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.

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.

Distance Travelled: Cost Incurred

I think the distance travelled issue requires some explanation. Pupilpedia has commented on the post below:

If I understand your point about being driven the distance as opposed to walking it, then I, like James  C above, strongly disagree with the sentiment. I would appreciate you outlining further what you mean (apologies if I’ve overlooked it somewhere), because the arguments against seem overwhelming. I can only assume that I have missed something if the following example is a result of your suggestion:
my parents are successful, and send me to the best possible school, I then go to Oxford to study law (coincidentally the same place that my father studied law) and apply for pupillage. Someone else, who has been to a terrible school and got to Oxford to study law, despite his father not attending university at all and currently being on jobseekers, also applies for pupillage. I turn up to interview knowing and understanding things to a similar degree as the other candidate. I am not favoured because I haven’t travelled as far as he has. The logic being that he has worked harder, used more brain power, whatever, to get to the same position as me.

This is not quite what I am saying. This suggests that the distance travelled is the only issue. I do not think anyone is suggesting that. What is being suggested is that distance travelled should be a factor. So it should. The logic is not that the other person has worked harder or used more brain power. The logic is that he can be justifiably regarded as having more potential. Why? Because without any advantages he has got himself to the same place.

My father was a Judge. I know for a fact that lawyers’ children grow up with an instinctive knowledge of intangibles. They know how the relationship between a solicitor and a barrister works. They know how Chambers tend to operate. They know a bit of the jargon. They have met other barristers, solicitors and Judges and feel comfortable round them. They know what A levels to do, what Universities to apply to, that mini-pupillages are a requirement and so forth. These things apply to a lesser extent to those who have gone to good Universities and had middle-class upbringings. It is foolishness not to recognise it and, once it is recognised, it needs to be factored in. Otherwise, the risk is that potential is not measured – all that is measured is comfort levels. The Bar is a career in which you are only within the your comfort zone if you have stalled. It’s how you do outside it that matters.

Pupilpedia goes on:

Quite apart from the fact that it would be absolutely impossible to measure the relative distances travelled, it would be waging a class war. Couldn’t you look at it conversely and say that it is ME who has been disadvantaged because I have not, by unhappy chance, been given the same opportunity to demonstrate that I am equally as capable of coming from a deprived background and being successful? I may have the same potential as this other candidate, but I have not been allowed to show it, yet. And what if a close relative of mine died just before I took the exams? Or my very successful father who sent me to the best school used to abuse me? How would that be taken into account in measuring distance travelled? As far as I am concerned, that model of distance travelled should have absolutely nothing to do with assessment. It seems to be nothing more than discrimination.

I don’t regard the distance travelled as demanding a precise measurement. It is one factor to be taken into account. It no more requires a precise measurement than whether the Oxford student went to a decent college to read law, or a less popular one to read theology (although the chances of entry are very different).

Nor, in my early middle-age do I see myself as a class warrior. This is about equalising things. If you cannot show your potential in terms of academic achievement (and I must say that a first class degree would show exactly that in my book – they are hard to get regardless of background) then find another way to show it. Climb Everest. Organise a successful charitable project. A death in the family is obviously a different issue and academic tutors can and should speak to it.

The question of a different system has largely been dealt with in the comments but I want to just pause for thought regarding Managechange’s suggestion:

Psychometric profiling has been used extensively in the commercial world for recruitment, selection and development for many years; particularly for professional appointments requiring high calibre candidates.

I would also suggest ‘People Specifications’,  ‘Job Specifications’, ‘Personal Attribute Requirements’, ‘Chambers Profile’, ‘Chambers Requirements’, a published ‘Interview Structure’ etc, etc.

The BVC students are already complaining about cost. Who on earth would pay for psychometric profiling? People specifications is a nonsense from an office based world (where it might – although in my experience as counsel for quite a lot of commercial enterprises over 23 years, it does not – have some meaning). Job specification is something that the prospective pupil presumably knows. Personal attribute requirements sound like people specifications but otherwise they mean you ought to be able to work efficiently and get on with people. If you didn’t know that was necessary please don’t do the BVC. Chambers profiling is something we already do – otherwise pupillage applicants don’t know who to apply to.

