Here Are the Results of the BVC Jury

Below is a distillation of your comments. I have added in the names of the Heads of Chambers because some of the places about which comment has been made have more than one set in one address. If I’ve got it wrong, please email me.The views – I think I ought to make this clear – are not mine. Any set of Chambers who would like to respond will have their response posted if they ask…

Interestingly, a number of Chambers make it onto both lists. That suggests that different things please different people and that these are subjective judgements, which is fair enough. There is, however, no excuse for rudeness.

Unsurprisingly, the things that bug most of you are silence (which is a form of rudeness), failure to give feedback and failure to organise things properly. Either the Chambers concerned save those things up for the pupils -  in which case they should be ashamed of themselves – or they are not running their practices properly.

Wall of Shame:

• 2 Temple Gardens – Benjamin Browne QC (marketing exercise)
• Mitre Court – J M Burton(don’t respond to applications)
• 15 New Bridge Street – Patrick Upward QC (rude and uncaring)
• 3 Temple Gardens  – John Coffey QC (silence).
• 1 Mitre Court Buildings – Lord Gifford QC (silent and rude when asked about progress)
• Pendragon Chambers – Sara Rudman (silence and vacillation)
• 39 Essex Street – Richard Wilmot-Smith QC (unpleasant and confrontational interview)
• 1 Pump Court – no Head of Chambers discernible (silence)
• Matrix – Anthony White QC (points scoring system that means you need a 1st but doesn’t say so)
• Goldsmith Chambers  – Philip Sapsford QC (late response and promised interview never arrived)

Buttress of Acclaim:

• 2 Temple Gardens – Benjamin Browne QC (well-organised)
• 7 Bedford Row – Kate Thirlwall QC (lovely people who do what they say they will do, helpful with arrangements and good feedback).
• 187 Fleet Street – Andrew Trollope QC (prompt and helpful feedback)
• Argent – Harenda de Silva QC (quick and efficient)
• QEB Hollis Whiteman – Rebecca Poulet QC (fluffy)
• Garden Court North – Ian MacDonald QC (lovely rejection letter)
• Queen Square Bristol – Don Tait (prompt and courteous rejection)
• 25 Bedford Row – Rock Tansey QC (helpful arrangements, prompt and good feedback)
• St John’s Chambers, Bristol – Richard Stead (thoroughly friendly)
• 5 Essex Court – Richard Perks (helpful and good feedback)
• 39 Essex Street – Richard Wilmot-Smith QC (nice and interested)
• 1 Temple Gardens – Nigel Wilkinson QC (old-school and interested)
• 4/5 Gray’s Inn Square – Timothy Straker QC & Robert Griffiths QC (good interview)

A very special mention on the Wall of Shame goes to the Pupillage Portal itself. I do hope that those responsible for it read this and actually ask for some help and advice next time around. The poll below might help.

Garden Parties and High Living

This is from Counsel magazine but I think it deserves the widest possible circulation.

Derek Wood QC is conducting the review of pupillage. He is having a drinks reception on Monday 13th July in Lincoln’s Inn at 530pm. If you are a pupil, or a recently completed pupil, you should have had an invitation. If not then get in touch with Andrea Clerk at the BSB – aclerk@barstandardsboard.org.uk – and go along.

The review is genuinely interested in your experiences and your thoughts. So make sure that those conducting it know what they are. And ask for an amnesty for pupil bloggers…

Wall of Shame: Buttress of Acclaim

Sometimes what you tell me is distressing. The treatment of applicants by Chambers is one of those times. There are simply too many stories out there of people who are notified of failure very late or not at all. The rudeness is unacceptable and the disorganisation thus implied is incomprehensible. There are also too many refusals to provide feedback when it is asked for. You deserve better.

List the defaulters below. I will publish a list. And do feel free to say what you think.

And – in deference to Barboy’s excellent idea – please feel free to accentuate the positive and list those Chambers who have told you what they were going to do and actually done it.

Caution – Handle With Care

Can I just put in a plea for you to help each other, as you go about the painful, frightening and competitive process that is pupillage selection ?

The rules for all Chambers – whether in OLPAS or not – are clear. No offers can be made before 930am on 30th July and every offer must stay open for 14 days. Chambers not complying with those rules are cheating. In doing so they prevent the level playing field to which you are entitled. Particularly, early offers can often pressurise applicants into accepting the place. There is no way of knowing whether every interviewee has even had their interview and the successful candidate will often cancel interviews elsewhere, which is not only unfair to the other Chambers (I suspect most of you aren’t overly concerned about that – and neither would I be if I were you) but also means that an interview slot has been wasted.

Offers that stay open for less than 14 days (known as exploding offers) obviously distort the competition, place applicants under undue pressure because they may not yet have heard from everyone before they must decide and simply encourage more Chambers to behave in that unacceptable way.

