The Bar Standards Board has produced its provisional report on the annual “Shall we defer call?” question. There is a certain polarity of opinion on this from groups with their own agendas. Barristers in practice don’t want their professional status diluted with lots of wannabes who couldn’t get pupilages. The educational provides by contrast don’t want anything that diminishes the prospects of selling courses to as many hopefuls as they can.
Predictably Geeklawyer falls into the former group. Unfortunately the BSB falls into the latter. There recommendation was for no change to call but the introduction of a public register of barristers with practising certificates; also the pupils are to be referred to as ‘trainee’ barristers and to to have L-plates sown into the back of their gowns.
Part of the justification was that there seemed to be very little evidence of any actual misdescription problem: disciplinary records of the Bar Council disclosed that over 9 years only five out of 19 complaints that would be affected by the change were upheld, at Lincoln’s Inn in over nearly 20 years and 789 cases only two complaints were upheld. A Mori opinion poll disclosed that the vast majority of those sampled thought someone bearing the title barrister was entitled to represent them in court. The BSB seems to discount this as a potential risk not borne out in many cases - though they acknowledge they may not know the true scope of the problem since many will not complain.
The survey disclosed that one third of student thought the title to be important so clearly it would affect course providers marketing.
The report is fairly interesting and well worth a read.
That phrase...
There may be something in it, if it discourages gullible students who don’t have a chance of getting pupillage, from handing over vast wads of cash to course providers.
How many kids end up playing for Man United? Hardly any - but that doesnt stop them signing up for training schools etc.
Let them have a go I say.
I rather agree. Most aspiring barristers are extremely capable; of these many know that the competition is stiff and the standards high, but until they actually experience the manic hunt for pupillages few understand the desperate position.
Furthermore most of these youngsters have spent their lives overachieving - top of the class & lauded by family friends and school: “sure it’s difficult to get in but I’ll be OK just look at my CV”.
If they are innocent the training providers are not: they do no more than give notional warnings of the dangers while clawing in massive fees from naive optimistic aspirants.
When GL and I qualified for the Bar, there was only one course provider: the Inns of Court School of Law, and they made you take an exam to get in, which limited the numbers and also ensured that all barristers were a chip off the old block, becuase we all went through an identical training system.
Of course theres a good free market argument why other course providers should be permitted to enter the marketplace. However the increase in competition doesn’t seem to lead to a reduction in fees.
I agree with GL most of the people who go for the Bar are very competent. But there’s simply not enough jobs to go round, and the if anything the huge swell in the numbers qualifying has lead to a reduction in diversity: no chambers pupillage commitee has the time to properly scrutinise 500 applications. So instead, the CV’s get sifted for all the wrong reasons school/university etc. It’s unfair, but you can also understand chambers who have to try and get the numbers down somehow. Far better to train a small but diverse range of applicants in the first place. If 10 people apply for 3 places its likely that all will get an interview and a fair hearing.
A lot of aspiring barristers also come from modest backgrounds where parents are struggling to come up with the funds, and may not fully appreciate the long term difficulties.
But then again, how much of a duty of care do course providers owe to advise potential applicants of the difficulties? Or ought people intelligent enough to be thinking of the Bar be judged capable of making their own enquiries?
It will only be
the same old folks getting pre-selected: Public school boy twerps with mummy and daddies money
You say that like it was bad