Chambers requirements are a good idea and so is a published interview structure (I would also publish the assesment structure so people know which things matter most). Finally Managechange:

Most importantly I would suggest training for interviewers.  How much training does the average Bar interviewer have on how to interview? (nil) How many times will a Barrister apply for a job after qualifying? (once or twice after 15-25 years) and yet they are the ones conducting the interviews!

I am training barristers twice this year between now and pupillage interviews on how to interview and how to approach equality and diversity issues. That is organised by and for my Circuit by a man (presumably one of those out of touch barristers so famous on this blog) who has just become a Judge. Moreover, every application for panel work now takes the form of a formal application so if any barrister wishes to work for the government or a local authority or go up a CPS grade s/he will have applied in writing. Moreover, any barrister will have asked questions in a formal situation whilst looking for specific points on many occasions. Many senior members of a pupillage committee will, whilst sitting,  have assessed people for honesty, accuracy, ability to deal with issues and overall impression – a job which the public trusts them to do well even though they do not know one end of a Personal Attribute Requirement from another. I agree that these things are not interviews but I’m not sure that interview training adds a lot to the experience gained from examining a witness.

These “solutions” are expensive. Chambers do not pay any member to do this. Maybe they ought, but until that happens it is a labour of love. Proposing expensive solutions from the commercial world – however snappy the titles – is simply unrealistic. The cost would have to be passed on to those applying. Nor are they necessary. There is no evidence that the Bar consistently picks people who are no good.

Once one acknowledges that the Bar’s choices are consistently acceptable we are talking about improvement. I simply do not understand how people can simultaneously advocate expensive professional assistance, whilst rejecting a straightforward assessment of potential based on distance travelled as a factor.

Improvement would involve extending fairness and ensuring that those without hope were adequately warned (and ideally rejected) before they spent their money. It involves transparency and better feedback from interviews. It also involves applicants acknowledging the risks they are taking and accepting failure with the same grace with which they would accept success.

Keeping On Keeping On

The last post attracted a lot of comments. LawMinx makes a fair point when she writes:

Having got down, last year, the nitty gritty at one particular chambers where I was one of the last four bieng considered for three pupillages, only to be rejected at that stage, I must say I feel pretty damned, and found it a tremendous confidence knocker. While the whole process is pretty soul destroying, from BVC to Portal and back again, one ultimately rises and falls on one’s own merits. Thats Life – but when wounded by it even the most stalwart and philosophical are never going to think it fair, unfortunately………..

I accept that, and I understand that complacent comments from those already there aren’t welcome.

On the other hand, I have repeatedly stressed the need for change and fairness as well.

What I have discerned from the comments on the post below is an unhappy willingness to focus on the demerits of the system rather than the merits of the individual. There is a reluctant acceptance that even in a perfect system there will be those who do not succeed but the emphasis is on the proposition that failure is the fault of the Bar. There is also an unhappy whiff of those prepared to agree with any change – providing it is not one which adversely affects their own chances.

I have difficulties with that approach. Firstly, I don’t think it makes a good barrister – this is a job which puts a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility. Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that the majority of barristers are bothered about applicants – people can perfectly properly take the view that the professional and public interest is served by maximal competition and the only ones who suffer under that system do so voluntarily. They can also take the view that wholesale change is not required, without that meaning that they are uncaring. Thirdly, it fails to appreciate tthat no system is going to be entirely fair – particularly when it must embody strenuous competition, vocational training, strict selection and the means to pay for it. Fourthly, it fails to acknowledge that some pretty outstanding people have emerged in the last few years – even from the shambles that the unreformed BVC can be said to have become at one stage.

No one makes a BVC student become a BVC student. It is striking how few of the comments suggest that, had the author only realised what being a barrister involved and how tough it was, they would not have paid their money. That suggests that the profession is conveying a realistic idea of the challenges involved in obtaining a pupillage.

I think the focus must be on getting the very best people. Because access to the profession is perceived as privileged that necessarily involves diversity issues. Otherwise we don’t get the best people – we only get the best people who have thought that the Bar may be for them. That’s why, in my firm view, we should measure distance travelled and that’s why an applicant whose parents have already succeeded off their own bat hasn’t travelled the distance. This is about how far you have walked – not how far you were driven. It involves competition because competition widens the pool and challenges the applicants. It involves fairness and transparency because that is how we retain the public’s confidence and create the pool from which we want to chose in 20 years’ time. Fairness includes not taking advantage of those who have no realistic chance. That cannot mean preventing them trying, which is to treat them like 3 year-olds, but rather to make sure that they understand they cannot expect to succeed. It also involves making the training element something of genuine worth – whilst remembering that it is training for the Bar and not for anything else.

