The blog moved to WordPress 4 years ago, which suggests that there are 60,000+ hits per annum. That, I think, suggests that I am doing something right, although I suspect it also reflects the paucity of information out there – something which I am delighted to to see being addressed recently.

Thank you all for your visits, your contributions, your comments and your interest. I reiterate – the world’s best job, even in today’s troubled times. Interesting work, largely competent and supportive colleagues, your own boss, doing something absolutely essential to a functioning society and behaving morally as well. The downsides – stress, no plan B, contemptible politicians, 80 hour weeks and the money isn’t as good as it was.

But still, if you can – and lots of you do still seem to want to – then I would. Every time. Good luck.

You can find out more by going to the site they have set up for recruitment purposes. You will be supervised by practising solicitors, so there will hopefully be real feedback and support. The application process closes on Wednesday, so you can do it over the weekend. Good luck, and if you get the job, please let me know. I will ask you to write something about it if you would like and will publish your (anonymised or not, as you wish) post.

As for the picture – whilst you are doing your application you can listen to one of the greatest bands who ever made an album.

UPDATE

The deed is now done. Thank you very much to all of you who have donated and spread the word (the page is still open). It all looks a little different now… 

1. Diversity isn’t a problem.
2. Diversity is a problem but it should be dealt with earlier on.
3. Why bother with diversity, when the Bar (usually expressed as the commercial bar) already picks the best people?
4. Diversity is social engineering under a different name and is thus an invitation to a different form of discrimination.

The first answer stands on its own. The next two acknowledge the difficulty but seek, for different reasons, to ignore it. The last acknowledges that diversity is desirable but suggests that it can’t really be achieved without imposing something even worse.

The Bar does not reflect the society in which we live. That fact seems to me to be unarguable. Should it? There seems to be no good reason why not. There seems to be every good reason why it should. That proposition can be tested by asking whether people would support a bar which was only white and male. They would not. Such a profession would be exclusionary, discriminatory and full of people (from whose ranks the judiciary of the future would overwhelmingly be drawn) who were happy to keep it that way. From a moral, legal and representative point of view there can be no justification for that stance.

Why does the Bar not represent the society in which we live? Unless you are the type of idiot who buys into the proposition that those of different colour, race, religion, physical ability or income are also less intelligent and less equipped with the qualities required, it cannot be anything to do with the applicants. It must, therefore, be something to do with how they are schooled, or how we select them. What else could it be?

Assuming that how people are schooled is a part of the issue, is it sensible of the profession to simply wash its hands of the problem and use that as an excuse? It seems to me that the morality of that can never be justified. I am not particularly interested in belonging to any group of people whose response, faced with obvious injustice, is to say “I’m alright Jack”. When that group of people purport to be delivering justice, the hypocrisy is so obvious that I wonder how stupid someone has to be before they are incapable of recognising it. Not very.

It does seem to me, in that case, that the profession must conclude that it is not sensible to wash its hands of the problem. The risk it takes by so doing is that it comes to consist either of fools or of people whose commitment to the system does not extend to living by it. If that becomes the case then the profession will have no answer to those who wish to abolish it, or to so abbreviate its privileges as to abolish it. At the moment we make a huge point of our independence, our ethical stance and our ability to take unpopular stances. Those arguments are worthless if, on examination, we will only be independent, ethical and take unpopular stances if they don’t involve our own behaviour.

Finally, on this point, the argument that schooling is irremediable seems to me to be obviously nonsensical. What, then, is anyone learning in pupillage? Why is a barrister of 2 years’ call not capable of taking a difficult issue to the Supreme Court? We all acknowledge that the profession is one in which good barristers never stop learning. Once that acknowledgement is made, why is the state of learning at the time of application for pupillage so important – other than that it provides an easy way of distinguishing between candidates and encourages those picking the pupils to determine who is most like them?

