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.

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.

Oxbridge

As the question of Olpas rears its ugly head again, I thought I would try and inject some reality into the perennial ‘do I have to have an Oxbridge degree?’ debate.

The Answer is ‘No – but it helps’.

I can say this with some confidence because I have actually done some research. The reason for taking the figure of 7 years call is that it is regularly used within the profession to denote junior members. I have taken a 2001 call date as the cut-off. I have assumed that everyone who went to Oxbridge will say so – there is a margin of error here but not, I think, a significant one. I am reasonably confident in my figures – national polls purport to show the nation’s attitudes by polling 1,000 people out of about 65m. I have looked at 612 barristers out of a total figure of 12,050 (per Bar Council website). Here it is:

• My own Chambers has 62 members. 13 are 7 years or less. 2 went to Oxbridge.
• No 5 Chambers in Birmingham has 206 members. 34 are 7 years call or less. 7 went to Oxbridge.
• Red Lion Court Chambers in London (a good criminal set) has 80 members. 14 are 7 years call or less. 5 went to Oxbridge.
• Fountain Court Chambers in London (a good commercial set) has 63 members. 5 are under 7 years call. All went to Oxbridge.
• 11 Stone Buildings in London (a good chancery set) has 45 members. 9 are under 7 years call. 5 went to Oxbridge.
• Brick Court Chambers in London (a good commercial set) has 66 members. 12 are under 7 years call. 9 went to Oxbridge.
• Doughty Street Chambers (a set in London with a strong emphasis on human rights) has 90 members. 17 are under 7 years call. 6 went to Oxbridge.

Overall I surveyed 612 barristers – about 5% of the profession. I deliberately slanted the survey I did to Chambers with a good reputation (including 2 of the ‘Magic Circle’). 104 barristers were under 7 years call – about 16%. 39 of those went to Oxbridge – about 38%. Both of those ‘Magic Circle’ sets have fewer members under 7 years call than the average – about 15%. About 85% of those people went to Oxbridge.

Removing the 2 Magic Circle sets alters the figures in this way. The survey is of 483 barristers (about 4% of the profession). 87 are under 7 years call – about 18%. 25 went to Oxbridge – about 30%.

I reckon this is about right. Obviously if your idea of being a barrister is being at one of the commercial sets in London then Oxbridge is pretty well a must. I find that personally disappointing – the work certainly requires real intellect but the thesis that 85 out of 100 people with that quality have Oxbridge degrees is one to which not even those Universities would propound. If you are one of those who changes the mould, please let me know.

For the vast majority of the Bar – and of you – becoming a barrister is perfectly possible without an Oxbridge degree. Interestingly, the provincial Chambers I looked at comprise 268 barristers (still over 2% of the profession), have 47 members under 7 years call (19%) and 9 of those went to Oxbridge (20%). The lesson would appear to be clear – and the provincial bar is a happy place compared to London.

Of course, I do not know any figures for applications. It may be that provincial chambers get fewer Oxbridge applicants. Although, if that is so, unless those people are desperate to live in the most crowded area in Europe, experience 2 hours travel a day and ultimately make a choice between a family home a commuter distance from work or a ruinously expensive mortgage (if they can get one) to buy a flat in town, it does not say much for their intellect that they are not applying to provincial sets.

Seriously speaking, the figures suggest that, before committing to London (with or without an Oxbridge degree), it pays to consider very carefully what work you want to do. Nowadays I would say that only international commercial, shipping, patent and intellectual property are confined to the capital – and I’m not sure about IP.

This is your opportunity to be part of a trend. When I came to the Bar I was told that you could not do commercial work of any sort outside London. As a junior, my practice was a minimum of 33% commercial work, and there were years when it was 60%. Best of all, I didn’t choose to make it any higher – I always wanted a mix and took steps to ensure I had it. Nowadays the pressure to specialise is greater, but that simply makes a good provincial practice easier. And, if you genuinely have a choice between London and the provinces, remember to ask about Chamber’s expenses. These can vary between about 15% and about 40% of your earnings – and guess where most of the 40%s are taken…