[Kessler`]

This is madness.

Wildman, you seem to be seriously disillusioned about the whole process. I suspect that you've been through the mill yourself and feel quite bitter. That's natural, I've been there myself, but you must not let this attitude dictate your approach towards pupillage apps - and you must certainly not let it come across in person. I don't think it is a well-founded view to take, and I know that it is not useful.

In this day and age, I seriously doubt whether respectable chambers, amongst which I firmly place 9BR, would risk a flagrant breach of Bar Council rules. The penalties, when a breach is discovered, are heavy. But it runs beyond that. The funding for any one pupillage will come directly from chambers; it represents a direct investment by chambers in an individual's future. It is expected that, during the second six, a pupil will be able to work on their feet and generate income. If they don't, it's the members of chambers who will have to pay for it. You can be sure that they wish to get the best pupil possible. Furthermore, if they are named and shamed for improper practices (as has happened in the past), the reputation of chambers will suffer and they risk putting off the best applicants in future. I'm not saying nepotism and so on hasn't entirely disappeared - you may find that in the case of two equal candidates, a known element (or a familial link to chambers etc) will be preferred. I highly doubt that, amongst those chambers who have a reputation to keep, you will find it as a standard practice however.

Back to the specific issue of 9BR and their research assistants. I am certain that they are very able candidates and, if they have indeed achieved pupillage, I heartily wish them well for the future. Furthermore, for the reasons outlined above, I am sure that they were the best candidates in the competition. A chambers like 9BR has a very high reputation to keep; their members are impressive in and out of court. I know this, because I have had occasion to deal with them and/or see their work firsthand. If you feel bitter that you did not have "a shot" at this, I suggest the following alternatives to feeling sorry for yourself and moaning at the system:

1) Review your CV and analyse your weaknesses
2) Look for similar opportunities, whether in a solicitors' firm or a chambers. Being a research assistant can really show off a flair and skill for analysis and presentation - the core skills of any barrister
3) Develop contacts for yourself. The Inns are a fantastic place to network in that regard. They EXIST for that purpose, so use them!
4) If you manage to get a really great opportunity, then talk to your Inn about how they can help. If you can demonstrate that this is an opportunity that is likely to greatly enhance your prospects of pupillage, you may find that they are willing to financially assist you. It happened for me, it happened for my friends - it can happen to you.
5) Remember that, through the long hard haul of pupillage apps, you must always concentrate on yourself. Saying "it isn't fair" or concentrating on percieved nepotism will only distract your energy away from the real target - your own success.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Chilbaldi)
I'm with Wildman on this. Why do the chambers bother advertising if they fix the pupillage competition?

Plenty of places break the rules regarding pupillage, a lot of the time. Nothing ever happens.

This is virtually universal across organisations with externally imposed recruiting requirements.

Universities, local authorities, quangos and the government all run recruitment competitions where the outcome is pre-ordained. All one can hope is that the job advert tailors the person specification so tightly that everyone realises the position and saves the time and effort.

In the near future the position of Lord Chief Justice will be advertised and all the senior judiciary will be able to apply but the entire legal profession knows that job is going to Heather Hallett.

Organisations without externally imposed recruiting practices do not advertise externally when they know that there is an internal candidate they want.

[ProBono]

I doubt whether nepotism is particularly widespread at the Bar, certainly not among the ‘respectable chambers’, but of course, not every chambers is respectable and it would be naive I think, to suggest otherwise.

The only way for this problem to be identified and dealt with is for the BSB to adequately scrutinise chambers’ procedures and to impose heavy penalties for blatant breaches.

For those of us with few contacts at the Bar, we can do nothing but that which Kessler has suggested and hope for the best.

[ProBono]

(Original post by Kessler`)
This is madness.

Wildman, you seem to be seriously disillusioned about the whole process. I suspect that you've been through the mill yourself and feel quite bitter.

I don't think it is fair to label someone a bitter and twisted pupillage reject just because they have dared to criticise the Bar (a 2nd unsucessful pupillage season and i'll be starting to feel a tad bitter myself).

Most people who go through the BPTC would make perfectly capable barristers if given the opportunity. We are all competing with each other for the few pupillages that are available and we expect, quite rightly in my view, to be given a fair and equal chance. If chambers don't opperate an open and fair recruitment system then it's just not cricket and people should be able to speak up about it.

