Should you be able to call yourself a Barrister?

I know what the BSB says but I'm interested to know what people think....if you haven't secured pupillage, should graduates of the BPTC and those who have been called to the Bar hold themselves out as Barristers-at-law?

Would you even want to?

Reply 1

Ewok

2

Original post by Luckypupil

I know what the BSB says but I'm interested to know what people think....if you haven't secured pupillage, should graduates of the BPTC and those who have been called to the Bar hold themselves out as Barristers-at-law?

Would you even want to?

No- it's misleading. The public and even those within the profession would expect 'barrister-at-law' to mean someone who has completed pupillage and secured tenancy. Pupillageless BPTC graduates describing themselves as barristers of law are not being particularly honest and it would be much more suitable for them to describe themselves as having the qualities and skills of a barrister than to call themselves a barrister at law.

Would you not expect a barrister to have higher rights to represent you in court? I can't think of many people who wouldn't (perhaps only those who have encountered pupillageless BPTC grads calling themselves barristers...).

Reply 2

FurryFeet

Original post by Luckypupil

I know what the BSB says but I'm interested to know what people think....if you haven't secured pupillage, should graduates of the BPTC and those who have been called to the Bar hold themselves out as Barristers-at-law?

Would you even want to?

I'm sure I've read somewhere that if we don't have pupillage we have to 'non-practising' in brackets after our name in anything in which we are describing ourselves as barristers? Or have I dreamt that? I may well have done...

Reply 3

Luckypupil

OP

5

Original post by FurryFeet

I'm sure I've read somewhere that if we don't have pupillage we have to 'non-practising' in brackets after our name in anything in which we are describing ourselves as barristers? Or have I dreamt that? I may well have done...

something like that.....but do those who have completed the LPC able to call themselves non-practicing solicitors? I dont think so. Why the difference?

Reply 4

FurryFeet

Original post by Luckypupil

something like that.....but do those who have completed the LPC able to call themselves non-practicing solicitors? I dont think so. Why the difference?

No idea on the answer to either of those, I'm afraid.

Reply 5

Shearn

The title comes from being called to the Bar, not from getting a practising certificate, so I don't think that anyone without pupillage using a title legitimately conferred upon them by an Inn of Court, in the contexts mandated by the BSB, is being dishonest.

That doesn't stop it being a wholly impotent title, one that would only cause embarrassment because its announcement would almost always be shortly followed by "ooh, er, well...I haven't actually got a pupillage yet."

Original post by Shearn

The title comes from being called to the Bar, not from getting a practising certificate, so I don't think that anyone without pupillage using a title legitimately conferred upon them by an Inn of Court, in the contexts mandated by the BSB, is being dishonest.

The difficulty being of course that the average lay person will not appreciate the distinction between a qualified barrister and a practising barrister. As such, if you tell people that you are a barrister before securing pupillage, either verbally or by noting the title under a signature or similar on paperwork, you run the risk of misleading the person who reads that title because they will likely assume that you are a practising barrister with all of the rights and competency that that entails. Hence why it is not allowed.

Reply 7

openunisol

Absolutely not, in my opinion. As is the case with solicitors, the professional title should be used when the professional qualifications have been acheived, which (if it does not), should include a period of work-based learning.

If my understanding is correct, the system in the US is one where you are eleigible to refer to yourself as 'Attorney' once you have finished law school. This must be at least inconvenient for the consumer as they will need to assure themselves in every case that the Attorney has at least some practical experience. In England and Wales, a solicitor cannot become an owner of a law firm until they are 3 years PQE, which at least gives the guarantee that someone in that organisation has 5 years of work-based experience.

Reply 8

Clip

19

Original post by Luckypupil

something like that.....but do those who have completed the LPC able to call themselves non-practicing solicitors? I dont think so. Why the difference?

This ties in with the "Golden Rules" thing with pupillage application. I don't think pre-training solicitor candidates consider themselves to be solicitors of any colour - it's clear that they're law students or LPC graduates.

On the other hand - what's a paralegal? Is that a job title or a status? If you've opened a few cases for FRU - does that make you a paralegal?

Reply 9

Luckypupil

OP

5

Maybe not barrister but do they need to be called something?

At present they are not even paralegals (are they?). They only thing they appear to be is £15k in the hole!

Maybe that is just tough luck?

Reply 10

InnerTemple

20

There will be an article about this subject in the Criminal Law and Justice Weekly soon. :wink:

The BSB has considered deferring call, here is the consultation which considers arguments for and against: http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/about-bar-standards-board/consultations/closed-consultations/deferral-of-call

Holding oneself out as a barrister while providing legal services is a criminal offence, the BSB appears to be content that this fact serves as adequate protection.

Reply 11

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Luckypupil

I know what the BSB says but I'm interested to know what people think....if you haven't secured pupillage, should graduates of the BPTC and those who have been called to the Bar hold themselves out as Barristers-at-law?

Would you even want to?

You can call yourself a barrister, providing it is not in connection with the provision of legal services.

Apart from people with grandfather rights, you cannot use the title non-practising barrister in connection with the provision of legal services.

http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/code-guidance/holding-out-as-a-barrister/

Reply 12

Farnella

1

Original post by Ewok

No- it's misleading. The public and even those within the profession would expect 'barrister-at-law' to mean someone who has completed pupillage and secured tenancy. Pupillageless BPTC graduates describing themselves as barristers of law are not being particularly honest and it would be much more suitable for them to describe themselves as having the qualities and skills of a barrister than to call themselves a barrister at law.

Would you not expect a barrister to have higher rights to represent you in court? I can't think of many people who wouldn't (perhaps only those who have encountered pupillageless BPTC grads calling themselves barristers...).

You have a very good point. However, barristers get this title from being Called at an Inn of Court, not from securing a pupillage. Why would I be deemed to be dishonest if I use a title that has been conferred to me by my Inn?

Secondly, there are law students from so many countries. It's perfectly alright to call myself a barrister in my country because I've worked at a chambers as a legal associate and counsel for 2.5 years after getting Called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn.

If people wish to represent themselves in an international platform (such as myself) for work such as drafting international agreements or conducting arbitration, perhaps it would be better to call ourselves barrister graduates or qualified barristers (as opposed to practising barristers).

Original post by Farnella

You have a very good point. However, barristers get this title from being Called at an Inn of Court, not from securing a pupillage. Why would I be deemed to be dishonest if I use a title that has been conferred to me by my Inn?

Secondly, there are law students from so many countries. It's perfectly alright to call myself a barrister in my country because I've worked at a chambers as a legal associate and counsel for 2.5 years after getting Called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn.

If people wish to represent themselves in an international platform (such as myself) for work such as drafting international agreements or conducting arbitration, perhaps it would be better to call ourselves barrister graduates or qualified barristers (as opposed to practising barristers).

This thread is eleven years old. Your first question has already been answered. If you use the title in the provision of legal services, the dishonesty comes from providing your client with a misleading impression of your professional standing and experience. What you call yourself in your home country is a matter for you and the regulations that apply there.

Should you be able to call yourself a Barrister?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you