Revelation of the week award goes to Geoffrey Vos QC, the new Chairman of the Bar, who worries that the future of the profession is being threatened by an emphasis on posh accents and a public school education instead of the highest intellectual standards. Mr. Vos said he hoped to persuade the Inns of Court to change the way they awarded grants to make it easier for people from underprivileged backgrounds to train. Candidates for the Bar Vocational Course from such backgrounds were often “completely missed” by grant authorities he said.
Ruthie does not know Mr. Vos, or whether he is a fan of the blog, but astonishingly Ruthie made a comment in almost identical terms on the 10th May 2006. Is it a case of great minds thinking alike, Ruthie wonders? Or rather this has been a continuing state of affairs, resulting in routine hand wringing for years, but no change as a consequence of no real desire to unbalance the status quo.
Since even Labour Government Ministers with responsibility for educating the masses now send their children to private school, its hard to criticise chambers for their prejudices. Its a well known phenomena that people recruit in their own image, therefore however much the Bar Vocational Course attempts to be scrupulously fair in its admission policies, where hundreds of the qualified are applying for a handful of pupillages, short-listing is easily made on the basis of school and University. Trying to enforce anti-discrimination policies on a group of the self employed, is frankly laughable.
With the costs of living in London high, legal aid rates being driven down and intense competition for pupillages, Ruthie sees a worsening, rather than an improvement of the lot of the, fast becoming mythical, working class barrister. Her advice to those considering a career at the Bar has remained that same over eight years in professional practice: unless you went to the right school, the right University and have lots of money, don’t even waste your time considering a career at the Bar. Even with those advantages, you may still not succeed. But without them…there’s more chance of John Prescott winning the 100 metre sprint at the 2012 Olympics than you securing a tenancy.
So what you’re saying is I should start training Mr Prescott now so that I can succeed at the Bar?
Maybe you should do us all a favour and start training Mr. Prescott anyway! Seriously, there will always be a very good and lucky few that make it, but if you haven’t got a big wadge of cash behind you then the cost of university + tuition fees + bar school + two years of relative penury as a pupil/squatter in the hope of securing a tenancy will break most people. Even when you start earning any money most of it will simply go on servicing the debt. Unless of course you manage to bag a tenancy at a top commercial chambers. But how many of those are available?
The situation with pupillages is appalling I agree. But then it has been for decades. Vos is unlikely to effect the structural changes needed. There needs to a reduction in incoming aspirants or an easing of the pupillage & tenancy/practice options. All the options have serious drawbacks leading to the choice between a catastrophy or a disaster.
The Bar has survived centuries and contrary to Ruthie’s opinion I believe it will continue to do so in an effective fashion; the question is what form it will assume.
Now, before we get to the “is it cos I is black” jokes, there is a valid point to be made about the Bar training’s shortcomings.
Yes, the Bar has a big problem with diversity. In the higher-end commercial type of sets I’ve seen just one black tenant. Women remain scarce and ethnic minorities remain under-represented.
But I don’t think that is the problem. Rather it is that even those who tick the “diversity” boxes actually turn out, well, to be from a certain background. And too right too– you need money to start out in this profession, money or material support. People from modest backgrounds find little incentive to go to the Bar. I found pupillage a real drag at times, even though I had a big award, and had come out even out of Bar School. Financially it was tight. It was my first “real” job, and as such the pressures mount: things to buy, must-haves and the like. Central London rent because I was working 11–12 hour days. I found a clear correlation between those among my friends who enjoyed themselves as pupils and the amount of support they had from, say, their parents. I on the other hand pretty much support my mother and ended up quite miserable in bits. Not to blow my own trumpet but I was streets ahead of the other pupils academically, and probably in terms of advocacy too (though perhaps not stress handling!)
Gosh I sound like 100% pure sour grape juice, don’t I. I swear there’s a point in there somewhere. I think it’s to do with the Bar being necessarily organised so that pupils actual and prospective have to find support from outside chambers– barristers are busy enough as it is… whereas law firms handle things in a more organised way. I bet fewer talented trainees slip through solicitors’ nets than barristers…
I wish I could declare to being “streets ahead of the other pupils academically.”
What can it mean to be that brilliant, to have such sheer and shiny brilliance? I cannot even begin to energise my bored and lazy grey cells to battle Dr Gonzo’s depth and clarity of argument, nay, advocacy.
But at least I am not a bitter lemon, a tangy apple. or even a musty tangerine.
p.s. in sum, barristers are tight bastards and solicitors have more fun.
