How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?

Hi all, I graduated from Cambridge with a high 2.1 in law in June. I would like to work as a barrister, but looking at the CVs of barristers in London chambers they all seem to have Oxbridge firsts. Is it simply unrealistic to expect to be able to become a barrister with a 2.1?

I respectfully disagree with the previous poster. If you are going for an elite commercial Chambers a first is a necessity. I base this on discussions I have had with barristers in such Chambers as well my own experience of working with such barristers in my capacity as a solicitor.

The previous poster is a barrister...

Noted but I maintain my view with regards to elite commercial Chambers based on 25 years in the legal profession in the City.

I don't think we really disagree here. In the first instance, it's not difficult to find examples of junior barristers (I just had a quick look and narrowed it down to those under five years call) at those sets who do not have Firsts. They don't specify that they have a 2:1, of course, but they make it pretty obvious when they don't specify the First. However, even those who don't specify that they have a First still clearly have exceptional academic profiles, and lengthy ones. Even the barristers who don't specify the First tend to have such a notable academic profile after that that you don't really notice it, and they're exceptional on any reading even taking the 2:1 into account. There are also several without the First who have other reasons that would make them stand out, such as extensive experience in other roles or jurisdictions. So as I said in my original response, chances are that a candidate applying to them now with a 2:1 will not come anywhere close to satisfying the academic requirements. Indeed, it's rare to find barristers at those sets who only have a First and not a string of further qualifications. It's what makes them outliers in more ways than one, because the general advice is that an MA or similar isn't necessary in pupillage applications, whereas if you look solely at the profiles of barristers at elite commercial sets, you'd most certainly come away with a different impression. What that means ultimately is that just getting a 2:1 at undergraduate isn't going to be enough for these sets, and we both agree that that's the case.

Hi all, I graduated from Cambridge with a high 2.1 in law in June. I would like to work as a barrister, but looking at the CVs of barristers in London chambers they all seem to have Oxbridge firsts. Is it simply unrealistic to expect to be able to become a barrister with a 2.1?

Noted but I maintain my view with regards to elite commercial Chambers based on 25 years in the legal profession in the City.

Can you speak for the less "elite"/decent commercial/common law sets? Are 2:1s from top5/10 RG's enough, or do they still want firsts?

It will vary from set to set. You have to remember it won't be a case of you not getting an interview if you have a 2:1; virtually no set will have a strict minimum requirement of a First. Sets will have scoring frameworks, and your undergraduate degree will be one of the factors that go into that. The question is whether you can still get an interview with a 2:1 against other candidates who have a First. The answer in most regional sets will be yes, though as I've said above, those with stricter academic scoring or who place more value on academics may in practice require you to have more to go along with your 2:1. So you have to see your academic grade in the context of how your application is assessed. It's not as binary as needing a certain grade.

I don't think we really disagree here. In the first instance, it's not difficult to find examples of junior barristers (I just had a quick look and narrowed it down to those under five years call) at those sets who do not have Firsts. They don't specify that they have a 2:1, of course, but they make it pretty obvious when they don't specify the First. However, even those who don't specify that they have a First still clearly have exceptional academic profiles, and lengthy ones. Even the barristers who don't specify the First tend to have such a notable academic profile after that that you don't really notice it, and they're exceptional on any reading even taking the 2:1 into account. There are also several without the First who have other reasons that would make them stand out, such as extensive experience in other roles or jurisdictions. So as I said in my original response, chances are that a candidate applying to them now with a 2:1 will not come anywhere close to satisfying the academic requirements. Indeed, it's rare to find barristers at those sets who only have a First and not a string of further qualifications. It's what makes them outliers in more ways than one, because the general advice is that an MA or similar isn't necessary in pupillage applications, whereas if you look solely at the profiles of barristers at elite commercial sets, you'd most certainly come away with a different impression. What that means ultimately is that just getting a 2:1 at undergraduate isn't going to be enough for these sets, and we both agree that that's the case.

I respectfully disagree with the previous poster. If you are going for an elite commercial Chambers a first is a necessity. I base this on discussions I have had with barristers in such Chambers as well my own experience of working with such barristers in my capacity as a solicitor.

I’m perfectly capable of reading. My post was based on my personal experience. I have nothing but respect for Crazy Jamie’s views.

I’m perfectly capable of reading. My post was based on my personal experience. I have nothing but respect for Crazy Jamie’s views.

And, to be fair, you did respond to that post in a perfectly reasonable and measured way. I'm not sure what warranted revisiting an exchange that happened a month ago.

I have made my apologies to katana10000. Came late into the discussion whilst foolishly omitting to read the entire thread as was through.

My apologies. I made the mistake of jumping into a thread without having read the whole thing through.