You will note that all of this grants Oxbridge the place it holds in the hearts of what – to my mind – are far too many of you. The notion that Eton produces a particular type of person, ready to lead the world is now merely an amusing anathema to most of us. Even were it to be accepted (and I do accept it) that Eton produces people with a particular ability to be charming and to speak authoritatively, it would strike us as absurd that such qualities entitled anyone to anything, or could not be acquired later in life, or were the be all and end all of the qualities required for success. The notion that results obtained because one’s parents could afford Eton’s fees or because one was fortunate enough to obtain some sort of bursary to enable attendance there, were a signal of unmatched intellectual prowess would be similarly derided. The notion that Oxbridge provides something similar, together with subtle qualities permitting success in the practice of law – which practice Oxbridge does not even teach strikes me as equally absurd.

That there should be a required standard is not in issue. That the standard may differ from set to set is not in issue. A set might, for  example, decide that particular academic ability is necessary. What is questionable is whether, having made that decision, it is acceptable to determine that such ability is shown by Oxbridge attendance. I see no reason why that should be so. What if the applicant never applied to Oxbridge? If someone applied and was rejected, perhaps they should say so (the reaction of Oxbridge to that would be interesting – how, I wonder, would it view such a disincentive to apply?). Why is success in three A-levels which probably do not include law, and may not include any subject which invites a focus on a primary fact finding exercise and the drawing of conclusions therefrom, any help in assessing the ability required? Why is success at 18 or 19 demonstrative of an ability to develop in your 30s?

It does seem to me that we could do better, and that reliance on a set of indicators which are not aimed at the profession and apply to nothing more than the first few years of practice is simply lazy. That is not even to mention the downside to the current system – which is all too obviously that human beings tend to see reflections of themselves as being most desirable.

That leaves the arguments that attempting to ensure diversity is social engineering and therefore worse, and the argument that the current system works well, so why tinker with it.

I don’t myself accept that social engineering is wrong. Coming from an ethnic group which required an Act of Parliament to enable it to vote it seems to me that the argument is not as clear cut as people might think. If the Bar still took pupils on the basis of who they knew or met (as it did for Fat Bigot and for me) we would have no compunction about changing that system. Thereafter it is only a matter of degree, and it seems to me that those who assume social engineering (a prejudicial phrase if ever I heard one) is bad are actually saying merely that the proposed change is not to their liking. Had that ever been a legitimate ground of complaint the bar would still be a woman, Jew, Muslim and black free zone.

We purport to sign up to the view that all are equal and that what distinguishes the failed applicant from the successful one – apart from the inevitable elements of luck – is ability. If we don’t measure ability as well as we might – and we don’t – then why is an alternative route inherently objectionable? That would be a difficult question even if we could assert that the current system actually does pick the best applicants. I don’t know many barristers who would make that argument (see the picture illustrating this post). Paradoxically, the huge glut of applicants means that the system we use can be pretty appalling and it doesn’t matter. Arguably, we are in the same position as a prospector at the beginning of the gold rush: we might be colour blind and be using our bare hands instead of a sieve but there’s so much gold around that anyone can emerge with a nugget. The difference, of course, is that the nuggets left behind have feelings and have paid a whacking sum of money to lie on the river bed.

The proposal was that there would be ‘wild cards’ for each pupillage round, so that applicants without the appropriate qualifications would be invited for interview, chosen at random. I applaud the recognition that change is needed. But the idea of a wild card is, I believe, a bad one.

We ought surely to begin with why diversity is a good thing. I think, firstly, that there is an advantage to the Bar in representing the society in which we operate and which we seek to serve. There is a moral dimension to this as well: non-diversity is too close to discrimination to be comfortable. Secondly, restricting our selection to a particular group – however academically talented – risks missing those who would be the most able barristers. Our focus on academic excellence also plays into diversity in another way. Not only is there a lack of diversity in taking students primarily from particular institutions: doing so exaggerates the effect of the diversity issues pertaining to those institutions themselves. The reality is that almost half the graduates from Oxbridge come from private schools. That this is not remotely a reflection of the society in which we live is obvious, but that is not really the point in a profession which does demand academic ability. The point is that Oxbridge is not selecting the brightest and best. It does not even pretend that it is – hence its emphasis on widening the pool of applicants and increasing contacts with those schools educating about 80% of our children.

The wild card idea has these drawbacks: firstly, it removes the responsibility for diversity from Chambers. The proposal is that wild cards are allocated or randomly selected: Chambers should be capable of designing criteria which reflect other achievements than the academic. Secondly, it reinforces the idea of academic quality as the major determinant: Chambers should be encouraged to discover other qualities. Thirdly, it stops at interview: if the interview is designed to discriminate between candidates with superlative academic qualifications, it is unlikely to be a tool capable of choosing someone without them.

