The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

IN REPLY TO JCW: I take all your points on board. However, the debate as to whether or not the two disciplines should merge has been ongoing since the 80s. Of course the majority of barristers and solicitors would never want such a thing to happen but then the legal system is now under the auspices of a particularly radical Lord Chancellor who is determined to move the legal system into the 21st Century.

That aside there are also fewer people going down the route of the barrister because it is so competitive with no guarantee of a successful career following the pupillage at an Inns of Court - it seems that pupillage is now drawn from a very wide range of universities and Oxbridge students, whose preserve it traditionally was, are now in the minority in the yearly intake - the prerequisite degree is now at least a second-class degree - people with first class degrees from top unis are looking to maximise their earning power as soon as possible and avoid the ardours of pupillage.
Reply 21
NDGAARONDI
I was told by a current UCL student that appantly a lot more people apply for the LPC from UCL but with KCL it's the BVC :biggrin:

Interesting. I wonder what it is like for SOAS and QM...?


Not really true at all ... there are way more LPC applicants at KCL than BVC. I think this is the same everywhere.

You have to remember that UCL and LSE are more "city focused." However KCL is just as feasible a stepping stone. I went there and had offers from ALlen Overy, Slaughter and Freshfields. Also cancelled interviews with Linlaters, Jones Day, Lovells, and White and Case.

I think if you can get into UCL, KCL, LSE, OX/CAM, Bristol, Durham, Nottingham, and can get a 1st, (or pretty damn close) then you will have wonderful choices after you graduate.
Reply 22
Kurdt Morello
IN REPLY TO JCW: I take all your points on board. However, the debate as to whether or not the two disciplines should merge has been ongoing since the 80s. Of course the majority of barristers and solicitors would never want such a thing to happen but then the legal system is now under the auspices of a particularly radical Lord Chancellor who is determined to move the legal system into the 21st Century.

That aside there are also fewer people going down the route of the barrister because it is so competitive with no guarantee of a successful career following the pupillage at an Inns of Court - it seems that pupillage is now drawn from a very wide range of universities and Oxbridge students, whose preserve it traditionally was, are now in the minority in the yearly intake - the prerequisite degree is now at least a second-class degree - people with first class degrees from top unis are looking to maximise their earning power as soon as possible and avoid the ardours of pupillage.


Yes, there are a WIDE range of people from other universities undertaking careers as barristers. Indeed, it is far LESS Oxbridge now than it once was. But yes the numbers for BVC courses are falling off, and you have to remember that some of those applicants will be doing it for its international applicability. That is to say that the BVC can be used in much of the Commonwealth, while the LPC cant. But the thing is really that there are TOO MANY places on the BVC, so that those doing it will have no real certainty of getting a pupilage. It would be better to cull th enumber of places there, so people dont embark on that course only to be without a job when its too late.

I dont really know if combining the professions is feasible though. The skills that a barrister has vis a vis a solicitor are entirely different. I think that the specialisation involved is somethign that clients prefer. This is evident from the fact that Solicitor advocacy is still a second rate choice.
Lawzzzzzz
I dont really know if combining the professions is feasible though. The skills that a barrister has vis a vis a solicitor are entirely different. I think that the specialisation involved is somethign that clients prefer. This is evident from the fact that Solicitor advocacy is still a second rate choice.


Not feasible at the moment but since 1993 the right of the solicitor to participate in advocacy in the higher courts has existed - now that is a relatively short space of time - however in the next 20-30 years there may yet be more changes to the professional status of barristers and solicitors - second rate choice it may be for now but a number of solicitors are very good advocates and orators and given more chances at handling cases in court there could be a gradual shift.

Consider that there is already a great blur between the professions and to merge them would go some way in achieving one of the key principles of the Law Society - to improve the access to law by reducing legal expenses incurred by the fees for both a solicitor and a barrister for one case. This would be one of the logical ways in which this could be achieved.
Reply 24
Kurdt Morello
Not feasible at the moment but since 1993 the right of the solicitor to participate in advocacy in the higher courts has existed - now that is a relatively short space of time - however in the next 20-30 years there may yet be more changes to the professional status of barristers and solicitors - second rate choice it may be for now but a number of solicitors are very good advocates and orators and given more chances at handling cases in court there could be a gradual shift.

Consider that there is already a great blur between the professions and to merge them would go some way in achieving one of the key principles of the Law Society - to improve the access to law by reducing legal expenses incurred by the fees for both a solicitor and a barrister for one case. This would be one of the logical ways in which this could be achieved.