The profession is actively engaged in this discussion and a large number of people give up a large amount of their time – largely for free – to deal with it. It is wrong to confuse results you don’t like, and outcomes unfavourable to an individual, with a lack of effort or willingness to make changes.

Integrity – The Paid Directors Speak Out

Charon QC has interviewed a Mr John Foster from Oxbridge Training Contracts. Feel free to listen.

Mr Foster stoutly defends his business. He agrees that he makes money from selling applicants information to assist them in applying to Chambers. He agrees that he pays young barristers and pupils to provide that information. He did not contact the Bar Council before he began advertising those services.

He suggests that those barristers making money from this are (his word) altruistic. It is a strange altruism where a member of the Bar makes money from providing information to aspirant barristers.

He suggests that it would have been better if the Bar had contacted him for a more profound (his phrase) understanding of what he is doing. I was unaware that there was a difficulty in understanding the way in which he makes his money.

He suggests that applicants who have a family member who is a barrister get this sort of service in any event. My own experience is that this is nonsense. The essence of application forms and interviews is that you give answers that sound like you – not your mother.

He does not say that he encourages applicants to disclose that they have used his services. In my view, every Chambers should now ask this question and applicants who tell lies in interview should not be offered pupillage. If pupillage is obtained via an interview in which a lie is told then the pupillage or tenancy should be terminated as soon as that lie is discovered. This, really, is the acid test. If this activity is consistent with integrity, no applicant should fear the truthful answer.

He does not say that he has drawn any professional conduct issues to the attention of his paid agents, or to his clients.

However there are a couple of things to come out of the interview which are important. Firstly, it is about time that all members of my profession offered their services to aspirant barristers in a genuinely altruistic way – that is in a way which does not mean they make money from it. The Bar runs speakers for schools – a system by which barristers go into schools and explain the job to people. Inevitably some of those people want to come to Chambers and want advice as to University choices. We should be giving that advice – all of us. We should be getting involved in educational events in the Inns. Chambers ought to be offering some assistance to mini-pupils in terms of CVs and covering letters and should be publishing what sort of thing they are looking for. Every professional appointment now requires the candidate to speak to competencies. There is no reason why Chambers should not make their requirements public. Pupils and junior tenants should be going back to their BVCs and running ‘This is What Worked For Me’ clinics – and Chambers should be ensuring that they get there. No barrister ought to refuse to take mini-pupils – which means that Chambers can maximise the numbers they can take.

Many barristers do much of this, but clearly a greater effort is required. I regard the proposition that Oxbridge Training Contracts are operating altruistically to fill in the gaps left by those who do not have contacts within the profession as humbug – but it is in the Bar’s interests and it is right that no one should be able to even suggest such a thing.

Secondly, that there is a world of difference between ‘model answers’ (which of course the people who have paid for them are not allowed to use) and true help. I don’t help anyone by giving them a model answer – even if they do tinker with it before they submit it. Help means that a close look has been taken at the individual, their attainments and interests, their potential and their expectations; all of which has culminated in advice. It is one thing to suggest a tweek to an already written CV, or an answer which takes the information the individual had already assembled and suggests a way of ordering and emphasising it. It is another to write the CV or the answer whether the individual has done any work or not. One thing encourages the individual to work and think. The other does not. One thing is altruistic and focussed on learning. The other is commercial and focussed on money.

I am not suggesting that regulation is required to define the one and/or differentiate it from the other. We are talking about integrity here – if you can’t recognise it when you see it, or its absence when you don’t, then you shouldn’t come to the Bar. And if you are altruistically suplemmenting your earnings by doing this then stop it. Remit your earnings to the Barristers’ Benevolent Association – anonymously if need be; tell your Chambers you would like to run a free termly clinic for all mini-pupils; give out your email and say ‘contact me if you want any help’; speak to schools; and tell OTC to go away. You’ll be a credit to your profession.