Setting up a system in which hopeless candidates are randomly selected for an interview designed to choose someone with wholly different qualifications is not diversity. Diversity is an acknowledgement that the current requirements are either too restrictive or are being operated in a way which prevents them having an equal impact on all applicants. There seems to be a view that those not at the starting gate by the end of their 3^rd year at University are deemed to have missed the race altogether. The proposition, thus stated, sounds so nonsensical that it is difficult to accept any of us really believes it. In my view, although this job demands academic ability to a considerable degree, it very rarely and very inconsistently demands academic brilliance. Nor do I accept that academic brilliance can only be ascertained by particular results and qualifications from particular universities at particular times of a (young) person’s life. I do not regard this as a particularly contentious proposition, but it throws into sharp relief the issue of whether concentrating on results is even the way to identify academic brilliance.

It might be said that Chambers are not equipped to teach candidates, and so we are stuck with the results they have thus far obtained. It might be said, but it would be wrong in my view. People learn every day and performance improves through practice and experience (otherwise we could send the brilliant pupil straight to the Supreme Court). Nor does that argument address the mature applicant who brings something quite different to the job and who almost every Chambers says is welcome.

I believe we should try to identify potential through our own efforts and widen the pool of pupils. When there was only one Bar School, non-practising barristers were entitled to use the name, and – critically – financial support was available to at least some of those attending via grants and not just scholarships or awards, the position was different. There was then a case having lots of pupils exploited those pupils. Nowadays we expect our applicants to invest £13,000+ for a useless qualification and a small chance of a tenancy. If there are set of chambers that truly believe that the work they do can only be done by the exceptionally academically gifted and that such gifts must be manifested at an early age or by those practising as solicitors and and then changing over, they ought to say so fairly and squarely. A proposal that an application by those with other qualities might be met with a random opportunity to be interviewed by a panel looking for quite different qualities is insufficient. If the Chambers concerned are members of OLPAS then it is worse than insufficient, given that applicants would effectively be wasting a choice.

A start might be made by paying less. That would reduce the punt-taking considerably and would increase the number of pupillages, assuming that the investment in pupils remained the same. Is it really the position that talented candidates would go elsewhere because they were only paid £30,000 to train? Is it really the case that the profession is desperate to attract those who will only join if they get £60,000 as they train? The advantage of additional pupils is that Chambers has more to go on when it comes to choosing the best candidates. It also permits more tenancies to be offered than Chambers originally envisaged – helpful if a number of pupils do particularly well. One difficulty at present is that the concentration on academic results produces a vicious circle whereby candidates feel that post-graduate degrees are essential. That, in turn, generates another year of expense for which candidates can be recompensed by obtaining a pupillage at the Chambers with the highest awards. In reality, very few postgraduate degrees add anything and it may be helpful if we said so.

It is disturbing that a common thread running through this issue is the profit made by the institutions providing the necessary qualifications. It would, in my view, be a forward step if any institution wishing to offer professional qualifications was obliged to submit accounts, quantify the investment per student and correlate that against the academic results – which should be independently marked – and against the success of those students in securing pupillage, tenancy and professional advancement. I believe that this should include Universities offering law degrees. Especially now they are to charge students it would be fair for those students to know more than simply the general reputation of their institution: how good is the law department?

We should also impose procedural fairness. It is surprising, in a profession in which advancement is assisted by a clear statement of the competencies required, that it is not compulsory to offer candidates for pupillage the same opportunity. Chambers ought to publish – on their websites, on the Portal and in paper form, the qualities (the dreadful civil service word is ‘competencies’) they look for in order to allow candidates to demonstrate those qualities. At the moment we ask people to guess.

