Just Missing Out

Firstly, a hello to new readers. Thanks to WordPress’s monitoring tools (not quite CCTV in everyone else’s computer, but close) I can tell that some of the older posts are getting a lot of attention. Presumably, therefore, a new generation is gearing up for a shot at the grand prize. I wish you all luck and I hope you all have a plan B – obtaining pupillage is not getting any easier.

To make this clear, and to try and address the particular issue, I quote below from a comment sent by ‘Bedroom Barrister’, who I can be reasonably sure is a bloke.

I completed the BVC in 08, and since then have had 7 interviews. I missed out on my 1st choice chambers (provincial) on a vote of 2-1, and was placed on the reserve list for another chambers in London.

I do, I believe, tick all the ‘barrister candidates must have’ boxes: I have 2x scholarships, a masters, ran my own company, undertook several minis, taught Westlaw for Sweet & Maxwell for 2 years, and had a career as a rugby player before coming to law earlier than originally planned through injury (I am 28)

My first choice chambers have re-interviewed me and turned me down for a second time. what I would like to know is, what the chuff can I do to go one step further and obtain an offer?

The one thing I have lacked to date is real advocacy experience, so I put myself through FRU as an employment rep and took up a position as a county court advocate (solicitor’s agent) to gain experience (although this is relatively recent).

I am, I believe, a friendly chap, I get on well with most, and I have a genuine, not rehearsed, interest in law and current affairs.

Friends tell me ‘if you’re good enough to get interviews you’re good enough to get pupillage’ but I am truly concerned that this isn’t the case. My entire life has gone on hold while I send out applications, my poor girlfriend has to put up with my cloudy moods, and I find myself for the first time not knowing what to do!

Any thoughts would be gratefully received!

You are right – you tick the boxes. What seems apparent from this is that so, too, do a great many people. Ticking the boxes is no longer sufficient in itself.

Tempting though it is to suggest that it is the name that is causing the problem (try Courtroom Barrister), it seems to me that what you actually lack is feedback. Because you don’t say much about your interviews I am assuming they went reasonably well. If your panel was divided 2-1 then it was clearly close. The question is what swung it the other way. This could be nothing, it could be a question of whether the other person was more likeable or more ‘deserving’ or cleverer than you. It could be that the potential pupil master saw more in them (I have taken part in discussions which included all the above). The problem is that I don’t know and nor do you.

So, the advice is to get on the phone and ask. It may be that you are simply unlucky – that is certainly a possibility. But it may be that there is something about your interview performance which is counting against you and which you could deal with if only you knew about it. That is what feedback is all about. Even if your chosen Set doesn’t promise feedback I would ask. They can only say no but having been interviewed twice they must have seen something they liked and they should be willing to help.

The comments on the posts below dealing with Chambers’ approaches to pupillage show that lack of feedback is a bugbear. I don’t think we are very good at it as a profession: too many people are told something like, ‘You were very good but not quite as good as the person we took on’. That is roughly equivalent to the fortune teller saying, ‘You will travel widely and meet a stranger’ – well durr.

Because we are not very good at it, you must be. Ask specific questions: ‘What was the difference between my CV and the person who got pupillage?’. ‘What was it in the interview that made the difference?’  ‘Could you please tell me the 3 criteria on which I scored lowest?’ ‘Did I score the lowest/highest of anyone interviewed in any criterion? If so, please could you tell me which one?’ ‘Did you identify anything lacking in my CV of interview which, had I displayed it, would have made the difference?’ In other words – push.

The only other advice about the process I can give is, if you try again, to identify a banker set. You are clearly good enough to get a pupillage. Almost everyone interviewed is good enough and those who get to the last 2 or 3 certainly are. There is no doubt that there is an element of luck involved. So chose a set a level below where you really want to go. It’s easier to move once you’re a few years call and, who knows, you may like it there.

Ok – the agony uncle bit is done. Next up is an issue about how to survive the start of tenancy (also a fairly frequently asked question). That will tie in nicely to the remaining posts in ‘Tenancy and How to Get It’ which I am aware I left unfinished. It should also help non-pupils gain some understanding of what barristers actually look for which may help in mini-pupillages. All of which will come in the next couple of months.

Wall of Shame Update

A source sings to me that Lamb Chambers (on neither the wall nor the buttress and so previously in a neutral position) has gone straight to the top of the buttress of acclaim charts by sending out the following rejection letter (so far as I can tell to all unsuccessful candidates).

Lamb Chambers regrets to inform you that your application for pupillage at these chambers has not been successful. There were well over 200 applicants for just 2 places and with such stiff competition it was inevitable that we would have to reject many very strong candidates such as yourself.

We must apologise for the tardy manner in which your application has been considered. We encountered insuperable problems with the OLPAS system this year and in the end were obliged to print off and sort all applicants by hand. The automated method for notifying applicants of the progress of their applications was unworkable and as a result we are obliged to transmit all email rejections individually.