I think its possible it may happen in the future - but in the end it comes down to time. Solicitors perfect different skills. It will I think, detract from those skills if they also have to fill the shoes of barrister. Likewise, the barrister's skills are specific to him. Not merely advocacy, but also the specialisation and more in-depth knowledge of a particular area of law. I consider that to merge the professions, (feasible or not) will require lawyers to learn the skills of both professions in the same time frame. Considering the hours that solicitors in the city tend to work, this is not really possible. Essentially it will lead to a more broad based ability, but with a lesser depth and level of skill. Of course this may not be a problem, but in the end clients still want a barrister when it comes to highly contentious and important maters, and a solicitor to structure deals etc.
Reply 25
Lawzzzzzz
Yes, there are a WIDE range of people from other universities undertaking careers as barristers. Indeed, it is far LESS Oxbridge now than it once was.


Although, to be honest, Oxbridge still dominates the Bar, since around 25% of pupillages go to Oxbridge (and the proportion of Oxbridge at the top is even higher). Even now, Oxbridge representation at the top chambers (in terms of turnover) is easily over 75%. Unsurprising, since the top of the Bar recruits the top intellects, and they tend to be found at Oxbridge.

But the thing is really that there are TOO MANY places on the BVC, so that those doing it will have no real certainty of getting a pupilage. It would be better to cull th enumber of places there, so people dont embark on that course only to be without a job when its too late.


Unfortunately, the Competition people stamp their feet when the Bar Council suggest this. Their view is that the BVC providers should not act as regulators of who can become a barrister, since anyone who proves themselves to be sufficiently skilled should be allowed the chance to compete in a market economy.

I dont really know if combining the professions is feasible though. The skills that a barrister has vis a vis a solicitor are entirely different. I think that the specialisation involved is somethign that clients prefer. This is evident from the fact that Solicitor advocacy is still a second rate choice.


This is very true.

As for somebody else who suggested that removing barristers would reduce fees and increase access to justice - what rubbish! It is solicitors who charge per 6 minutes to write simple letters. Barristers charge a fixed fee based on the difficulty of the work involved, so the charges are clear at the start and there is competition as people can get quotes from various places. In fact, BarDIRECT is trying to cut out solicitors for cases where their charges for simple paperwork are just too high for the simplicity of the work they are doing. Increasingly, BarDIRECT and the employed bar will mean people go straight to expertise, rather than paying solicitors to do office work that could be done in house by the company involved and the Bar.

Solicitors and the Bar will not merge. Not only do the professions not want it, but it isn't in the interests of justice or the public. It makes sense to have experts in narrow areas of law and great advocates to present important cases!
jcw

As for somebody else who suggested that removing barristers would reduce fees and increase access to justice - what rubbish! It is solicitors who charge per 6 minutes to write simple letters.

That is a myth that has perpetuated but in fact has no basis in reality - solicitors are bound by OSS to inform clients fully of charges that they are likely to occur and on the whole most simple non-court services are charged at a fixed fee by solicitors but depending on who you go to and what your budget is it will be higher - solicitors fees depend on their share of the firm's expenses and so overheads have to be taken into account.


jcw

In fact, BarDIRECT is trying to cut out solicitors for cases where their charges for simple paperwork are just too high for the simplicity of the work they are doing. Increasingly, BarDIRECT and the employed bar will mean people go straight to expertise, rather than paying solicitors to do office work that could be done in house by the company involved and the Bar.
BarDIRECT only allows certain organisations such as the police, probation services, trade unions and professional bodies to consult barristers direct, without referral from a solicitor. Also who is to say that a firm won't simply use an in-house solicitor - the market for barristers' sevices has shrunk as solicitors' firms have become more specialized, and therefore send less work to the Bar.

jcw


Solicitors and the Bar will not merge. Not only do the professions not want it, but it isn't in the interests of justice or the public.

Perhaps they won't for now but undoubtedly the Bar is in the process of shrinking because the importance of oral advocacy is likely to diminish with moves towards more written procedures and limits on time spent arguing cases in court - there is the recognition that the traditional system of settling disputes has become far too expensive.
jcw

It makes sense to have experts in narrow areas of law and great advocates to present important cases!

I agree - the Bar will ultimately shrink and become a small cadre of specialists comprising mainly of QCs.
Reply 27
Kurdt Morello
That is a myth that has perpetuated but in fact has no basis in reality - solicitors are bound by OSS to inform clients fully of charges that they are likely to occur


It really depends what we are talking about. If we're talking about a high street solicitor doing conveyancing, then, yes, I agree. However, what you refer to as 'a myth' is the reality for large commercial/corporate work, as you probably well know. You might also want to compare the OSS' duty with recent reports for consumers regarding what actually happens in practice. Whatever you would like to think, clients value the 'brief fee' of barristers who quote a single fee for doing a piece of work.