If this happens to you, or you know of it: or if you know of something else which is obviously in breach of any equality and diversity standard that applies then please ring the BSB. If you can’t face that, then please tell me. You can report it to me anonymously if you like but I would prefer not. I will honour anonymity requests even if I know who you are and I will not ‘out’ you to anyone without your express permission. However, eliminating these practices (and the Bar does know they go on) is the easiest way to ensure that the system operates as fairly as it possibly can, for everyone. The profession owes you that and you owe it to yourselves. So, please let me know and I will talk to you about it and – if you agree (but only then) – steer you to the right people to whom to make a report. The report itself can also be confidential – you will not be putting your career on the line.

Ultimately the BSB can prevent a pupillage offered in breach of the rules from being registered. That is a blunt weapon however, because it adversely affects the person who is least responsible (although you would, plainly, be complicit if you know the rules). My preferred solution is to compel Chambers in breach to offer double the number of pupillages the next year, all remunerated at the highest pupillage award offered in the last 3 years by those Chambers. That would, as the Mikado says, make the punishment fit the crime.

Let me know. Don’t keep cheating a secret.

My Name is Simon and I’m a Blogger

I don’t often comment on recent cases, but this one is interesting. Eady J has decided that anonymous bloggers have no right to be anonymous. The full decision is here.

That is the limit of his decision, although some of the more flamboyant responses would not have you think so. He has not, for example, said that anonymous bloggers must be named. It is simply that you have no reasonable expectation of anonymity and, if someone finds you out, they can tell the world who you are.

I can see the logic of the decision. Blogging should not be a shield behind which people shelter to make unpleasant allegations for which they never have to answer. The blogger’s main argument was that some important things will simply not be said unless anonymity is guaranteed. Eady J’s answer was that the point is academic because he had first to decide (Art 8.) whether there was a reasonable expectation of anonymity, to which question the answer was ‘no’. In matters such as information about a crime, that answer would clearly be in the affirmative. Nattering to the world at large, in other words, gives rise to no expectation that you will be allowed to do it without being outed.

The public interest issue was dealt with on the confined basis that the blogger in question was a police officer, subject to specific regulations in his capacity as a public servant. It’s difficult to argue with that conclusion – which poses the interesting question as to whether BVC students or pupils are entitled to public interest type protection. Pupils, of course, also have to abide a Code of Conduct.

I hope they are. One of the most distressing entries I ever read on a blog was that the author (a pupil) had stopped blogging because a friend in another Chambers had been told that a blog was a surefire way of not getting a tenancy. Are we really so concerned about our image that an anonymous blog by a pupil could be seen as a threat? Plainly, if the author in question was telling all and sundry about his Pupil Supervisor’s cases and the great plan they had to chew up the key witness on the other side that would be a different matter: but the blog in question was not doing anything like that and I don’t recall seeing one which did.

In a profession dedicated to representing anyone and everyone, denying a blogger anonymity to comment on the legal world as viewed from the bottom of the pyramid seems to me to be a retrograde step. I am not in a position to make a legal difference, but this blog will continue to respect the anonymity of those of you I know, and to allow anonymous comments. People may factor in anonymity when they assess the value to be given to a contribution, but sometimes it is helpful to hear every view – even the scurrilous, the aggravating and the just plain bonkers.

Words From One Who Knows

This comment has just been posted on the ‘Help’ post below. Because it comes from someone who plainly does know what current thinking is I have copied it here.

The OLPAS form is something which I have raised with both the BSB and the Bar Council. Finding out who developed it and who approved it is proving slightly difficult. It does seem clear that neither Chambers nor any BSB Committee to do with pupillage or recruitment had any input. This is depressingly useless and it is to be hoped that the next one is better constructed and consulted about. Not that I speak on behalf of anyone, but sorry.

Dear Simon,

As a member of a pupillage committee who has just had to wade through the new forms, here are a few suggestions and thoughts about the new application and how it might be improved:

-    Length
The new, extended word limits are much too long.  I know that students have complained for years that there is not enough room to express all they want in 150 words however clarity and brevity of expression are two skills which are essential at the Bar and if you cannot express yourself succinctly on an application, how will you write a skeleton argument?   This extra length does not add anything to the applications and, honestly, means that the readers are more likely to skim read than carefully read the whole thing.

-    It is helpful to have a section for extenuating circumstances however there is no need for this to be in the form of a ‘covering letter’ which misleadingly suggests that applicants need to write ‘Dear Sir’ and set out their answer like a formal covering letter.  The purpose of that section should also be explained clearly in that section rather than only including this in the User Guide which was not available when the form was first launched.

-    The Areas of Law/Practice Areas questions could be made into one ‘Which area/s of law do you wish to practise?’ question.  If the User Guide explanation is followed (i.e. to say ‘tort’ in areas of law and then ‘PI’ in practice areas), this adds nothing to the application and if you develop your answer, risks repetition.  Barristers are more than aware which areas of law translate into which practice area.