I suspect that we so often adopt the attainment of ever more stratospheric academic heights as the principal mechanism by which we choose pupils because academic achievement is simultaneously easy to measure and deeply flattering to those doing the measuring. On analysis, professional success also requires other qualities: judgement; lucidity; robust self-belief; an ability to move on; a willingness to work hard at uncongenial tasks; an ease with many different people. That list is almost certainly incomplete yet, to the extent that these qualities are looked for at all, it is hard to argue that they are scrutinised in anything like the same detail or given anything like the same significance. The other side of procedural fairness is allowing the candidates to know how the qualities required are assessed and prioritised by Chambers. Chambers ought to publish their marking schemes. If they attribute half the available marks to academic achievements and 10% to non-legal, non-academic attainment candidates could at least  know what was required of them. Indirect discrimination thereby caused (not many traditional Muslim women go to University a long way from home, for example) could be identified and addressed. The process would be transparent. When schoolchildren take public examinations they are told how much each question is worth. A profession ought to meet the same standard.

For those sets in the happy position of being able to afford two well-paid pupils why not design two different sets of criteria, both open to all? One pupil would be accepted according to each. They could slug it out and Chambers would make its decision – both, one or none – in the usual way. The ability to refine both sets of criteria as the project progressed would be a useful benefit. The ability to reflect the society in which we all operate would be another. The opening of eyes to the possibility of merit arising other than from brilliance would be a third. Even clients might like it.

I’ve read your blog for a few years and I thought I might follow your invitation to get in touch to offer a few thoughts about the administration of the Pupillage Portal. I think you have said that you are not involved in recruitment in your sets, so I hope this will be of vague interest in explaining why some things are almost inevitably going to be unsatisfactory and why some are more likely to go wrong than others. Assuming, that is, that you have not heard the others in your set grumbling about them already…

A major issue is that the parts of the software which chambers use to run the application process is very awkward to use (I think mirroring the parts which candidates use). To give a trivial example: it is very easy to trip up on its mail-merge facility since it doesn’t have a preview function, making it all to easy to send out messages which start “Dear [name]“. It is also slightly unclear sometimes just how many ‘confirm’ buttons one has to hit before the email actually gets sent, making it quite straight-forward to send out more than one set of rejecting emails. However, that said, if you were rejecting people en masse on the Portal, it did only require the ticking of an extra check box to send them an email at the same time so there is no sensible reason why some sets do not manage to do this, nor change the default Portal text to something a bit more friendly. Equally, for those getting good news, it requires just another tick to send them a text-message; something I think more sets could use.

It also appears that the software which runs the Portal was adapted from one designed for much larger organisations, with rolling recruitment and designated recruitment officers. This means it has dozens of features which I don’t think are ever used for pupillage. One example is that each application is allocated a status which slowly advances through the system. However, because there are so many statuses, to reject someone following an interview you have, for example, first to advance them from “invited for interview” to “interview booked” and then “interview attended” even if you were doing all the timetabling off the system. I think this may explain both why so many sets stop using the Portal to process the applications after the first interview stage and why sometimes someone’s status will mysteriously change (e.g. from “under consideration” to “in screening”) if the person administrating it needs to move everyone up before being able to do anything sensible with the applications.

In terms of pre-interview and first-round interview rejections, it might be helpful to know that the only sensible way of sending out the messages is to invite those who were going to the next stage first, and then (having double- and triple-checked) do a “select all” on those remaining in the current category and “bulk process” (this being the Portal’s rather charming terminology, not mine) them to “rejected”. This is why rejections can end up being sent a while after invitations for the next round, particularly if there are some borderline candidates whose fate must be determined before the main batch can be processed. Although, as I mentioned above, this is no excuse for sending out any information to those rejected once a final list is chosen since it only requires a couple of mouse clicks.

It is also easy to underestimate how much work is required just to keep on top of the applications. For example, when printed out, I think chambers had about 4,000 pages of text to deal with last year, so I can see a strong temptation not to furnish every member of a large panel with every application form before a first round interview. I was also surprised at how extremely keen candidates were: interview slots were booked within minutes of emails being sent out, although surprisingly few had filled in their “dates to avoid” on the form, which would have helped the process enormously. Though not as much as full contact details (e.g. phone numbers where people can actually be reached) and I wonder if a lack thereof might have a detrimental effect on an application if a junior tenant is doing the administration! That said, it was usually straight-forward to accommodate requests to move people around, if necessary, so I perhaps wouldn’t worry about asking (assuming there is a good excuse!) as much as some people obviously do, reading through the posts.

