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.

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.

Help

The powers that be are currently considering the operation of the pupillage portal. Your comments will be passed on.

Questions:

• Does the portal assist equal opportunities?
• Do you think the redesigned form is fit for purpose. If not, why not?
• What are your fears about using the system?
• Do any of you have a better idea about how to design the form and the recruitment procedure. This is not a question about the BVC. It is focussed on the issue of a central application house.

People are actually listening to you. I hope you think it worthwhile to make a contribution. I will respect anonymity, but if you say something particularly telling it may help if you provide me with an email address so that I can contact you. This need not reveal your true identity.

Thank you.

Summing Up

The last few posts have dealt with the help the Bar should give applicants, the way in which applicants should be assessed, the faults of the current system and the merits of unfunded pupillage.

Unsurprisingly, there is little consensus – although it would be fascinating to know the ages of those asserting that ever more sophisticated and expensive systems will improve matters against those saying that ultimately good interviewers can judge the right candidate.

There is, however, consensus about 2 things. Firstly, the current system isn’t working. Secondly, knowing whether one had a pupillage before starting the BVC would be a good thing.

As far as the first point is concerned that is rather taken as a given. I acknowledge that the system benefits the providers at the expense of the students, but repeat that no one forces students to take the BVC. The points made about research and evaluation of your own chances are valid and the pressure to change the BVC is dissipated if comments appear to be as much self-interested whining as genuine concern. On the blog it’ s easy – I allow anonymity and I have no power to change anything. If I were looking to seriously evaluate some of the comments below, I would insist on knowing what chance the commentator has of pupillage before I took the comment on board.

There is a tendency for two issues to be wrapped up together when people talk about the BVC. The first is what the BVC should teach. My own preference is for an approach which asks the profession what those coming out of University lack by way of skills and knowledge. The BVC should fill the gap – unless it appears that the Universities are not delivering on key areas. The second is how the students who have completed the BVC are selected for pupillage. One option  might be to make the BVC much, much, harder. Those graduating from it would then have an imprimateur which would stand them in good stead – and much reduced competition. Just as University results make a huge difference to prospects, so too would the BVC grade (at present it barely matters). Of course, the risk of wasting money would be sharpley increased, but I wonder how long that would last. Once word got round that you may actually fail the BVC, I have a hunch that not so many people would apply to do it.

As to the second matter, I don’t know when the system slipped. When I was called, pupillage before the BVC or to start the year the BVC finished was the norm. Now the pupillages awarded tend to be for the September or October the year after the BVC finishes, leaving a number of people with a year to fill. As many of you have pointed out, it also leaves the gamble as to whether to do the BVC to be made without any idea of your chances.

I think the Bar should do something about that. However, the difficulty is that in order to interview BVC and pre-BVC candidates without preferring the former one would have to strip out of the interviews anything covered by the BVC but not at University. That renders the question of what the BVC teaches either irrelevant or – depending on your point of view – so taken for granted that it isn’t worth asking questions about. That was, of course, one of the complaints about the old system and is one of the reasons why I am an abolitionist. A practical way of achieving this, however, would be to move the interview period back to September, for pupillages the next September. Of course, that may be unnecessary if the BVC were made more difficult. The BVC would then add real value and people may not want to apply for pupillage until they knew their chances. Moreover Chambers would, perhaps, not want to risk being left without a pupil. But it may be that a smaller cadre of potential pupils would not mind filling in a year.

As to interview techniques, the discussion in the posts below is exhaustive – or has exhausted me. I don’t know a single barrister who doesn’t do the best they can. I believe that we can learn more about how to interview effectively. I don’t believe that there is an effective replacement for a decent interview by the people actually doing the looking.

Unfunded Pupillage

RM commented on this topic below, and I asked him to outline his thoughts on it so that I could post them up. Here they are. I do not, myself, think that unfunded pupillage is the way forward, but I am persuadable. Given that one of the country’s most senior Judges recently told me that he did think they were the way forward, there is a debate to be had.

Be nice to RM. He is doing this as a favour. If anyone would like to write the speech for the other side, please email me…

I decided to do the BVC knowing that there was a very good chance that I would never gain a pupillage. I went to a “poor” university and did not obtain the best degree result. The first pupillage rejection letter still hurt though. You may ask why I still did the BVC knowing that it was next to impossible to obtain a pupillage. Very simply, I assessed risks, costs, future options and the potential rewards. I went into this whole process with my eyes wide open as to what the current pupillage selection process is at the Bar. Therefore this post is not meant to be Bar bashing – merely my view on what could be done to improve the Bar and its selection process.

