Negligence Bar
I have just started my law degree and I have been really enjoying the tort module so far, with the focus on negligence in particular. I've always wanted to be a barrister for a very long while (chancery, public or commercial), however I am really interested in the professional and clinical negligence aspect of it.
Could anyone tell me what life is like at the professional or clinical negligence bar in London?
-What are the cases like in terms of variety, challenges and interest?
-Do you often find yourselves on the wrong side of a complex point of law?
-How often do you go to court? What's the balance between going to work and paper opinions?
-What is the pay like (very roughly)? Is it/can it be particularly lucrative
Could anyone tell me what life is like at the professional or clinical negligence bar in London?
-What are the cases like in terms of variety, challenges and interest?
-Do you often find yourselves on the wrong side of a complex point of law?
-How often do you go to court? What's the balance between going to work and paper opinions?
-What is the pay like (very roughly)? Is it/can it be particularly lucrative
Just to highlight how difference things are in practice compared to academic study, you're actually talking about two different areas of practice. Professional and clinical negligence are both tort, but distinct practice areas for the most part. Clinical negligence is associated with a personal injury practice, and is a practice area that you would often work towards rather than be doing from the start, though that can of course differ from set to set, and with the higher end sets that specialise in clinical negligence you may well find yourself doing it early on or from the start. It is also worth noting that the lower end PI work has taken a very heavy hit with recent changes to quantifying whiplash damages. That hasn't fully filtered through yet, but it will do by the time you're anywhere near practice. There are still residual arguments going on, as there always are, around certain aspects of the legal changes, but the landscape with PI is going to change drastically over the next few years, and as of now it's difficult to predict what form that will take. It may be, for example, that there are fewer PI pupillages but it's easier to access specialist areas like clinical negligence if you do get one, or it may be that your practice needs to be more diverse to compensate for the lack of lower end work. Either way, there is considerable uncertainty there.
By contrast, professional negligence is more associated with a more commercial practice, and in fact if you look at the top ranked Chambers on the Legal 500 for professional negligence, you will see sets like Brick Court. And that's because these are very often commercial or commercial adjacent disputes. An architect being negligent which has resulted in £500,000 of remedial work to a building is very different in practice to a surgeon who has been negligent resulting in someone being paralysed, even though they are both based in tort.
So the answers to your questions will vary depending on whether it is professional or clinical negligence, but generally, both practice areas will provide variety. Lower level personal injury can become very samey predictable, but clinical negligence is more complex and therefore, I suspect for most, more interesting. Professional negligence again has almost limitless variety, so there will be common themes but there'll almost certainly be enough there to hold your interest. The challenges will be like any practice in any area. The work will scale in difficulty as you get more senior, but will be challenging. Lower level PI, again, isn't all that challenging and things like Stage 3 lists can be done in your sleep, but clinical negligence is quite different to that.
On the complex point of law point, there are very few practice areas and practices where you will commonly be arguing complex legal points. Most cases and trials in any area of law may involve points of law, but fundamentally turn on the facts. It's no different in these two areas. Again, because you're studying cases which did turn on legal points you will naturally overestimate the extent to which disputes on the actual law plays a part in your day to day life as a barrister. In nearly all practice areas, the answer is not all that much, at least early on, and for many well into high levels of seniority too.
The extent to which you're in court will vary. Commercial practices are known for keeping barristers out of court more than other areas, so a practice that sees you doing professional negligence is likely to be more paper heavy than average. Clinical negligence will also likely be part of a more varied practice, so it will depend. But in either case I expect you'll have a good mix of days in court and paper days, unless you have a heavier and higher end commercial practice, in which case you'll be in court less. Certainly I know that Blayze has said that there are times when he might only be in court one day a week, or less frequently.
For pay, it depends on your definition of lucrative. Professional negligence is likely to pay more, but then those pupillages, particularly at the higher end, can be much harder to get. Clinical negligence is by no means easy to get into though. In both cases you should earn enough to live perfectly comfortably. If you have a decent level commercial pupillage you will likely earn much higher than average from a very early stage of practice, whether your practice involves professional negligence or not.
As a final broad point, all of these questions are understandable and there's nothing wrong with them, but part of this journey to develop yourself into a pupillage candidate is to bridge that gap between academic study and your understanding of actual practice as a barrister. You're not there yet, and no one would expect you to be, but it's just to note that this is a process that you'll progress with as you do more mini pupillages, marshalling etc, and actually gain that experience of what being a barrister is like. Threads like this are absolutely fine, but just realise that what you're studying academically doesn't necessarily map into whether you'll enjoy practising in a particular area. I do now practise in employment law, but didn't enjoy the employment law module at university at all. Equally, I quite enjoyed family law as a module, but from a very early stage it was obvious that I would never want to be a family practitioner. These things are always very different in practice, for better or worse, so over time you'll need to bridge that gap between the two in your own mind.