Meanwhile, if Mr Foster would like to get in touch I promise to publish – unedited (within the bounds of legality and taste) – anything he sends me. Although I will also provide a response. This, if he believes in his case, will not worry him.

Integrity – A Bad Example

Remember the need for integrity? Well, according to Oxbridge Training Contracts you can pay someone to write your application, fill in your form and answer your interview questions for you. This will cost you anything up to £2,000.

Never mind the people prepared to shell out the money. Anyone who believes that you can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear is simply stupid. BVC students who believe that someone else’s answers will get them an interview, still less a pupillage, still less a tenancy are not looking for a purse so much as a set of matching luggage.

The more important issue seems to me to be that this is cheating. I am not talking about a bit of help to present yourself properly – this site, your BVC course, your University Careers Office, numerous barristers, your friends and your Inn will all help with that for free. But that is a bit different from a ‘personalised’ service for which you pay big money but which promises nothing save to make you a lot poorer. These people are lawyers and – according to the site – they are pupils and junior tenants in band 1 and 2 sets as per the Legal 500.

So what is the position of a pupil or a barrister who charges a potential barrister for a service like this? Well, personally speaking I would regard it as conduct likely to prejudice public confidence in the Bar. After all, if you are exploiting your own position to charge the potential competition that hardly looks good. And I doubt your Chambers would be terribly pleased to interview someone whose answers had been written by someone else in the same Chambers (an option in the pull down menus this site offers).

Integrity, as I have said before, is vital to the Bar. There is no integrity in allowing other people to write your essays, construct your CV, tell you the answers or plan your interview. If you can afford it, you are also getting the jump on those who can’t. If you are using this service you ought to be ashamed. You ought also to be careful because the draft application letter for pupillage is written by someone who – according to the site – has a current pupillage at ‘a leading Chambers’  and a Distinction in the BCL – but who cannot write proper English to save their life. The letter opines that “I know from conversations that awards are taken with a degree of salt at Chambers”. If the writer really is a pupil they ought to be looking elsewhere come June. Salt may be taken in degrees in other jurisdictions but in England it is usually taken in pinches. One may be “at” Chambers in other jurisdictions but in England one is “in” Chambers. The writer may be a real pupil but I doubt it.

Of course, if the owners of this money mill would like to contact me I will happily allow them a fair say. The site says nothing about these people. No names. No qualifications. No personal details. No integrity.

If you are one of the people helping others to cheat then you are an embarrasment to your profession and you ought to stop. Now.

Finally, I am not linking to the site. If you want to give them the traffic then find them yourselves. The Bar can do without these people and – if you are any good and have the slightest desire to uphold the values of the profession you want to join – so can you.

Tenancy and How to Get It Part 4: Getting On

Chambers have, in recent times, invested quite a lot of effort in pupillage selection. I think it can be fairly said that most Chambers are now committed to diversity in terms of sex, colour, race and creed (the Bar, strangely enough, was never particularly fussed about sexual orientation and it isn’t much of an issue today either). However, once your pupillage begins it is a 6 or 12 month interview and you are mainly judged on 3 things. Firstly, your ability; secondly, whether you can pay your way; and thirdly, whether you can get on with people.

That third element includes 4 quite distinct groups. Your pupil supervisor(s); your clerks; other members of Chambers; and your instructing solicitors. Some things are common to all 4 groups and I shall deal with those things below. The additional things which are particular to particular groups will form the subject of the next post. What is said here is equally applicable to mini-pupillages, save that you will barely impact on solicitors or clerks during a mini unless you spectacularly screw up.

By the way, please note the absence of clients from that list. It is nice if clients like you because it may help you to get on with your solicitors. But it is a sort of optional extra. Quite often clients don’t particularly like you. That is because you tend to give them bad news – “you aren’t going to recover all your money”: “you may well loose”: “about 7 years”: “putting up for adoption means you can’t see your children”. It is also because you tend to be very busy doing the work required to minimise the prospect of saying those things and thus unable to listen to why the social workers are conspiring with the ex-wife and ex-boss. It may also be because too many barristers just aren’t very good at getting on with people – maybe a topic for later.