The site is super-duper up to date and makes me feel old and tired. It includes live fora, the development of which I shall watch with interest. It also includes a space for people to keep each other up to date on applications and progress. I would like to think that everyone will contribute to that part of the site in a careful and constructive way, focussing on disseminating knowledge to their peers: as trying to get barristers to agree is commonly compared to herding cats, that might be slightly optimistic but I live in hope. For those feeling bilious, the Wall of Shame will be open here for business as usual.

The authors are open to advertising. Although I have mixed feelings about this, I know that they have invested in the development of the site and I trust them to declare any conflicts of interest. It seems to me that they are unlikely to go in for quite the same amount of expression of opinion as I do, so the issues are not as tricky. Certainly, what is currently up there is trustworthy. It is also better, more focussed and more in depth than the Bar Council’s new “Become a Barrister” website. I say that with some regret, because the very fact that the Bar Council has produced such a site is good news and one which would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. The difficulty is that professional bodies have to keep it to information only and the site is thus a bit vanilla (if this site is – as I hope it is – chilli, then The Pupillage Pages is, say, saffron. Any competing spice analogies gratefully received below). The authors are also anonymous. I have urged them to out themselves, because it seems to me that when a site offers information, those wondering whether to use that information are entitled to know the background of the person offering it. They have, perfectly reasonably, said they would like to discuss that with their Chambers. I very much hope their Chambers support the endeavour. For the time being I am prepared to say that the authors know what they are talking about.

I am excited, because the site seems to me to potentially fulfil a real need. Some of its content is covered here as well, and that has the advantage of allowing you either two opinions, or the comfort of agreement. Some of it will, hopefully, consist of information which I frankly doubt I would be given – information directly from Chambers for example – because I wish to retain the right to criticise and suggest improvements. Some of it consists of basic information which I am too idle to put up because it is available elsewhere, but there are distinct advantages to gathering it all together in one place. Go and have a look and let me – and them – know what you think.

Second: Today I have had 820+ visits. That is even more than the previous record when those idiots who helped people to cheat for money were threatening to sue me by sundown or whatever it was.

Third: More than 812 of those visitors know all about Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary.

Isn’t that interesting?

At the outset I have three basic suggestions, which are so often ignored that I wonder whether anyone tells you to do these things. Firstly, ensure that everything you say is backed by a concrete example. Saying “I am a good researcher” is cheap and not terribly persuasive. Saying “when I was assisted X & Co to prepare a complicated submission to the District Judge I became adept at cross-referencing the case being cited to the relevant statute and then seeking support for our definition of the relevant term by using Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary” is much better. If you don’t know what Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary is then find out.

Secondly, check it for spelling and grammar. And learn basic grammar. A preposition isn’t something you end a sentence with. Apostrophes have a definite place and are not the grammatical equivalent of confetti. Exclamation marks do not assist you to make a pretty average point really exciting!

Thirdly, the use of long words and strained constructions do not indicate profundity of thought. Horses for courses please. Poetry is, “The moon, like a flower, in heaven’s high bower, with silent delight, sits and smiles on the night.” An application is, “You can see the moon very clearly tonight”. My first sentence would be better – in terms of an application – if it read, “The Portal opens in 14 days and people are preparing to apply to Chambers”.

Why Do You Wish to Become a Barrister? (150 words).

Do not:

• Start with “I wish to become a barrister because”. They know what the question is and you have 150 words.
• Start “Good question” either.
• Fill the space with cliches about how it’s a wonderful job which allows you to assist the poor and disadvantaged. If that’s your motivation, say something short and link it to your work at the CAB.

Do:

• Be restrained in your use of language. don’t waste words on reinforcers like “extremely”, “amazingly”, “hugely”.
• Talk about yourself and why you want to be a barrister
• Talk about the job and what appeals to you
• Read this and the model answer in the comments section

What Areas of Practice are You Interested In and Why? (250 words)

This is where you demonstrate what you know about the area in which you want to practice. The first issue is whether you want to specialise or not. If so, you must be able to say what it is about that area which attracts you, and why you think it suits you. “My commitment to family law was deepened by my experience working for Barnardos and the knowledge gained via my subsequent qualification as a family mediator means I am sure that this is where I want to specialise”. Then go on to give examples of what you know are solid family law issues, your experience in seeing them (mini-pupillages, marshalling, court attendance) and why these things interest you. When dealing with that interest you should work in your own ability.