By contrast, professional negligence is more associated with a more commercial practice, and in fact if you look at the top ranked Chambers on the Legal 500 for professional negligence, you will see sets like Brick Court. And that's because these are very often commercial or commercial adjacent disputes. An architect being negligent which has resulted in £500,000 of remedial work to a building is very different in practice to a surgeon who has been negligent resulting in someone being paralysed, even though they are both based in tort.
So the answers to your questions will vary depending on whether it is professional or clinical negligence, but generally, both practice areas will provide variety. Lower level personal injury can become very samey predictable, but clinical negligence is more complex and therefore, I suspect for most, more interesting. Professional negligence again has almost limitless variety, so there will be common themes but there'll almost certainly be enough there to hold your interest. The challenges will be like any practice in any area. The work will scale in difficulty as you get more senior, but will be challenging. Lower level PI, again, isn't all that challenging and things like Stage 3 lists can be done in your sleep, but clinical negligence is quite different to that.
On the complex point of law point, there are very few practice areas and practices where you will commonly be arguing complex legal points. Most cases and trials in any area of law may involve points of law, but fundamentally turn on the facts. It's no different in these two areas. Again, because you're studying cases which did turn on legal points you will naturally overestimate the extent to which disputes on the actual law plays a part in your day to day life as a barrister. In nearly all practice areas, the answer is not all that much, at least early on, and for many well into high levels of seniority too.
The extent to which you're in court will vary. Commercial practices are known for keeping barristers out of court more than other areas, so a practice that sees you doing professional negligence is likely to be more paper heavy than average. Clinical negligence will also likely be part of a more varied practice, so it will depend. But in either case I expect you'll have a good mix of days in court and paper days, unless you have a heavier and higher end commercial practice, in which case you'll be in court less. Certainly I know that Blayze has said that there are times when he might only be in court one day a week, or less frequently.
For pay, it depends on your definition of lucrative. Professional negligence is likely to pay more, but then those pupillages, particularly at the higher end, can be much harder to get. Clinical negligence is by no means easy to get into though. In both cases you should earn enough to live perfectly comfortably. If you have a decent level commercial pupillage you will likely earn much higher than average from a very early stage of practice, whether your practice involves professional negligence or not.
As a final broad point, all of these questions are understandable and there's nothing wrong with them, but part of this journey to develop yourself into a pupillage candidate is to bridge that gap between academic study and your understanding of actual practice as a barrister. You're not there yet, and no one would expect you to be, but it's just to note that this is a process that you'll progress with as you do more mini pupillages, marshalling etc, and actually gain that experience of what being a barrister is like. Threads like this are absolutely fine, but just realise that what you're studying academically doesn't necessarily map into whether you'll enjoy practising in a particular area. I do now practise in employment law, but didn't enjoy the employment law module at university at all. Equally, I quite enjoyed family law as a module, but from a very early stage it was obvious that I would never want to be a family practitioner. These things are always very different in practice, for better or worse, so over time you'll need to bridge that gap between the two in your own mind.
Picking up from Jamie, in that I have been indirectly mentioned but I also do do a lot of professional negligence work. As Jamie says, they are very different areas, so I can only speak for mine.
Most of my prof neg work is lawyers, and some accountants since I am vaguely tax literate (or so the market appears to think...). It is mainly paper based since insurers love certainty, but having said that, they also have to maintain the good opinion from the people they are insuring, so they will push and fit cases where they feel they need to do so. Of my last 5 prof neg cases, 1 went all the way to trial, 2 were dismissed on strikeout/summary judgment, 1 was admitted and 1 settled.
What I would say is that I don't know that many people that JUST do prof neg - 4 New Square used to have that reputation, but these days they are much more generally commercial. I'd say that is the more realistic way to look at it - you will need a practice that includes some general commerical work in order to get the prof neg stuff; potentially with something chancery adjacent to get some of the more highly technical stuff.
On the points of law, in my experience they do tend to be more legally complicated, but mainly because when you are dealing with a lawyer's negligence, you are actually looking at two claims: i) the one the original lawyer screwed up and ii) the professional neglgience claim brought against them for the screw up. In the professional area there is a lot of really interesting case law about the scope of the duty of care, but it is as Jamie says all depenent on the facts too (albeit if you can show that claim i. was fundamentally legally flawed, you would probably get home).