As for court work, you are right that litigation is currently very expensive and the costs are being reduced. This doesn't mean that barristers are being cut out. In fact, the barristers is usually the most cost efficient part of litigation since they present the case effectively, both in paper and in person, ensuring that courts have all relevant argument before them in the shortest time possible. This minimises the use of court time and leads to good decisions (reducing appeals).

Also, more will be done by way of arbitration (as indeed the CPR, Arbitration Acts, etc. encourage) but this will still involve barristers, both as judges and advocates. Who would trust a solicitor with a few years of advocacy experience and a limited knowledge across a broader practice area over a barrister who has developed years of experience and knowledge and learnt from the best minds in the profession? Clients expect barristers to be instructed on important cases.

You must also remember that the Bar continues to attract most of the best intellects and advocates as they enjoy the thrill of the contentious work and the challenge of the advisory work, and don't want to do the work associated with being a junior solicitor.

If anything, the solicitors are the ones feeling the pinch at the moment. It was only a couple of years that the Magic Circle were having to ask trainees to defer and cutting starting wages, whereas the commercial Bar is currently expanding at a steady rate.

Whilst it is fun to continue to predict the demise of the Bar, solicitors have been doing it for plenty of years, and the Bar continues to grow stronger. I'm not sure why you think your predictions are suddenly going to become true.
jcw
It really depends what we are talking about. If we're talking about a high street solicitor doing conveyancing, then, yes, I agree. However, what you refer to as 'a myth' is the reality for large commercial/corporate work, as you probably well know. You might also want to compare the OSS' duty with recent reports for consumers regarding what actually happens in practice. Whatever you would like to think, clients value the 'brief fee' of barristers who quote a single fee for doing a piece of work.


Well brief fees can be anywhere between £40-£200,000 depending on the quality of the barrister and on how complex the case is - as you well know the civil fraud cases are extremely complicated and are extremely expensive to conduct. Also how quickly you seem to forget that barristers ask for refreshers of about £1000 per day. The solicitors' fees are properly regulated by a professional body whereas barristers are regulated by what can still be described as an old boys' network.

jcw

As for court work, you are right that litigation is currently very expensive and the costs are being reduced. This doesn't mean that barristers are being cut out. In fact, the barristers is usually the most cost efficient part of litigation since they present the case effectively, both in paper and in person, ensuring that courts have all relevant argument before them in the shortest time possible. This minimises the use of court time and leads to good decisions (reducing appeals).

In civil cases the right outcome is not at all dependent on good advocacy. Good barristers can make black look white and twist things well enough to get the outcome that in fact is unjust and will lead to appeals - here the quality of the judges' judgement is paramount in reducing appeals with correct decisions.

jcw

Also, more will be done by way of arbitration (as indeed the CPR, Arbitration Acts, etc. encourage) but this will still involve barristers, both as judges and advocates. Who would trust a solicitor with a few years of advocacy experience and a limited knowledge across a broader practice area over a barrister who has developed years of experience and knowledge and learnt from the best minds in the profession? Clients expect barristers to be instructed on important cases.

It depends entirely on the cases - the greater volume of less important cases such as divorce and some minor negligence cases where damages are sought are often conducted by a solicitor because it is in fact a lot cheaper and because increasingly solicitors are being allowed to use their advocacy skills.

jcw

You must also remember that the Bar continues to attract most of the best intellects and advocates as they enjoy the thrill of the contentious work and the challenge of the advisory work, and don't want to do the work associated with being a junior solicitor.

Yes but also remember that the standards for pupillage have gone down in that law graduates with second-class degrees can become barristers - the best intellects prefer the fast-track to the top because they know that nothing is ever certain and money is more important than prestige.

jcw

If anything, the solicitors are the ones feeling the pinch at the moment. It was only a couple of years that the Magic Circle were having to ask trainees to defer and cutting starting wages, whereas the commercial Bar is currently expanding at a steady rate.


Yes but the major firms of London and other big cities comprise only part of a larger industry which has its place equally in the rural and suburban areas of the country. Also a lot of solicitors' firms in this country have international clientel and agreements with other big transatlantic firms. Solicitors can become partners barristers cannot and in an increasingly corporate and modern world the Bar is becoming an anachronism.

jcw

Whilst it is fun to continue to predict the demise of the Bar, solicitors have been doing it for plenty of years, and the Bar continues to grow stronger. I'm not sure why you think your predictions are suddenly going to become true.

