Pupillage Offer - Unsure Whether to Accept

Original post by hjc333

Does the fact that I am not jumping up and down with joy at the offer mean the bar isn't for me?

No, it doesn't. Some immediate thoughts on what you've said:

i) The pupillage being in a specific area of law doesn't stop your practice from diversifying further down the line, either at that set or a different one. Your practice will inevitably change over time, either by reason of being specialist in a particular part of one practice area, or by reason of taking opportunities that present themselves to move into other areas. And I don't mean entirely new practice areas. There are lots of niche areas of practice that relate to others, and plenty of people diversify their practice that way. Criminal practitioners often do professional discipline or sports discipline work, for example. Personal injury practitioners often do inquest work, or find their way into professional negligence work through doing clinical negligence. I developed a specialism in discrimination cases as part of my employment practice, but now do discrimination cases in the county court and first tier tribunal as well, which most employment practitioners don't do. These are a few examples of really quite endless ways that a practice can change. So I wouldn't worry about the pupillage being specialist at all. It's very unlikely to stop you from diversifying further down the line if that's what you want to do.

ii) No one is ready for pupillage. Not really. Imposter syndrome is very real early on in your career, and it never truly leaves you. As pupillage candidates you often look at barristers as having some sort of superhuman level of skill that you couldn't possibly match. But we're just human beings that have developed our ability through experience, and you will do that too. The fact that you recognise how important the job is probably means you are more ready for it than you realise.

iii) The bar course isn't practising as a barrister. It's obviously very different to academic study and is an intense year, but it is also a very long way from actual practice. Demands on your time and strains on your relationship are something that is going to happen as a barrister, though I hope you expected that to some degree before you lost some motivation. It's hardly something that cannot be compensated for though. As you do get more experienced you should also become better at managing your time. It's perfectly possible to have a good work/life balance as a barrister. It just takes time to figure out how to do it.

My main thought is this; if you do pupillage and don't like it, you can leave the profession entirely. Others have in the past, and will in future. I've known a handful through this site and in real life who have ultimately left the profession after starting pupillage. But in my view now is the wrong time to decide that this profession isn't for you. When I tell candidates that they don't really know what it is like to practise as a barrister, I generally mean it from the perspective of them being overly enthusiastic and ideological, but it applies to you too. I don't think you know that a career as a barrister isn't for you, and I don't think the points you've raised are strong enough to conclude that. But you do have an opportunity to find out, and it's one that might take one or two years of your life before you can be sure enough either way. That's not a long time in the context of your career. So I think the right answer here quite comfortably is to do the pupillage. There's no risk to it. If you finish the year, or even get part way into the year and you know from actual, tangible experience that this isn't for you, then walking away makes much more sense. But personally I think it's premature to do it now.

It's a very difficult situation though and I understand your anxiety, so if you'd like to talk this through just send me a PM with your number and I'll call you.

Reply 2

stefellie2

1

Hi Crazy Jamie,I am new to the legal forums. I am weighing up a career as a solicitor versus one as a barrister. What is your career experience? Are you a barrister? You seem to know a great deal about the profession. I do not have any barrister contacts personally. Thank you for offering your insider's insights!

Reply 3

Original post by stefellie2

Hi Crazy Jamie,I am new to the legal forums. I am weighing up a career as a solicitor versus one as a barrister. What is your career experience? Are you a barrister? You seem to know a great deal about the profession. I do not have any barrister contacts personally. Thank you for offering your insider's insights!

I am a barrister. There's plenty of material online to help you choose between those two career paths, and you can equally do work experience in both as well to give you a bit more insight. But if there are specific questions you have I'll be happy to answer them if I can.

Reply 4

AMGWL

4

Original post by Crazy Jamie

I am a barrister. There's plenty of material online to help you choose between those two career paths, and you can equally do work experience in both as well to give you a bit more insight. But if there are specific questions you have I'll be happy to answer them if I can.

Can I ask a question that I've always wanted to ask but never felt brave enough to ask before?

There are some solicitors who do a lot of court advocacy now. However, my question is whether there is such a thing as a barrister who only rarely goes to court/tribunal, if at all?

The reason I ask is that for years I thought of barristers as the "higher court specialists." However, I'm increasingly aware that they also tend to be busy responding to requests for specialist written advice. Are there any barristers who exclusively focus on this and neglect the court side of the profession?