As to a rough guide for chancery / commerical: pay is exceedingly high, hours can be quite rough but I suspect we overjudge how bad we have it compared to other bar areas, and it's very much mainly paperwork. I was at a course last week where another commerical barrister mentioned that in 6 years, they had cross-examined once.
Most of my prof neg work is lawyers, and some accountants since I am vaguely tax literate (or so the market appears to think...). It is mainly paper based since insurers love certainty, but having said that, they also have to maintain the good opinion from the people they are insuring, so they will push and fit cases where they feel they need to do so. Of my last 5 prof neg cases, 1 went all the way to trial, 2 were dismissed on strikeout/summary judgment, 1 was admitted and 1 settled.
What I would say is that I don't know that many people that JUST do prof neg - 4 New Square used to have that reputation, but these days they are much more generally commercial. I'd say that is the more realistic way to look at it - you will need a practice that includes some general commerical work in order to get the prof neg stuff; potentially with something chancery adjacent to get some of the more highly technical stuff.
On the points of law, in my experience they do tend to be more legally complicated, but mainly because when you are dealing with a lawyer's negligence, you are actually looking at two claims: i) the one the original lawyer screwed up and ii) the professional neglgience claim brought against them for the screw up. In the professional area there is a lot of really interesting case law about the scope of the duty of care, but it is as Jamie says all depenent on the facts too (albeit if you can show that claim i. was fundamentally legally flawed, you would probably get home).
As to a rough guide for chancery / commerical: pay is exceedingly high, hours can be quite rough but I suspect we overjudge how bad we have it compared to other bar areas, and it's very much mainly paperwork. I was at a course last week where another commerical barrister mentioned that in 6 years, they had cross-examined once.
Original post by Blayze
Picking up from Jamie, in that I have been indirectly mentioned but I also do do a lot of professional negligence work. As Jamie says, they are very different areas, so I can only speak for mine.
Most of my prof neg work is lawyers, and some accountants since I am vaguely tax literate (or so the market appears to think...). It is mainly paper based since insurers love certainty, but having said that, they also have to maintain the good opinion from the people they are insuring, so they will push and fit cases where they feel they need to do so. Of my last 5 prof neg cases, 1 went all the way to trial, 2 were dismissed on strikeout/summary judgment, 1 was admitted and 1 settled.
What I would say is that I don't know that many people that JUST do prof neg - 4 New Square used to have that reputation, but these days they are much more generally commercial. I'd say that is the more realistic way to look at it - you will need a practice that includes some general commerical work in order to get the prof neg stuff; potentially with something chancery adjacent to get some of the more highly technical stuff.
On the points of law, in my experience they do tend to be more legally complicated, but mainly because when you are dealing with a lawyer's negligence, you are actually looking at two claims: i) the one the original lawyer screwed up and ii) the professional neglgience claim brought against them for the screw up. In the professional area there is a lot of really interesting case law about the scope of the duty of care, but it is as Jamie says all depenent on the facts too (albeit if you can show that claim i. was fundamentally legally flawed, you would probably get home).
As to a rough guide for chancery / commerical: pay is exceedingly high, hours can be quite rough but I suspect we overjudge how bad we have it compared to other bar areas, and it's very much mainly paperwork. I was at a course last week where another commerical barrister mentioned that in 6 years, they had cross-examined once.
Most of my prof neg work is lawyers, and some accountants since I am vaguely tax literate (or so the market appears to think...). It is mainly paper based since insurers love certainty, but having said that, they also have to maintain the good opinion from the people they are insuring, so they will push and fit cases where they feel they need to do so. Of my last 5 prof neg cases, 1 went all the way to trial, 2 were dismissed on strikeout/summary judgment, 1 was admitted and 1 settled.
What I would say is that I don't know that many people that JUST do prof neg - 4 New Square used to have that reputation, but these days they are much more generally commercial. I'd say that is the more realistic way to look at it - you will need a practice that includes some general commerical work in order to get the prof neg stuff; potentially with something chancery adjacent to get some of the more highly technical stuff.
On the points of law, in my experience they do tend to be more legally complicated, but mainly because when you are dealing with a lawyer's negligence, you are actually looking at two claims: i) the one the original lawyer screwed up and ii) the professional neglgience claim brought against them for the screw up. In the professional area there is a lot of really interesting case law about the scope of the duty of care, but it is as Jamie says all depenent on the facts too (albeit if you can show that claim i. was fundamentally legally flawed, you would probably get home).
As to a rough guide for chancery / commerical: pay is exceedingly high, hours can be quite rough but I suspect we overjudge how bad we have it compared to other bar areas, and it's very much mainly paperwork. I was at a course last week where another commerical barrister mentioned that in 6 years, they had cross-examined once.