-    I would take out the question ‘what do you hope to gain from pupillage’.  Students obviously want to learn, get their higher rights and ultimately obtain tenancy; asking them to spell this out doesn’t really help anything.  Further, if they are honest about these intentions, particularly about getting tenancy, it looks like they are running before they can walk; if they do not mention tenancy, it looks disingenuous.

-    Asking about responsibilities and achievements under work experience should be changed back to asking what you learnt.  As some wise soul above has said, on mini-pupillages you have no responsibilities and probably don’t achieve anything.  Chambers want to know what you learnt but if you write that, you risk looking like you misread/didn’t read the question.

-    At present chambers can see the forms as you fill them out (from the moment you register) which I don’t think really assists either side.

-    In previous years students have been able to see a sample form before registering which I think helps and should be reinstated.

-    The IT skills section doesn’t really add much – realistically all you need is basic knowledge of Word and maybe Excel and PowerPoint to be a barrister.  If you can complete the OLPAS form, you are probably sufficiently competent.

-    Judging by the number of untailored forms (‘I have applied to various chambers which do xyz’ rather than ‘I have applied to X chambers because you do abc…’), it isn’t sufficiently clear to applicants how the form works.  I have relatively little sympathy with this as I know that the User Guide, when it eventually came out, deals with this point however there were so many untailored forms that I think this is a problem with the Portal.

I hope those thoughts are of some assistance and do not sound overly critical.  I know that trying to redesign the form must have been a time-consuming, expensive and totally thankless task and I am grateful that the matter is being considered afresh.  I would ask that the Bar Council does consult chambers about the form in future as I think that there is a risk that many chambers will leave OLPAS following the shock of such an increased volume of forms descending upon them unannounced this year and that, surely, is in no one’s interests.

Many thanks.

Interview Problems

I do not come from a set of Chambers which has traditionally given candidates for pupillage an interview problem. As I understand it, however, such problems usually take the form of a topical question which the candidate has 20 minutes or so to consider. Legal knowledge is sometimes required but the test is not really legal. Rather it is a test of reasoning ability.

Given that I did two posts on interviews last year, and one when I first put the website up, it seems to me that I cannot have much helpful to say about interviews which I have not already said. But I may be able to help on the approach to the problems.

Firstly, the problem will not be one which has a right answer. It would not fulfill its function were that not so. Your interlocuters want to see how you reason. They probably also want to see how you reason under pressure. I suggest therefore that your first act should be to jot down the obvious arguments on each side.

Secondly, everyone will spot these obvious arguments. The issue then is twofold. Firstly, how do you present the obvious argument? Secondly, can you spot the argument that is not obvious?

Presentation needs to be barrister-like. That does not equate to your essay question in your finals. There you were showing how much you knew. Here you are being an advocate. As one of my pupil masters used to say to me, ’some fool has decided that you should be paid for your opinion. The very least you can do is give it’. You need to determine which side of the argument you are on and be able to articulate why. Your presentation needs to acknowledge the force of the arguments on the other side, whilst saying why they are unpersuasive. It also needs to leave scope for the killer question you have not thought of, so for goodness sake do not be so adamant that you cannot retreat from your position. Lines such as, ‘only an idiot would conclude otherwise’ might be great in the debating chamber but they are instant death in court.

The best of way of presenting well – in my experience – is to try and anticipate the arguments against. You should try and link those arguments to your next point. That way your presentation will have some flow. It should also be polite and, if possible, should display a decent range of vocabulary. Please do not say ‘like’, unless you are saying ‘I like this’. I mean it about the vocab – start working on it now and, whilst you are at it, speak grammatically. This is not me being a fuddy-duddy, so much as a reminder that grammar evolved for a reason – namely that it means that what you say makes sense.

As to the unforeseen arguments and the less obvious arguments, you are to some extent reliant upon your basic intelligence. But, as a hint I can offer this. Ask whether the situation you are being asked to consider parallels anything in your experience about which you know a good deal. If so, then try and think laterally. Problems do duplicate themselves and quite often the arguments will readily transpose from one area into another. If you can pull that off then your interviewing panel should be impressed by your breadth of knowledge and your reasoning skills.

Penultimately, reality check. Your analogy will not work if it is plainly laboured. Then it will look like you’re trying too hard. Your argument may have that killer phrase, but that will not help you if the argument itself is nonsense. There are no prizes for taking a wilfully obscurantist position. You are being tested on your persuasion and your judgement. Don’t paint yourself into a corner.

Finally, trim. Your argument should have 3 main points and 2 subsidiary points or analogies. More is too much (arguably even this is too much) for the time you have. Select your best points and make sure they get home. If you have time for more then fit in the other things.