If this chambers has behaved in this way it is unacceptable. If they want to recruit their own research assistants then why not be open about that and recruit researchers on a kind of mini-pupillage basis, or something with a view to being considered for pupillage at the end.

Whilst attempts to make the Bar more diverse are laudable, the Bar is still a long way from reflecting the society in which we live. This is especially true of social mobility. The point made earlier is a very fair one in that a person from a socially disadvantaged background is going to be less capable of competing for pupillage. This is something the Bar is going to have to do more on. In the meantime practises alleged to have occurred at 9 BR do not help one bit.

Those who turn a blind eye or who swat such criticisms away with a "oh well, that's the way the system is, get over it" attitude, are not part of the solution and are therefore part of the problem.

[Kessler`]

Oh dear...I have no desire to label someone as a "bitter and twisted pupillage reject". I know what it's like to start concentrating on external factors as an explanation for not getting through. I did three years of applications before scoring, and I went through that phase every year. The skill is to refocus that energy internally.

I disagree that most people who go through the BPTC would make perfectly capable barristers. I think that is one of the problems with overcrowding now. There were a huge amount of people in my year alone that should, quite simply, have never embarked upon a career in law - let alone the Bar.

Furthermore, and this is me going out on a limb here, I don't agree that someone from a socially disadvantaged background is inherently less capable of competing for pupillage. I consider myself as being from such a background; I have found that there are people at every turn who are willing to help you, as long as you have the drive to succeed, the ability and the nouse to ask for that help in the first place. The Inns of Court are absolutely fantastic in that respect. What doesn't do any favours to a candidate with that background, is to have a chip on their shoulder about it. It comes across so easily, even when unintended, and it is not endearing to fellow candidates - let alone pupillage committees. If you met me - and there are some on these forums that have - I very much doubt if you could tell in what circumstances I spent my childhood or what social background I represent. That is the way it should be. I suspect that you will find a great many barristers are not of the much-maligned upper middle-class ilk. The difference is, they don't advertise it!.

[ProBono]

(Original post by Kessler`)
Oh dear...I have no desire to label someone as a "bitter and twisted pupillage reject". I know what it's like to start concentrating on external factors as an explanation for not getting through. I did three years of applications before scoring, and I went through that phase every year. The skill is to refocus that energy internally.

I disagree that most people who go through the BPTC would make perfectly capable barristers. I think that is one of the problems with overcrowding now. There were a huge amount of people in my year alone that should, quite simply, have never embarked upon a career in law - let alone the Bar.

Furthermore, and this is me going out on a limb here, I don't agree that someone from a socially disadvantaged background is inherently less capable of competing for pupillage. I consider myself as being from such a background; I have found that there are people at every turn who are willing to help you, as long as you have the drive to succeed, the ability and the nouse to ask for that help in the first place. The Inns of Court are absolutely fantastic in that respect. What doesn't do any favours to a candidate with that background, is to have a chip on their shoulder about it. It comes across so easily, even when unintended, and it is not endearing to fellow candidates - let alone pupillage committees. If you met me - and there are some on these forums that have - I very much doubt if you could tell in what circumstances I spent my childhood or what social background I represent. That is the way it should be. I suspect that you will find a great many barristers are not of the much-maligned upper middle-class ilk. The difference is, they don't advertise it!.

I think the generally accepted view is that around two thirds of students obtained a VC or above on the BVC. If a VC is the accepted benchmark of what it takes to do well in pupillage, and I think it is, then yes the majority of those who finish the BVC/BPTC are, on the face of it, likely of being capable barristers. I agree though there were some very dodgy candidates on my course too!

I think even the Bar accepts that it has a problem with encouraging people from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. I'm not sure that people are necessarily wearing their class on their sleeve, so to speak. but the problem is clear. The overcrowding means that chambers have to look at more than academic merit (I'm not going to mention the fact that socially disadvantaged students have difficulty getting good grades and thereby often don't go to the best Universities!). A chambers will invariably value a student who has done an internship or who has travelled Asia for a year for example. Students who want to go to the U.S. to do death penalty work, for example, are expected to have £3000 in their pocket before they have even paid for their flights. For some students these sorts of activities are financially impossible.