Thank you, both to yourself and Crazy Jamie for your comprehensive and helpful answers! In that case, how much would you say theoretical/academic LLB content applies into regular day to day life? When writing submissions, do you still use the basics of Robinson, Bolam for standard of care or Wagon Mound for causation, or in practice do judges assume you know all of this?
And yes I suspected prof neg probably is more lucrative than clin neg, although I imagine someone at the top of their game in a clinical negligence set can comfortably be on high 6 figures (I mean pushing beyond the £100/200/300k mark). My issue with professional negligence is that I'm not 100% I'll be able to get in to a commercial set.
I am not at Oxbridge or a London uni (albeit at one of the best unis outside of the two), and am not top of the year, which is unfortunately a de facto requirement of the commercial bar from what I've heard. Although, I have full confidence in myself to secure a strong first. I have a good amount of debating and mooting under my belt already (reaching into finalist positions on numerous occasions) but even by the standard of London commercial sets, I really have no clue if that's enough against the hundreds of prize winning Oxbridge grads (to make things worse, our uni does not do module prizes). This won't stop me from trying though, but it's not something I'm as hopeful for as more civil side.
This is partially, although not wholly, the reason why I'm looking into medical negligence? Although on the other hand, I imagine it is also incredibly competitive, it does genuinely seem to interest me a little bit more than commercial, mainly because of more frequent court appearances. Then again, commercial law interests me too due to being more contracts based? More mini-pupillages and marshalling is definitely on the agenda, that's for sure!
Original post by RetroSPECT3.0
Thank you, both to yourself and Crazy Jamie for your comprehensive and helpful answers! In that case, how much would you say theoretical/academic LLB content applies into regular day to day life? When writing submissions, do you still use the basics of Robinson, Bolam for standard of care or Wagon Mound for causation, or in practice do judges assume you know all of this?
And yes I suspected prof neg probably is more lucrative than clin neg, although I imagine someone at the top of their game in a clinical negligence set can comfortably be on high 6 figures (I mean pushing beyond the £100/200/300k mark). My issue with professional negligence is that I'm not 100% I'll be able to get in to a commercial set.
I am not at Oxbridge or a London uni (albeit at one of the best unis outside of the two), and am not top of the year, which is unfortunately a de facto requirement of the commercial bar from what I've heard. Although, I have full confidence in myself to secure a strong first. I have a good amount of debating and mooting under my belt already (reaching into finalist positions on numerous occasions) but even by the standard of London commercial sets, I really have no clue if that's enough against the hundreds of prize winning Oxbridge grads (to make things worse, our uni does not do module prizes). This won't stop me from trying though, but it's not something I'm as hopeful for as more civil side.
This is partially, although not wholly, the reason why I'm looking into medical negligence? Although on the other hand, I imagine it is also incredibly competitive, it does genuinely seem to interest me a little bit more than commercial, mainly because of more frequent court appearances. Then again, commercial law interests me too due to being more contracts based? More mini-pupillages and marshalling is definitely on the agenda, that's for sure!
And yes I suspected prof neg probably is more lucrative than clin neg, although I imagine someone at the top of their game in a clinical negligence set can comfortably be on high 6 figures (I mean pushing beyond the £100/200/300k mark). My issue with professional negligence is that I'm not 100% I'll be able to get in to a commercial set.
I am not at Oxbridge or a London uni (albeit at one of the best unis outside of the two), and am not top of the year, which is unfortunately a de facto requirement of the commercial bar from what I've heard. Although, I have full confidence in myself to secure a strong first. I have a good amount of debating and mooting under my belt already (reaching into finalist positions on numerous occasions) but even by the standard of London commercial sets, I really have no clue if that's enough against the hundreds of prize winning Oxbridge grads (to make things worse, our uni does not do module prizes). This won't stop me from trying though, but it's not something I'm as hopeful for as more civil side.
This is partially, although not wholly, the reason why I'm looking into medical negligence? Although on the other hand, I imagine it is also incredibly competitive, it does genuinely seem to interest me a little bit more than commercial, mainly because of more frequent court appearances. Then again, commercial law interests me too due to being more contracts based? More mini-pupillages and marshalling is definitely on the agenda, that's for sure!
Your CV sounds fairly similar to mine (albeit I did go to a London uni, but no means top of the year), so I wouldn't say it's impossible by any means.
As a general rule, you assume the judge is aware of those factors. You might argue about the exact applicaiton of Robinson or indeed Bolam but you presume the judge knows the law on it. Scope of duty you do get into more still these days, and some of the counterfactual damages points are still very much hot topics.
