Ruthie recently wrote about the Vos Review of entry to the profession and modes of professional practice. An interim report has now been published and the results are much as expected. While Geeklawyer is intimidated and afraid of Geoffrey Vos QC given his recent inquisition he feels that has to risk a Trip to the Basement. Some of the report is crap and some manifestly good.
The report mentions the perception that the Bar is too posh and Oxbridge; that those from a working class background are not sufficiently represented and there should be more of them. Geeklawyer is going to be controversial here: frankly he regards this as twaddle. He’s resigned to sharing his profession with the middle classes, but doesn’t see why the flying fuck he should have to put up with chavs: good heavens, we have Cherie Booth isn’t that enough? The tearooms will be filled with young men discussing football; driving to chambers in hot hatchbacks or scooters; Glaswegians becoming barristers and buying large houses in the West Country. Brhhh. A chilling thought.
While equal access is all jolly nice inclusive and makes us all feel cuddly gratified and warm, Geeklawyer thinks that there is a qualitative distinction between discriminating against someone based on gender or race and that that arises as a result of ones family not having economic power. Geeklawyer says “sorry geeze tough shit, life ruff ‘innit, an’ all that? Djya kna wot I mean?“.
Geeklawyer is quite happy to have diversity and it’s a good thing but distorting a profession and its rules for no other purpose seems like pandering. If you are talented and you or your family can afford to get you through the process great, otherwise you’re owed nothing. Least of by Geeklawyer. Deal with it & drive a truck or get a Vos bank loan to finance yourself.
The rest of the report is eminently sensible. The current system is a screwup and both Ruthie and Geeklawyer have commented ad nauseum on its inadequacies: people are driven by ambition into wasting huge sums on BVC courses when they have little prospect of a pupillage. Throttling back entrants by setting a 2.1 minimum is a broadly good idea but with a caveat: some very capable people currently practicing at the Bar have only 2.2’s losing the likes of them would be a shame. Academic degree class is a reasonable indicator of academic capability but not necessarily so good as an advocacy indicator. A better metric is needed and testing would be ideal. Realistically this is unlikely ever to happen so so long as one is going to choose a near arbitrary selection criteria it’ll do: so long as people who have a decent excuse for a 2.2 get a crack of the whip - those supporting a family while earning a degree etc.
Geeklawyer has a slightly more radical suggestion: make it easier for people to qualify by opening up capacity at the Bar by easing tenancy and pupillage rule. Make it possible for newly qualified barristers to set up their chambers so if they can’t get a tenancy they can operate from home or new sets; widen the approaches to providing pupillage (while maintaining training quality - natch). Have faith in the market - crap new lawyers sets will die if they are no good - if they are good they will get instructions & be able to pay the exorbitant rent most sets pay.
I agree with some of Geeklawyers comments. Ruthie’s impression is that the quality of the young bar has decreased in inverse proportion to the cost of legal education. People forget that with tuition fees, by the time someone even makes it to the door of bar school they are already carrying significant debts. Add on the approx 10 grand fees of bar school and the cost of living with no certain prospect of employment at the end and you can understand why poor people don’t consider it a viable prospect.
There is periodic hang-wringing at senior levels about inequality at the Bar. However genuine their concerns truth is that its very difficult to regulate a profession of the self employed. Obtaining tenancy is more akin to joining a club than taking on a job, and people recruit in their own image. So much will be discussed, and nothing will change.
Ruthie likes Geeklawyer’s suggestion that barristers should be allowed to set up their own chambers upon completing pupillage, and let the market sort out the inadequates. Contrary to Geeklawyers view, astonishingly not all solicitors are stupid. This would allow those young barristers with ability, but without the right connections to at least have a shot at proving themselves.
Fortunately its good to see that gender representation at the Bar has improved, when representation of socio-economic background has failed. Ruthie recently became aware of a chambers where out of 30 members precisely one was female. But of course this simply reflects the reality that women are less intelligent and less able than men to cope with the pressures of the Bar. Goodness, we wouldnt want to let women in just for the sake of it, surely?
As for the 2.1 debate Ruthie recalls having to take an exam before even being allowed the honour of attending Bar School. It was a condition precedent upon her entry that she gained at least a 2.1. It was all meaningless of course, as all the Oxbridge students had their pupillages arranged before they even started Bar School, regardless of the quality of their degree.
But I agree with Geeklawyer that class of degree does not necessarity reflect ability to do the job, therefore some other testing criteria should apply.
Astonishing document - paragraph 1 of the report is a ‘Tour de Force’. I spent a happy hour reading the Interim Report thoroughly…. I shall return to it soon