Students from traditional middle class backgrounds are not necessarily confronted with the same difficulties. They are more likely to have received a private or grammar education which gets them top grades and admission into the best universities. They will also likely have family friends or relatives who are already in the profession. In addition their parents may be wealthy enough to provide the ample financial support both through university and for the purposes of internships etc.

I'm generalising of course but I do think that if someone from a socially disadvantaged background actually overcomes the many barriers to make it to the Bar they probably deserve a bloody nobel prize.

Either way, whatever background people come from, they ought to expect a fair and open recruitment procedure, In fact the BSB demands as such. If a chambers decides who they are going to select as a pupil before the vacancy has even been advertised on PP then how can that be fair. What chance does anybody have of overcoming the odds in those circumstances, even if the lucky devil is exceptional.

I think that someone should write to the head of that chambers and ask him (because gender inequality at the bar invariably means that it will be a him) to register on this site and offer a response to the allegation.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by ProBono)

I think that someone should write to the head of that chambers and ask him (because gender inequality at the bar invariably means that it will be a him) to register on this site and offer a response to the allegation.

You do realise he is chairman of the heads of chambers committee.

[Kessler`]

I think continued discussion on this topic merits a thread in its own right.

[ProBono]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
You do realise he is chairman of the heads of chambers committee.

I didn't realise this. Do you think that it makes a difference?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by ProBono)
I didn't realise this. Do you think that it makes a difference?

It means that it has been undertaken by a set whose management is at the heart of the profession.

[ProBono]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
It means that it has been undertaken by a set whose management is at the heart of the profession.

I attended a local qualifying session some months back and spoke with our guest QC about the selection procedure for silks. He wasn't at all impressed, he said something along the lines of "we end up getting the wrong sort of people".

[ProBono]

Can anybody help me compile a list of leading provincial criminal chambers/firms? I have a fair idea of those in London but would like to know which ones outside the Capital specialise in crime.

[Crazy Jamie]

(Original post by ProBono)
Can anybody help me compile a list of leading provincial criminal chambers/firms? I have a fair idea of those in London but would like to know which ones outside the Capital specialise in crime.

Any particular area other than 'outside London'? There are a lot of Chambers outside London than specialise in crime or have notable criminal teams.

[ProBono]

(Original post by Crazy Jamie)
Any particular area other than 'outside London'? There are a lot of Chambers outside London than specialise in crime or have notable criminal teams.

No particular area in mind. I'm just keen to cast a wider net. I really want to target chambers that offer pupillage to do crime and other areas of public law only. Does this narrow the field a little?

PP dosen't allow this level of filter. If I filter for crime it presents every chambers which does crime, even if the pupillage is more likely to be another area or mix of areas.

[nearmiss]

hi, has anyone applied to Pump Court Tax Chambers? I haven't received a confirmation email, or any other communication from them and just wondered if anyone else had? It seems a very tight turnaround with 30th Jan closing date and interviews on 9th Feb, I like the idea of not having to wait too long for a yes/no re interview! Thanks

[GDLIsStupid]

Team 2012: February nostalgia brought me back to TSR today. I got pupillage at my second attempt last year, and have to say: there will be moments of doubt, but carry on! and good luck! PM me if I can assist. Otherwise, I'll be watching this thread sporadically as I attempt to kill time before pupillage starts...

[livetowork]

Anyone got a scholarship interview at their inn of court? I'm rather nervous about mine! Also wondering about my pupillage chances. Done 6 mini-pupillages, been to a law summer school in 2010 and an autumn law school in 2008, been in a city county court, done some mooting at uni and sec of debating society but am from a very low down uni in the league tables. on track for a first and applying for mainly public/family pupillages. Might try some chancery just to see if luck is on my side. Anyone here to help me out and tell me if i'm doing this for no reason?

[Isherwood100]

Stone Chambers have extended their application deadline to February 24th. Not enough applicants, or they realised they'd have no time to interview before March? http://www.stonechambers.com/recruitment/pupillage.asp

[sanf]

Pump Court Tax interviews are out by e-mail.

[nearmiss]

anyone heard from South Square? Thanks