Academic stuff always applies, but in a very different way, which is the joy of being a barrister. Most days you will still be looking up the law to solve problems, and there are a remarkable number of areas where you still have to effectively find your way from first principles.
Original post by RetroSPECT3.0
And yes I suspected prof neg probably is more lucrative than clin neg, although I imagine someone at the top of their game in a clinical negligence set can comfortably be on high 6 figures (I mean pushing beyond the £100/200/300k mark). My issue with professional negligence is that I'm not 100% I'll be able to get in to a commercial set.
With any sort of half decent civil practice £100,000 gross earnings should be achievable reasonably quickly. Certainly within about five years practice. You don't need to either be at a top set or particularly on top of your game to earn that as a civil barrister.
Original post by Crazy Jamie
With any sort of half decent civil practice £100,000 gross earnings should be achievable reasonably quickly. Certainly within about five years practice. You don't need to either be at a top set or particularly on top of your game to earn that as a civil barrister.
Oh I see, so that is some impressive earnings to be made! I've heard from somewhere that even civil barristers at 5-10-15 years' call in decent London sets will generally out-earn even US/MC solicitors (like tending to half a million/300k's) since their earnings don't exactly plateaux in the way senior associates do. Not sure how accurate that is, but I imagine if you find your niche and are good at it, serious money can be made potentially even more so as you reach silk?
Money is always quite a trivial factor but personally wanting to live in London, it is of course still important to gauge an idea of the finance side of things.
Original post by Blayze
Your CV sounds fairly similar to mine (albeit I did go to a London uni, but no means top of the year), so I wouldn't say it's impossible by any means.
As a general rule, you assume the judge is aware of those factors. You might argue about the exact applicaiton of Robinson or indeed Bolam but you presume the judge knows the law on it. Scope of duty you do get into more still these days, and some of the counterfactual damages points are still very much hot topics.
Academic stuff always applies, but in a very different way, which is the joy of being a barrister. Most days you will still be looking up the law to solve problems, and there are a remarkable number of areas where you still have to effectively find your way from first principles.
As a general rule, you assume the judge is aware of those factors. You might argue about the exact applicaiton of Robinson or indeed Bolam but you presume the judge knows the law on it. Scope of duty you do get into more still these days, and some of the counterfactual damages points are still very much hot topics.
Academic stuff always applies, but in a very different way, which is the joy of being a barrister. Most days you will still be looking up the law to solve problems, and there are a remarkable number of areas where you still have to effectively find your way from first principles.
Oh that is quite reassuring. Obviously seeing a plethora of double-starred first Oxbridge graduates at the big commercial sets (and even at more mixed sets) is a bit off-putting or intimidating!
I'm hoping with my first from my uni (which I'm just going to flat out say- it's Bristol), more finalist positions and wins in mooting/debates/mock trials, and work experience, I can be in line with likes of Hailsham Chambers, Crown Office, 1COR, No5, 2TG, and 7BR? I've both read into these sets and know people who have done mini's there, so they do seem appealing yet not at the supreme level of Blackstone/Essex Court/FC.
That's interesting though, you have put forward a strong case for why the practice of negligence is even more interesting than the study! I like the idea of there being more research and looking up the law on your own.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- University of Law v City, University of London
- d d d d dd d d
- OCR A Level Law 2024 Predictions
- A level law
- Regarding a level law
- OCR A-level Law Paper 2 (H418/02) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- University Disputes Solicitor
- AQA A-level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- A-level law exam questions and structuring
- Struggling to show correct resistance on electricity AQA AS question
- please someone help
- Will I lose muscle mass while going on vacation for 4 days?
- pls exam help needed
- Tort law
- errors in the graph
- Physics
- Answering law 30 markers
- probability and statistics 2 , poisson distribution
- Cambridge or Oxford?
- Help! I'm struggling :( (moot presentation)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
LAW: How to answer a problem question in Contract LawLast reply 10 hours ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 2 days ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 4 days ago
What is better LLM SQE or SQE Preparation Courses - or Training contract?Last reply 1 week ago
What are the chances of getting any job offer with my background?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How important is having a duty slot as a criminal barristerLast reply 1 month ago
can i get a job at a top law firm as a barrister with sh*t grades??Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
LAW: How to answer a problem question in Contract LawLast reply 10 hours ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 2 days ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 4 days ago
What is better LLM SQE or SQE Preparation Courses - or Training contract?Last reply 1 week ago
What are the chances of getting any job offer with my background?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How important is having a duty slot as a criminal barristerLast reply 1 month ago
can i get a job at a top law firm as a barrister with sh*t grades??