Lamb Chambers is unlikely to subscribe to OLPAS next year and if you too have been inconvenienced by this system then we would like to extend our apologies on behalf of the entire Bar to you for submitting aspiring pupils to such an appalling ordeal.

And so say all of us – but in this case someone actually has said it. Good.

In an ideal world the authorities would establish what happened with the Portal and publish it. This is not a call to identify anyone responsible, but rather to demonstrate that what went wrong has been understood and sorted. I have always supported OLPAS as a system (see my very first post of all) but I think Lamb Chambers (who make the position clear for all to see here) have got this one right. Better go it alone than another year of a collective effort going so disastrously wrong.

What is needed now is urgent reassurance that next year will not just be better, but that it will be perfect. Otherwise OLPAS is in trouble. And I still think that would be a shame. There is plenty to be said for making the system a level playing field. However, at the moment the field may be level but it’s also muddy, treacherous to negotiate and full of clods.

The Path to Pupillage

You will all have bought this, of course. If not, it is available here – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Path-Pupillage-Guide-Aspiring-Barrister/dp/1847034012.

However, if you have not bought it and you have a little time to go, then you may want to hold off for a while because the authors are planning a second edition. Having both been taken on (Vol 2 – The Trials of Tenancy?), and put on their respective pupillage committees, they would like to know what you would like to know. If you have an idea to contribute please email them at pathtopupillage@gmail.com which is an address created specifically for the purpose.

The new edition will be updated and will have additional chapters dealing with how to convert from being a solicitor, the bar as a second career, how to deal with more than one offer (I assume this is not only about getting ecstatically drunk and losing all your friends), third sixes and alternative careers. If you can think of anything else you would like to know about, email and tell the authors. The same applies if there are people from whom you would like to hear – the book has a number of quotes from practitioners and the judiciary. Whose words of wisdom would assist you?

I don’t normally do puffs, but this is a genuinely useful book and if you are thinking of the Bar then you should read it. You can help make it even more useful. My own two pennorth is that I would like to hear from two people, both of  whom had a standard degree and a standard CV and one of whom got a pupillage. Was it just luck that made the difference, or is there something that can be done to make every applicant stand out to the right Chambers? I would also like to hear from people who didn’t make it and who would not now go through the process, about why they didn’t stop when the odds were so obviously against them (I don’t simply mean numerically speaking). There are a lot of you out there saying something like, “I know I haven’t really got the grades or the CV but I’m sure that it will come right for me”. Most of the time, I’m afraid, it won’t. When those people have spent £12,000 and 3 years of their lives and are not barristers, what advice would they have given their younger, more optimistic, selves?

Finally, given the debate that has been raging here, I would like a Chapter about how to make the most of modern application procedures. Chambers may not adopt them, but I wonder if, even so, a candidate could make more of themselves by utilising the latest knowledge. There must be professionals out there who would be willing to be quoted.

Alex and George tell me that they will update the Chapter on OLPAS and the PP. I advise the printers to use acid proof paper.

Pondering

I have been wondering what Chambers could do to improve the process of applying.

Firstly, they could make clear what they are looking for and how they assess it. If you apply for a Recordership or for Silk you are given a list of ‘competencies’ you have to demonstrate. It seems to me that a list of qualities that a set looked for in a pupil would help the Chambers and the applicants. It would provide a guide to the judgement of the applicants and more information than the PP form. At the same time, Chambers could publish their scroing systems for interview. It would be interesting to see how each set prioritised various skills and it might help people hone their applications.

Secondly, the PP could be adjusted to automatically keep applicants in touch with what is happening. It should record which Chambers meet target dates and send out a standard message when they do not. Applicants would not be in the dark and Chambers would not be able to ignore commitments.

Thirdly, Chambers ought to undertake the internal exercise of measuring up the quality of the pupil eventually chosen against the questions asked and the composition of the pupillage committee. This is a long term programme and it would necessarily be private. But there is no reason why sets should not see how good their own techniques are and start to keep some data so that an assesment can be made.

Fourthly, when Chambers take a pupil on, the first task of the person in charge of pupillage and the new junior tenant ought to be to debrief the new tenant on their interview, their pupillage experience and the weaknesses that are perceived. That is not to say that this is the be all and end all. But it is the one chance a set of Chambers has to understand how its procedures are perceived from the other side.

Fifthly, Chambers would ideally give feedback to rejected interviewees. This is tricky because if you interview a great many applicants it becomes impossible. But the default position should be that feedback will be given and Chambers should have to explain why they will not. Chambers should also ask for feedback from candidates. My hunch is that a number of the complaints made below would not be tolerated by Heads of Chambers who knew that it was happening on a regular basis.

Sixthly, the Bar should try and ensure that the small minority in the habit of dismissing every criticism as whinging do not run pupillage selection processes in their Chambers.

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.

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.

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.