Pupillage sucks. And I’m bloody glad I’m not going through it with Dr Gonzo, I have to say.
The chambers I’m at do have a diverse range of barristers. There are certainly many senior ones at the exceedingly posh end of the posh-prole spectrum. Even the more interesting, generally more junior ones, present as not exactly coming from the prole pole, though. Relative financial security and education go a long way in making it as far as I can see. The Oxford comments I experienced at the beginning of my pupillage (see blog) certainly bear that out.
Whilst Ruthie would love to tell the world about the her experiences in attempting to obtain pupillage, she think it would actually be less humiliating to post photos of herself naked on the blog. Suffice to say the process was so miserable and demoralising just to read about it would squeeze the juice from your eyeballs.
To Dr. Gonzo: thanks for your post, and I entirely agree with your comments about diversity. Solicitors firms are more of a meritocracy, but I think thats becuase the demands made of trainees are somewhat different to those of pupils. Law firms just want someone who will make lots of money and not cause any trouble; they don’t need to like you, they are simply purchasing a financial commodity, a fee earning unit, and if you stop performing they simply get rid of you.
Getting pupillage is rather like getting probationary membership of a club. No other member really has a direct financial interest in your membership, therefore its much more about whether your face fits.
To Corporate Blawg: aw..give Dr. Gonzo a break, maybe he really was academically streets ahead of the other pupils. If we’re doing a whos got the biggest [ego] competition I still think Geeklawyer would win hands down.
To Geeklawyer: I fear Clementi will succeed where Vos is doomed to fail. Market forces are causing much of the work previously done by the bar to be shifted to in-house employed solicitor advocates. Yes, the Bar will survive, but I fear in a much more reduced and specialist form. I suspect eventually everyone will start off a solicitors, then some will develop a specialist advocacy practice and become barristers.
To pupilblogger: hey it could be worse, you could have Geeklawyer as your pupilmaster…
I’ve never been let loose on a pupil but only because I’ve not done the pupilmasters course. however I recall my own time with sufficient horror (I had some real cocksuckers) that I believe I’d be supportive.
I really am a jolly nice chap you know, it’s only you I’m beastly too. But you deserve it
I stated the facts without conceit– one pupil was taken on and there is no doubt he will be a great success, and whilst I say I was ahead of him, he still had excellent academics. He’s no great oral advocate but then I’m not sure, when I saw just one trial in 12 months (yes one), that matters all that much.
All I tried to convey is that my chambers made an investment in me, based presumably on how I came across and my academic record– but then it risks squandering it by putting me in a environment where, frankly, after 6 months I knew I could never stay. The people were great, on the whole– but everyone will know what I mean when I say if no one makes an effort to reassure a pupil he or she will simply assume they suck something major.
I dunno, maybe I’m generalising from my own experience. And yes, sour grapes and all that.
Dear Dr Gonzo,
Corporate Blawg hopes only the best for you, now and in the future.
If Corporate Blawg came across too harshly earlier in these comments it was because his self-depreciating sarcasm and despotic wit does not always translate well on the cyber-highways — and no offence was intended.
Stick with it and you will succeed.
Wishing you love, happiness and bouncy fun times forever,
CBUK
p.s. solicitors still have more fun
Boys, boys…play nicely. Anyway I thought it was only Geeklawyer and I who got to have spats in the comments section. Seems like the whole world is at it now
Blimey.
All in all, it seems that a pleasant 6-month pupillage (without having to go to, or pay for, Bar School) and then a cosy door tenancy is the way to go. At least (should I actually manage to extract my digit from my proverbial backside) that’s what I’ll be doing.
Not sure what the position is with academics: but a door tenancy won’t allow you to practice as a barrister, if I recall it right? Otherwise I might have tried a scam like that.
As far as I am aware, a door tenancy is not an obstacle at all; in fact, many academics gain a door tenancy precisely so that they can be actively involved in cases relating to their research specialism.
My senior at Birmingham has an active practice at Brick Court (http://www.law.bham.ac.uk/who/harris.htm), as do other sufficiently eminent academics.
I’m not sure if this is universal, however, or only applies to academics of a certain level.
And “scam”?! I prefer to call it an alternative entry path…
Vos, the man who came up with this storming idea…:
http://www.rollonfriday.com/story65.htm
I think Ruthie is right about the way things will go at the bar: qualify as sol first then do the QLTT or whatever it’s called when you’re a bit more financially secure. And yes, the Bar will become more what it is, a consultancy profession. Though frankly it can easily be more expensive for the lay client to use a sol-adv.