Of all the people listed above I would say that your supervisor and your solicitors are the easy marks. Other members of Chambers and clerks are more difficult. It is fairly easy to see why this is the case. Both of the former types of people have clearly defined requirements. If you meet those requirements, you are a long way to a successful working relationship. The latter types may well have ill-defined requirements, which vary from time to time. Moreover the former people want you to succeed. Your supervisor has quite a lot invested in you. She is in charge of your professional development for which everyone else is paying. If you fail people will ask questions about her (of course that means that the relationship between a failing pupil and their supervisor can be dreadful). Your solicitor wants you to win.

So, what is required? Firstly, application. Barristers are used to working hard. Some pretend not to, but anyone who is succeeding at the Bar is working hard. An intolerance of laziness soon becomes inbuilt. Taking the view that you only have to skim something because your supervisor will be doing the job himself is, in almost all cases, the quickest way out of the window (the door is reserved for more deserving cases).

Secondly, reliability. You need to be there on time – or preferrably early. You need to have what you are supposed to have be it books, pens, paper or a pleasant expression. Your work needs to be reliable. The words “I’m certain” – whilst at first regarded with suspicion – are, having been tested and found to be reliable, words which your supervisor will value. It means that they can rely on you and save time and effort.

Thirdly, improvement. At the beginning expectations of you are low. You will be expected to know some law – after all you have had less time to forget it than everyone else in Chambers. You will be expected to have some sense. But courtcraft, judgement, skill and calmness under pressure are things your supervisor expect to develop with you. However, you are expected to learn fast. One of the best things that can ever be said about a pupil is “you only have to tell him something once”.

Fourthly, commitment. Barristers have to make their own living. That is not as trite as it sounds. There is no sick pay. There is no guaranteed salary, paid regardless of how good you actually are (at least until you plow your bank into the ground) and attracting a pension whether you leave honourably or have to be pushed. That means that work often comes before a social life. For too many barristers work also comes before (or is equivalent to) a private life, which is a different issue. Whilst you ought to try not to be like that it is important to realise that commitment is necessary. You may actually have to say ‘no’ to yourself. You may miss the party, the dinner, the film, because you have to work. In pupillage this can be aggravating because you are doing it for someone else. But there it is.

Fifthly, integrity. This cannot be stressed enough. If you cannot recognise the difference between absolutely honest and compromised honesty then do something else. Read stories of schools in the 1930s. You know the bit where Blenkinsop Minor glances over at Swothead’s paper in the Bio exam? That’s not ok. You know where Eleanor is left alone in Bunty’s room and reads the open diary which reveals that Bunty has a bit of a crush on Miss Thrillinglystrict? That’s not ok either – even if Eleanor doesn’t tell anyone (although she usually does, so that she can be sent to Coventry in chapter 8 and rehabilitated in chapter 10). I am serious about this. The maxim is, “when in doubt, do the right thing”. If you don’t know what the right thing is then you may have a problem. If anyone suggests to you that doing the wrong thing is ok/justifiable/right then they are wrong.

Sixthly, an appreciation of personal space. I don’t simply mean physically, although continually taking a step backwards and treading on your pupil is annoying. I mean knowing when to do what. Ecclesiastes puts it best (3:7): ‘a time to rend and a time to mend: a time to be silent and a time to speak’. You simply have to know when your contribution is welcome and when it isn’t. When you should be hovering and when you shouldn’t be there. Some people do this naturally but it’s necessary anyway. The first rule is not to make things worse; so, if your supervisor is under pressure, think first, appear second, speak third.

Finally, at least insofar as this personal list is concerned, don’t get too up yourself. As far as solicitors are concerned this means accepting that they may actually have a contribution to make and it might be better than yours. Talking down to people should not be essential to your image of yourself as a barrister. Being asked to make an occasional cup of coffee or photocopy an occasional case isn’t the end of the world (if that’s all you are doing you should complain). Pretending that chatting to your solicitor’s clerk is a bit beneath you will not endear you to any decent set. Ditto sniggering at the clerks’ appearance, looks, weight or dress sense. All of which I have seen and heard junior barristers do. If you have flu – get on with it. If your personal issues are making life hard – get on with it. The Bar is a hugely sympathetic environment for those who cannot work because of illness. But for those who are merely suffering day-to-day afflictions, no one cares and it comes over as precious.