Competition

I believe that the best way to improve selection process and as a result to improve the Bar is to increase competition at entry level. Competition generally drives up quality, improves customer focus, increases diversity reduces cost and increases innovation. I am sure that some people will say that the Bar is competitive. Whilst I agree there generally is healthy competition within the profession, I believe that there is a lack of competition at entry, due to the barriers to entry. There are only a certain number of pupillages available and pupillage is the only way to get tenancy.

Access to the Bar is set at the wrong level, and only a select few are able to apply for tenancy. I am quite amused when I hear some fellow students say all they want is a pupillage. I want to be a barrister. It does seem flawed to me that pupillage has become a filter to the Bar. Further I have heard from a number of people that one needs a degree of luck to obtain a pupillage (even SM appears to indicate this in his post). This seems to me a sad acknowledgement of the state of the Bar with regard to recruitment. The Bar should want the best people to become barristers, not the luckiest. I am sure at least 50% (if not more) who obtain pupillage are the best. There is still however a percentage of people who given the chance could be just as good and if not better.

I look at my circumstances – I have not gone to the right university purely due to fate. I dreamt of going to universities such as Oxford but due to family circumstances I was unable to go to university full time. I did not receive the greatest degree results – I cannot blame anyone for this unfortunately. These two facts severely hamper my future at the Bar, regardless of how good I would be as a barrister. I want the opportunity to prove myself. I doubt that I will be the kind of barrister who graces the corridors of the RCJ on a regular basis, but I know I will do a good job within my own limitations. I have some friends on the BVC who have the potential to be very good barristers. There is a very strong chance that none of these talented people will gain a pupillage. It seems a sorry state where people with so much ability, determination and commitment to the Bar may not have the opportunity to prove their abilities during a pupillage. The Bar is losing good people…

I believe that the filter to entry to the Bar should be shifted up to the Tenancy stage. To do this the number of pupillages on offer needs to be doubled (if not more). This will enable a more level playing field and will assist in ensuring that the best people make it through to be barristers. There is also a real possibility that the number of tenancies will increase. During the first few years of tenancy, the barristers who are good will survive: those unable to build their practice will fail. I think Chambers would welcome a far broader choice of candidates for tenancy. I recognise that some chambers already have 4 pupils for every one or two tenancies available. This needs to be spread throughout the Bar.

There is also a positive outcome for the Bar and the pupils who failed to obtain tenancy. Having qualified as a barrister and received invaluable experience will open doors for a pupil who fails to get tenancy, such as job opportunities at the employed bar, overseas, in-house law, business, teaching, and solicitors. Qualified barristers going into these professions would help strengthen the Bar as an organisation, as the skills gained will be used, improved and retained in most cases, and potentially in the future such skills may be imported back into the Bar.

Funding

The question of how to fund any system of pupillage is a difficult issue. We all seem to broadly agree that there needs to more pupillages on offer. Funding hampers this.

An obvious starting position is unfunded pupillage (or should this be unfunded first six?). I know that SM is against this proposition. I come from a not so well off family myself. I know what it is like to not have much money. However I would much rather have the opportunity to have an unfunded pupillage than have no pupillage at all. I would not be able to afford an unfunded pupillage, but I am fairly sure I would find a way to make it work. Perhaps a way forward would be for the Bar to negotiate with HSBC to extend the current Bar loan scheme to cover pupillage in addition to the BVC. Perhaps more support from the Inns for people who run into financial difficulty. I know that people will argue that this will put students into even more debt. To counter this I would repeat what I said above about those who fail to get tenancy – they will be further qualified and should be able to slot into fairly high paying jobs. This to me seems the easiest way to increase the number of pupillages on offer.

As to other ways how pupillage could be funded, I am intrigued why the minimum pupillage award is set to £10,000. A way to increase the number of pupillages would be to reduce the minimum pupillage award. My rationale is that a pupillage is in effect vocational training and could be treated like a student loan. I know from my own experience it would cost about £600 a month to survive. The first six months of pupillage could be funded at this level. Thereafter for the second six nothing but expenses such as travelling should be paid by chambers. Any income should come from work done on the second six (or perhaps given an advance by chambers to counter any initial cash flow problems). Furthermore, the Inns/Bar could provide support to pupils on low incomes instead or in addition to providing scholarships for pupils. This would hopefully allow chambers to increase the number of pupils that they have. One of my concerns is that there are chambers who offer huge pupillage awards (£30,000 +). This may not help with levelling the playing fields. Perhaps there should be a maximum award?