No it has been rather more fun speaking to someone in depth about the situation of the respective legal professions and it has been fun applying my knowledge as i embark on my law degree at UCL. I dont think my predictions are going to suddenly become true but 'my learned friend' speculation is never a bad thing and it is good to be as informed as possible about all possible eventualities :smile:
Reply 29
Kurdt Morello
The solicitors' fees are properly regulated by a professional body whereas barristers are regulated by what can still be described as an old boys' network.


Or market forces, more accurately, which - in my opinion - is a good thing. Clerks market their barristers, and clients (read, solicitors) can get the best deal. Of course, they can do this because barristers work on fixed fees, so you know what you'll be paying for the service you receive. I think you'd find that the competition bodies would object to any real form of regulation of barristers' fees.

In civil cases the right outcome is not at all dependent on good advocacy. Good barristers can make black look white and twist things well enough to get the outcome that in fact is unjust and will lead to appeals - here the quality of the judges' judgement is paramount in reducing appeals with correct decisions.


And, of course, almost all of these good judges developed their knowledge of the law and procedure as barristers. In any case, if a barrister can make 'black look white' it suggests that the facts or law are sufficiently unclear to justify argument on the correct interpretation, to put all the releavant arguments before a judge (experienced, of course, in this sort of thing as a former barrister) so that the judge is appraised of all the options before him.

the greater volume of less important cases such as divorce and some minor negligence cases where damages are sought are often conducted by a solicitor because it is in fact a lot cheaper and because increasingly solicitors are being allowed to use their advocacy skills


This I can agree with. The Bar will die off where it only existed because of the restricted rights of audience pre-AJA1992. However, in any significant case (that is, virtually every case in the High Court, including applications) the Bar will continue to be used, because of its knowledge and expertise. However, the fact that the simplest actions are now dealt with by solicitors doesn't mean the professions are anywhere near merging or that the Bar is at risk. To use the analogy I hate, you wouldn't get your GP to refer you to a consultant to give you some pain-killers, but you would expect a referral if you needed to be operated on! Whilst, post-AJA, the GP can now do minor surgery, he isn't suddenly going to become a specialist with surgery skills.

Yes but also remember that the standards for pupillage have gone down in that law graduates with second-class degrees can become barristers


Actually, the standards for pupils are continually going up as the Bar focuses on its strength - having the best intellects. For 2000/1, 16% in pupillage had a first and 20% had a 2.2. In 2002/3, 19% had firsts and only 18% had 2.2s. When you consider that 20% of the Bar has a first, and 23% of current pupils come from Oxbridge, you'll realise that the best academically are still most attracted to the Bar, because they enjoy the challenge that research, opinion-writing, constructing arguments and court work presents. You'll notice that the average degree results for solicitors is much lower.

the best intellects prefer the fast-track to the top because they know that nothing is ever certain and money is more important than prestige... Solicitors can become partners barristers cannot...


This is amusing. The top few sets, as I proved in an earlier message, easily outperforms the Magic Circle firms. Looking at the other extreme, do you think being a legal-aid solicitor is more certain than becoming a legal-aid barrister? As long as the Bar continues to take the best, the salaries will match that. Of course, it is true that it is uncertain getting there, but if you are amongst the best, you will get there. And, in any case, why is the Bar more uncertain? Once you have pupillage, you are very likely to get a tenancy and establish yourself. Similarly, once you have a training contract, you are very likely to get taken on.

And, as for solicitors becoming partners, is it an advantage to have to wait 25 years before you can take a share of the profits? Barristers, from day one, take all the profits they make! If you are good at the Bar, you will be earning for yourself from day one. If you are good at a firm, you have to wait for 25 years and hope that the politics favour you becoming a partner, and then you can start to reap the profits of what you've been working for for 25 years!

the Bar is becoming an anachronism


I don't think having well-trained specialists will ever be an anachronism. Our Bar is the envy of many countries. Why do you think that so many people choose to use English Law to regulate their disputes? The simple answer is that they know that the legal system in England is amongst the best for resolving disputes efficiently and fairly, and according to commercial practice. Similarly, if you speak to judges at the ECJ, our barristers are really valued because they can present cases so effectively in the oral part of the hearing, improving efficiency of the ECJ, whereas the more 'paper-based' countries simply cannot.

as i embark on my law degree at UCL.


Are you off there in a few weeks? If so, good luck to you. Think seriously about the professions and take the time to do mini-pupillage and vacation placements so you can see the reality first-hand.
Lawzzzzzz

I think if you can get into UCL, KCL, LSE, OX/CAM, Bristol, Durham, Nottingham, and can get a 1st, (or pretty damn close) then you will have wonderful choices after you graduate.