If you are not specialising the topic to address is the life that a mixed practice provides. “Although I accept that a mixed practice demands more legal research than might otherwise be the case, I am attracted by the emphasis on advocacy. My experience at the FRU showed me how the crossover between different disciplines can assist a client. I represented someone in the Employment Tribunal who was dismissed for hitting a workmate. I was able to show that he acted in legitimate self-defence”. Then go on to detail the type of issue that arises with a mixed practice and your own ability to research and assimilate.

Give Reasons For Your Choice of Chambers

Please don’t say, “Because you’re the best”. If you have been on a mini-pupillage this is your opportunity to show you picked up how the place ticked. You are talking about 2 things: the quality and breadth of work, and the atmosphere. Quality is the easy bit. Breadth is equally important – you won’t be going to the Supreme Court just yet, so it helps to know that the junior tenant has a steady diet of decent work in Bog End Mags. Talk about the work in a way that shows that you understand what makes for “good work” at the Bar. In other words, good professional clients, who prepare the work properly, identifying the right legal and evidential points, for clients who are not promised the world.

Atmosphere is a way to flatter your reader but – yet again – it must be more than platitudes. “I really liked the way everyone got on” is pointless. “During my week in Chambers I was with Mr X when he was against Ms Y. The legal argument got a bit heated, which was unsurprising given that the Judge had made it clear it was the only point she was interested in. I enjoyed the way that both counsel were able to convey their amazement that the other had the nerve to put their point. But it was afterwards, when we all went for a coffee (ah the days when it used to be a pint – do not put those words in) when the atmosphere in Chambers really struck me as different.”

If you haven’t been on a mini-pupillage then try and find a time you met someone from Chambers and talked to them. Don’t recite hearsay: “Everyone says you’re really good and my friend Jeffrey had a brilliant time when he was with you” will not help.

You can see, I hope, why mini-pupillages help. But you should be able to talk about the work anyway: a search of the website will be a good start. Then try entering the names of members of Chambers in Baili. Then look up the solicitors who instructed Chambers and say something complimentary: “Suited and Booted are known for their expertise in the law of markets and it is clear that they are strong supporters of a number of members of Chambers, as the recent case in the Chancery Division makes clear.”

You will note that, in respect of every question you are doing the same thing. You are saying “I know what is required of a barrister, I know what it takes to produce that standard, I have researched the area, I know how the job works and I am confident that I can do it – and here are some examples to show you I’m not just saying that”.

Why do You Believe You Will Make a Good Barrister?

More of the same – with examples. As a suggestion (only that) you might say something like “Having done mini-pupillages in 5 differing sets and taken the opportunity to ask every barrister and Judge I have ever met the question, it seems to me that the qualities which make a good barrister are these…” Then set them out – see here – and say why they apply to you – with examples.

Please remember good health, integrity and luck. The last is a chance for you to say something amusing. If it doesn’t make your friends (not your mother – your mother will laugh at anything if it makes you happy) laugh then play it straight.

Then, if you haven’t done it already, identify the experience and skills which will help. Please don’t use this as a place to repeat at length what has already been said. The poor sod reading your form has had enough. “I have already referred (not “alluded” – see what is said above about long words) to my experience in x, y and z and my skills as an a, b and c above. Obviously they help, but my experience is that endless repetition of them does not”.

And please don’t list a load of things which aren’t really pertinent but you are desperate for the reader to know about. “My experience as head girl of a 2,500 pupil comprehensive school in the inner city taught me how to handle both the conflicting egos of those who believed they were important and people who regard academic ability as useless,” might just – just – cut it. “My experience as Head girl taught me how to exercise authority,” does not.

This paragraph is, however, the place to say something about academic results affected by illness or family disintegration – both more common than might be assumed if my postbag is anything to go by. Don’t overplay it – pupillages are never, ever, given on the basis of a sympathy vote. But properly handled – and I am not going to be so crass as to venture a model answer – it can help.

Good luck.