you work. This isn’t about getting the work so much as how you are perceived to do it.

Fortunately the process is becoming more democratic. The bottom rung of the internal ladder used to be where you went to school. There were days where the word of the Presiding Judge could break a promising career even if the barrister were transparently brilliant and the Presiding Judge transparently both stupid and odious. Equally – as Gilbert and Sullivan realised – it could often be a good career move if you “fell in love with a rich attorney’s elderly ugly daughter”.

In those days you had to have good table manners, the right conversation, the right hobbies, the right wife and the right appeal. It’s a miracle anyone bright ever made it. When I was called in 1986 it was still popularly believed – although I have no idea whether it was true – that the High Court Bench was capped at 6 Jews. There was no discussion at all about women or Asian or Black people. Since then the Bar has been dragged into the 21st Century and a real commitment to equality. That we occasionally get it wrong is obvious but the process is one in which I rarely find people unwilling to cooperate. The reason, I think, is simple. The Bar is under attack as a profession. Almost everyone realises that in order to survive and thrive we have to attract the best people. Almost everyone realises that your school and University are not an actual guarantee.

But still there is an internal ladder. People talk. It’s a small profession and what barristers like to talk about is other barristers. Eventually some of those barristers become Judges. They still like to talk about other Barristers. That is because a Judge never (unless a member of the Court of Appeal) sees another Judge judging. Given that what is most interesting are personal idiosyncrasies, disasters, rows and nose-enders and given that Judges see barristers every day, it follows that Judges talk about barristers – a lot. For every professional appointment for which a barrister applies there is a list of consultees. These used to be automatic but we are, thankfully, moving away from that. However, for the current silk selection, the applicants must be assessed by 4 Judges. The current Recorder exercise talks of 3 referees, one of whom should be your Head of Chambers.

Because many Judges are asked for their views, and because Judges talk, it is inevitable that your general reputation will matter. The same goes for what other barristers think of you. Without support from within the profession you will find it hard to get anywhere. How do you get that support?

Firstly, make your integrity absolute. No one will forgive you for sharp practice and it will not matter how good you are. Of all the things about which people gossip, this is the number one hot topic. I am not talking about obvious dishonesty. I am talking about telling your opponent that you will not take a point and then taking it without warning. About suddenly whipping out the photos in cross-examination and throwing a copy over the table to your opponent without ever having mentioned their existence beforehand. About producing the authority without disclosing it. About altering your case to fit what the Judge has previously said and discretely discarding the evidence which you had said you were going to call until then.

If you are lucky, someone will ask you why you did those things, you will have a sort of explanation – usually based on inexperience – and judgment will be reserved. If you are unlucky or if you do it more than once the probability is that word will go round. If you are very junior someone might mention it to your pupil supervisor or Head of Chambers. They might try and show you why you should not do it. They might write you off. If you regularly behave in such ways – and there is no way to hide it – you may be successful and make a lot of money, but professionally you will go nowhere.

Secondly, you do not take bad points. In every case there will be something you can say. In most cases there will be quite a lot. Your job is to review every point and select the good ones. Then your job is only to make the good points. This is more difficult than it sounds: you may not trust your judgement – maybe the point you reject is the best of all. The spectacle of incompetent barristers taking every available point is familiar – some clients (especially in crime) equate it with battling. Do remember that most criminal clients are not candidates for Mastermind. Equally, you may feel that you are going into the Courtroom naked with just your one point. Well, maybe you are but that is likely to be down to your case. The case will not improve by padding out your one good point with 3 poor ones.

Because this post is so long I am going to cut it here. I will post the remainder on Thursday or thereabouts.

New Tenants’ Survival Guide Part 1

Congratulations. You have made it, you are through the door, your feet are under the table, your head is in the clouds, your eyes are gazing on a distant future and your ears are burning.

Now what?

There are two traditional matters to concentrate on, and one brand new one. This post will deal with the first traditional matter.

That matter is the external ladder which you must climb. You have to build yourself a practice. Traditionally this came from doing other peoples’ returns and devilling. Now it also comes from being part of a team. If your Chambers is highly specialised there may be only one team. Otherwise, you should try and join every team going. You won’t know what you like (you may have an idea) until you have tried it. You are trying to maximise your exposure to work. Do everything once and the clerks will always be able to rely on your previous experience. The best time to do something for the first time is very soon after call. There are some exceptions to this rule: for example, soon after call isn’t the best time to argue that proprietory estoppel point in the Supreme Court (never let it be said this Blog is not up to date). But as a rule of thumb, it works.

You should also be the junior tenant who likes to say ‘yes’. Your clerks will not thank you for ‘well, it’s not really my field’, or ‘I don’t feel comfortable’ or (God forbid) ‘I’m sorry but I’m too busy’. Of course you’re uncomfortable. Your comfort envelope is hardly big enough to put a stamp on. But it will not grow unless you are prepared to stretch it. You have more time than you would believe (hard though it may be to accept, new tenants are barely working compared to the hours they will have to put in if they take off) so use it: swot up on new topics, go and see things being done in Court and read law reports. Then say yes to whatever you are offered unless it is really laughable. You should be able to judge what you should and should not take pretty quickly and your pupil supervisor, who should have a good idea of your capabilities, will help you.

You also need to impress your solicitor. The solicitor is more important to you than the lay client, who may well only ever need to consult you once. Even more important, if you are doing crime or pi, is the solicitor’s clerk (or paralegal as they now tend to be known). This is the source of your work. Be nice; be polite; be interested; know the name; ask about the children, the tomatoes, the morris dancing, the philately – whatever it is. Do not, as I have heard being said of junior counsel, be not worth briefing ‘because X’s head is so far up X’s bottom that X would not hear anything I said’.

Do what you are asked to do. Ring up after cases and tell the solicitor what has happened. Provide Advices and Opinions in double quick time. Give you opinion when asked – do not hedge it with a University type answer.

Constantly review your own performance. Do not sign the paperwork off until it really is as good as you can make it. The drink will wait. Dinner will wait. The love fest with the new significant other will wait (although, as rather too many barristers have discovered, the significant other may not). Do not put the brief away until you really do know not just what your submission is, but how you are going to put it and in what order.

But this is to shade into the next topic, which is how to climb the internal ladder. The final (new) topic is how to work as part of a team in Chambers. So, as they say in all the best cliffhangers:

To be continued…