Comments on: Bar reform -pupillages and practice http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:54:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Charon QC http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/#comment-3745 Charon QC Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:48:12 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/#comment-3745 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 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

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/#comment-3744 Ruthie Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:40:42 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/#comment-3744 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. 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.

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/#comment-3740 Ruthie Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:13:51 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/04/06/bar-reform-pupillages-and-practice/#comment-3740 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? 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?

]]>