The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2012

I'm glad you mentioned PI. I want to go down the same route but was wondering what you did in the gap between graduation/call to the Bar and attaining pupillage. Also, post-BPTC, what did you do to gain advocacy experience?

Many thanks.

M

9 Bedford Row's application was due in 5pm today to start in February - so clearly the standard timetable isn't in practice yet. Long may that continue.

According to their website, 9BR use the pupillage portal - and also that they are not recruiting first sixes during 2011 and 2012. Perhaps the application you're referring to is a third six?

It is a first six. However, it's a very specialised pupillage working solely within their international practice group. Requirements include prior work experience with one of the International HR Bodies and a sound knowledge of International criminal and hr law and practice.... So not your 'usual' pupillage.

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but given that PI is a notable part of my practice, I thought I might as well answer. Personally my advocacy experience post BVC (as it was then) came from working as an in house advocate in a solicitors form. It's a position that I was aware of when I came out of the BVC, and one that I actively worked my way towards. I secured a position as a paralegal in the firm first, and then moved into the in house advocacy team after a number of months. The firm I worked for was Insurance based, and therefore the majority of my hearings related to Defendant PI. There was a decent range of hearings as well, both in the value of the cases and nature of the issues. There are freelance advocacy positions available, but hearings for those agencies tend to more to do with housing (possession hearings etc) and, when you work your way up the ladder, general civil disputes. For PI advocacy experience, an in house position is your best bet.

2. Now that I've left university, how can I get hold of case-law/statutes because I don't have access to Westlaw, Lexis or Lawtel?

Thanks again guys

The 9 Bedford Row one was only up on the website for 1 week prior to deadline as well, which makes me think that they have already decided who they are giving the pupillage to - a 'research assistant' at chambers or suchlike - as often happens.

And the current two pupils are former research assistants. Most chambers are a bit more open re their recruitment wouldn't you say?

Playing devils advocate here, as I have benefited from my parents being able to support me while off CV building.

But is it really meritocratic inviting applications only from those whose parents have been able to pay for them to go human rights-ing in Africa/Former Yugoslavia/Asia?

It narrows the pool to include only the rich. In my opinion that means they wont necessarily get the right candidate. But then they have maybe already picked their preferred candidate and so that's the whole point.

Pupil101 - you seem to know about their application for last year too. Did you apply?

You may have noticed this year that the problem question for the application changed after a couple of days. Can you confirm whether the original question (about Bangladesh war crimes tribunal) was the question for last year?

My guess was that the last minute question changing was either someting awfully fishy designed to catch people out or was simply the OLPAS people screwing up yet again and putting up last year's question by mistake.

I made no comment about the openness of their recruitment process, just stated the fact that it was advertised and with very similar requirements as previous years. I don't know their current pupils, but no doubt they are talented individuals regardless of how long their pupillages appeared on the Portal for.

I agree that rumours of chambers giving out pupillages to their own research assistants can leave a bad taste in the mouth. Such practices should be discouraged, unless the chosen candidates are the best suited to the position. No doubt the niche areas of international criminal law for which 9BR sought a pupil necessitates a relativeley small pool of qualified candidates. I think research assistant positions 'with a view' to pupillage are wrong (and I think prohibited), but if one or more assistants in one year or another turn out to be the best candidates, then good luck to them.

Meritocracy at the Bar IS alive and kicking. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that pupils these days are not all exceptionally able people.

We would all certainly hope that all pupils these days are exceptionally able people. Given that competition for pupillages is intense one would expect only the very best to succeed. That's way the latest figures published in the Bar Council/BSB Barometer Report are extremely interesting.

The full report can be found here:

http://cms.barcouncil.org.uk/assets/documents/120105%20Bar%20Barometer_05.01.12_web.pdf

I've only had a brief scan of the report but what stood out to me were the following figures re pupillage.

In 2009/2010 there were 460 registered pupils. 39 of these were given pupillage having achieved a lower second class honours degree. 2 of these pupils were given pupillage having attained a third class honours degree. Around 39 applicants were given pupillage having attained a competent on the BVC (as then was).

These figures are interesting because they defy everything we believe about what it takes to succeed at obtaining pupillage. I can only hope that these pupils had some extremely serious mitigating circumstances to excuse their poor academic performance balanced against exceptional achievement elsehwere.

These figures are interesting because they defy everything we believe about what it takes to succeed at obtaining pupillage.

Do they? To obtain pupillage you need to be an exceptional candidate. Whilst there are certainly general rules as to what makes an exceptional candidate, and indeed general rules as to what you need to increase your chances of obtaining pupillage, they are always held out to be 'general' rules, and not absolute ones. I would hope that candidates would equally be aware that not every exceptional candidate has a strong academic record, just as not every person with a strong academic record will be an exceptional candidate. Strong candidates with a weak academic record will always be in the minority, which from where I'm sitting seems to be reflected in the figures.

I think that's that what I said, isn't it? If someone has a poor academic background but has good reasons to explain why they didn't perform as well as they could have done, but they have shown exceptional ability elsewhere then they surely do deserve their pupillage.

The concern rasied earlier on this thread was that a London chambers (i forget which one) is alleged to have recruited its own research assistants. The loosley veiled allegation is one of nepotism and the like. whilst I hope that FMQ's assumptions about these figures are correct I think it would wrong to assume that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

That said, I do highly doubt that nepotism has been completely removed from the pupillage process. I think the only thing that can be said with confidence is that it is far less common and far less blatant than it used to be, to the point where the average candidate no longer needs to have connections to secure pupillage. It should certainly not be assumed that those who have secured pupillage with relatively poor academics are more likely to have benefited from nepotism than those with 2:1s and Very Competents, though.