Reply 5

Original post by AMGWL

Can I ask a question that I've always wanted to ask but never felt brave enough to ask before?

There are some solicitors who do a lot of court advocacy now. However, my question is whether there is such a thing as a barrister who only rarely goes to court/tribunal, if at all?

The reason I ask is that for years I thought of barristers as the "higher court specialists." However, I'm increasingly aware that they also tend to be busy responding to requests for specialist written advice. Are there any barristers who exclusively focus on this and neglect the court side of the profession?

The answer is that all barristers have some sort of balance between being in court and being on papers. Criminal practitioners have generally the most heavily court based practices, whereas civil practitioners will get more of a balance. Certainly I'm out of court a fair amount on papers, even if it's the trials coming up in my diary that I always have my eye on. The other end of the scale is occupied predominantly by higher end commercial and chancery practitioners, who will spend most of their times on papers and will be in court relatively rarely. It isn't that those barristers 'focus' on papers. There isn't really any such thing; you do what your practice demands of you and what you're required to do in individual cases. But cases in those areas are often paperwork intensive in that they are complex and solicitors will often want barristers to draft the documents (compared to other areas, where solicitors will often draft documents themselves) as well to advise early (again, usually in writing), and cases will very often settle. So the effect of a lot of papers and cases settling at a high rate is that your practice becomes very paperwork heavy. There's a friend of mine who has a niche practice in one of these types of areas, and whilst he does do conferences and interim applications, he only has a relatively small number of trials every year. As I say though, you can't really neglect court work. If you have been instructed on a case to do paperwork and the client wants a barrister to do a hearing, you'll be first line for, and will be expected to do that hearing. I will also stress though that the sort of practices and pupillages we're talking about are very competitive, and make up only a very small proportion of barristers. You need to be a very strong candidate to aim for one of them, and even if you are successful, you don't have a massive amount of control over how paper based your practice will actually be.

I appreciate there may be a practical reason why you've asked that question. For example, you might not like the idea of advocacy, or you might think a paper based practice is a way to get a better work life balance, or something that fits better with some aspect of your life. Either way, if you want to be more specific, I might be able to offer some insight as to how the Bar fits with that generally.

Reply 6

AMGWL

4

It was more curiosity than anything else! I'm a mature student, I've recently completed SQE1 and occasionally I find myself asking questions where previously I thought I "knew" the answers! I went into my studies thinking barristers = higher court advocates. Then learned that they performed a lot of non-court work. Then finally thought maybe there was such a thing as a practicing barrister who never goes to court! Given the extent of my studies, I like being able to ask these "stupid" questions behind a wall of anonymity.

Reply 7

Original post by AMGWL

It was more curiosity than anything else! I'm a mature student, I've recently completed SQE1 and occasionally I find myself asking questions where previously I thought I "knew" the answers! I went into my studies thinking barristers = higher court advocates. Then learned that they performed a lot of non-court work. Then finally thought maybe there was such a thing as a practicing barrister who never goes to court! Given the extent of my studies, I like being able to ask these "stupid" questions behind a wall of anonymity.

That's alright; stupid questions behind a wall on anonymity is very much what the internet is for! Not a stupid question at all though, and as I say, it's not really possible to be a practising barrister who never goes to court, or at least it's not possible to go into the profession with that being a realistic aim. The vast majority of barristers do at the very least a reasonable amount of advocacy, albeit often not in the higher courts in a rights of audience sense. The likes of Employment Tribunals and the First Tier Tribunals don't have any rights of audience requirements, but you can find plenty of barristers practising in them.

Reply 8

AMGWL

4

Original post by Crazy Jamie

That's alright; stupid questions behind a wall on anonymity is very much what the internet is for! Not a stupid question at all though, and as I say, it's not really possible to be a practising barrister who never goes to court, or at least it's not possible to go into the profession with that being a realistic aim. The vast majority of barristers do at the very least a reasonable amount of advocacy, albeit often not in the higher courts in a rights of audience sense. The likes of Employment Tribunals and the First Tier Tribunals don't have any rights of audience requirements, but you can find plenty of barristers practising in them.

Actually you've raised another interesting point there. I'd like to specialise in employment law (representing employees) and had thought I lot of the advocacy work at tribunals was conducted by solicitors. I may perhaps have gotten that wrong...

Reply 9