Agreed.
Reply 31
Thank you to the (anonymous) person who neg repped me with this comment:

"the top intellects, and they tend to be found at Oxbridge" - wrong, oxbridge has lost it's pulling power in most sectors now and it won't be long until the same happens in law, most employers now realise Oxbridge is backward and outdated.


It would have been nice if you'd felt able to join the debate, but I'll contribute for you since you didn't feel able to post your views and defend them publicly.

I think you will find if you look at the statistics, that Oxbridge produce by far the greatest number of first class degrees; its students therefore are, by a measure managed and moderated by peer review of other Universities, the best performing academically. I could quote from the comments of external examiners from London, Bristol, etc as to the relative ability of Oxbridge law standards, but I don't see the point; it is self-evident.

The Bar has never had any shame in admitting that it wants to recruit the best people intellectually. Hell, at the top 20 Universities for Law, there are on average less than 8% firsts and the Bar has more than 20% people with firsts. Its obviously picking at the higher end.

Now, whether or not you want to accept it, you cannot deny that the statistics speak for themselves. The Bar recruits heavily from Oxbridge; the Bar requires people with much higher than average academic performance; the highest academic performance is at Oxbridge.

As for most employers thinking Oxbridge is outdated, I can't say I really believe you and your opinion doesn't count for much as far as I'm concerned when I don't know who you are and on what experience you base it. As far as the Bar is concerned, Oxbridge turns out some of the most academic students who have been the subject of the most rigorous legal academic education in the country.

You might want to remove the chip from your shoulder at some point. I'm not saying other Universities arne't good, but - face facts! - Oxbridge attracts those with the best academic potential, develops it with the best teaching you can find and developed academic potential is exactly what the Bar looks for and takes.
jcw

Oxbridge attracts those with the best academic potential, develops it with the best teaching you can find and developed academic potential is exactly what the Bar looks for and takes.

Is gaining pupillage solely the by-product of academic achievement though? Or do other, non-academic, factors play a part (such as social networks etc.)?

Wouldn't Oxbridge (and the ancient/London universities) be a more advantageous platform to the Bar than, say, Newcastle?
Reply 33
mobb_theprequel
Is gaining pupillage solely the by-product of academic achievement though? Or do other, non-academic, factors play a part (such as social networks etc.)?


I would honestly say that gaining a pupillage is the result of principally academic achievement (and other factors such as aptitude for advocacy, etc which the Oxbridge tutorial/supervision system does help with). In my experience, there just isn't an old boy's network anymore at the Bar. The best candidates at other Universities are clearly becoming barristers.

All I was pointing out was that there was a higher concentration of good candidates at Oxbridge, hence recruitment from Oxbridge is more intense. It isn't really a surprising statement, and I find it odd that anyone who thought about it would have found it worthy of neg rep (and -43 hurt my rather small total; is it right that only one person has that kind of neg rep power?).
jcw

All I was pointing out was that there was a higher concentration of good candidates at Oxbridge, hence recruitment from Oxbridge is more intense.

I can't find any cause for disagreement/discontentment in what you are saying.
Infact, I agree with you.
Reply 35
jcw
Actually, the standards for pupils are continually going up as the Bar focuses on its strength - having the best intellects. For 2000/1, 16% in pupillage had a first and 20% had a 2.2. In 2002/3, 19% had firsts and only 18% had 2.2s. When you consider that 20% of the Bar has a first, and 23% of current pupils come from Oxbridge, you'll realise that the best academically are still most attracted to the Bar, because they enjoy the challenge that research, opinion-writing, constructing arguments and court work presents. You'll notice that the average degree results for solicitors is much lower.


jcw, what is the source of these stats, please?

(After wading through this thread, I feel as if I've done exercise!)
Reply 36
juliette
jcw, what is the source of these stats, please?


Sorry, I should have said that they are published by the Bar Council and are now available at http://www.legaleducation.org.uk/Careers/statistics.php for anyone who is interested!
Reply 37
jcw
Sorry, I should have said that they are published by the Bar Council and are now available at http://www.legaleducation.org.uk/Careers/statistics.php for anyone who is interested!


Why is it that so many non-white people are in pupillage?
Reply 38
NDGAARONDI
Why is it that so many non-white people are in pupillage?


I'm not sure. It is a bit odd when you consider the last census recorded about 91% in the 'White' category, whereas about 20% of people in pupillage are non-white. That said, I don't believe there is any positive discrimination, and if ethnic minorities are over-represented for once, that's a good sign for the Bar.
Reply 39
Are there any other stats I should find? :biggrin: