From what's been said, there are Chambers out there who have already given 'the nod' to someone for a pupillage, but nevertheless go through the charade of posting a vacancy on the Pupillage Portal. How many people wasted precious applications on sets who had no intention of recruiting from the Portal applicants? How many people sat in interviews wondering why the committee didn't seem to want to interview them? And what about the Chambers that don't set out what they REALLY want. How many aspirants have turned up for interview at a 'mixed set' (according to the description offered via the Chambers website) hoping to pursue their dream of civil law, only to be told that in actual fact the set is 98% crime and that it is a criminal pupillage that they are offering?
The timing is very odd too. Most BVCers are up to their neck in Bar finals and have to spend precious time filling in applications, when they really don't have the time to do so, hence the last minute dash and somewhat inevitable crashing of the PP on the last day.
And why once a year? Why not all year round with pupillage vacancies appearing as and when?
We aren't mayflies you know!
It seems to me that the endless regulation actually makes matters worse. If a Chambers is hell bent on giving pupillage to a senior member's relative, so be it, it happens in other walks of life, why waste everyone's time and effort in pretending otherwise. I'd rather know beforehand. It's the same with the application criteria, it needs to be more up front. If a Chambers won't interview anyone without a first or a masters, or from oxbridge, just say so and be done with it, it would be far better to know beforehand.
I also believe that if Chambers were allowed more freedom to actually say what they want (or don't), it would be far easier for applicants to sort the wheat from the chaff and actually know where they stand before wasting applications on futile aspirations. Why so far in advance too, surely it makes sense for Chambers to recruit as and when they think a need will arise, rather than speculatively recruiting so far in advance?
And whilst I'm having a good old moan, a major problem encountered by Chambers and applicants alike is the sheer volume of applications received, why not reduce that by stipulating that only those enrolled on BVC may apply, surely that one single measure would reduce numbers quite significantly and give those who have taken the commitment of BVC a better chance, against those who are merely having a speculative punt.
Why isn't part of the BVC actually placing students in various Chambers for a proper insight into that given set, and providing a 'yes we like you, no you're not our cup of tea' feedback that may provide a springboard for application. I know that some Chambers offer mini-pupillages with an assessment element, but many just go through the motions of having someone following them around for a few days and make little effort to actually provide a proper insight into their Chambers
Now I've annoyed both you and myself, I must get back to Mr Blackstone's who is desperately trying to educate me on the ins and outs of the role of Prosecution Counsel; lovely!
12 comments:
I think all mini's should be assessed to some extent, whether they like you and what could you bring to chambers, have it on file and pull it out at interview, but not placing the whole weight of the decision for pupillage on it.
The main problem is as you suggested that applicants really don't know the chambers they are applying for very well. Yes we may have been there once during our minis, and spoken to a few people, but we are given very little information about how friendly the chambers is!
For example I was told that I shouldn't bother applying to one set next year as my mate thinks that I wouldn't enjoy the very formal atmosphere.
Its a bit of a risk of applying for pupillage getting it, then finding out that you are stuck in the wrong chambers!
Hi Lost,
Yup, there is a problem with applications to unknown Chambers, particularly when the Chambers description doesn't match what they actually do in reality. Why they don't just say "we are a predominantly civil set looking for a pupil who wants to practice civil law, with an emphasis on P.I." (or whatever) - where's the problem? Everyone knows where they stand.
Chambers need to sort out their recruitment pages.. spelling out what they are looking for, it would save a lot of hassle!!
I really wish there would be major reform of the Bar in the way it recruits, but I'm pretty sure its not going to happen
My Dear Maid,
The whole system is, as far as I am concerned, a complete and utter sham. Chambers put up smart websites which mostly look nice and smart, but are generally devoid of useful content where the aspirant is concerned because they are essentially marketing tools. I believe it would be a good idea if chambers took a step forward into the 21st century and become a/ SPECIFIC with respect to their selection critieria ( we all know, for example, that there is absolutely no point in applying to such sets as Blackstones, or Essex Court/Street unless TOTALLY Oxbridge) b/transparent with respect to the qualifications and experience they would expect of applicants. Seems to me that this would save a lot of wasted breath, tears and general ANGST.
GRRR.
Still a bit HOPPING mad, but not as HOPPING F**KING MAD as this time last WEEK!)
I am not supporting those chambers who mislead but, to a degree, they cannot be too precise because wanting to concentrate on a particular type of law is one thing, but it is always going to be dependent on that type of work being available. (You often hear of barristers saying they started out in X but moved into Y etc, and this isn't always through choice but out of the necessity of needing the work). Notwithstanding, the difference between civil and criminal is surely big enough that someone wanting to do the former should never find themselves being interviewed for a chambers where the work is predominantly the latter, or vice versa.
I agree with lots of what you say - but must disagree with the suggestion that PRE-BVC applicants should be excluded.
I haven't done the BVC, but I have just secured my Pupillage.
Why should I be excluded because I haven't started the course? I've got a five-figure scholarship, have paid my deposit, and fully intend to go ahead.
On the contrary, people perhaps should not start the BVC without pupillage lined up??
The timetable surely lends itself to BVC Sep-June, then Pupillage later that year so as not to have an unintended "gap" year (or 4) but to retain momentum and go straight into pupillage?
Firstly Anon- well done on getting a pupillage!!
I suppose it's that old chicken and egg argument as to what comes first - pupillage or BVC.
Although there is an argument that only those with pupillage should be allowed to enrol on BVC, what happens if those people then fail BVC? There would be no remaining BVC graduates able to take their place at Chambers because all other BVC students would also have been given a pupillage prior to starting the course. Chambers would have to start from scratch and have a delay of at least a year before being able to secure another pupil.
Also, looking at the failure rates for BVC (astonishingly high at a certain provider this year, (according to gossip at my Inn)), it is far from certain that bright LLB/GDL graduates make good BVC students/pupils because the required skills are so very different.
There is also the matter that many BVC students (particularly on the part-time course) are not seeking pupillage, but are taking the course to further their current careers, so although BVC is primarily for aspirants intending to practice at the Bar, it is by no means a certainty.
I can think of no other profession where it is currently necessary to secure a job prior to starting a post grad vocational course, and think perhaps that the educational authorities would consider the measure too elitist if such constraints were introduced for BVC. The Bar is struggling with diversity issues at present and needs to be seen as offering opportunity for all of those who have the required pre BVC qualifications.
As for the OLPAS timetable, it is an agreed fact that the majority of students securing a pupillage do so when finishing BVC, hence the gap year is a problem for the majority rather than the minority, who like you are fortunate to secure a pupillage prior to the start of BVC.
The timing for BVC & pupillage was covered on SMQC's blog a while back and it also cropped up in the Wood Report. The extra issue, not mentioned above, is that there are a significant number of students who the BVC and then return overseas to practise and do not, therefore, enter the pupillage process.
I completely agree with what you are saying. I really do sympathise with anybody aiming for pupillage at the moment as it really is a nightmare out there. I salute you all!
I really do sympathise with any aspiring Barrister at this time. What was already an incredibly competitive process has now got even more difficult. It really is a recruiters market out there right now. Aspiring Barristers, I salute you!
I agree with every single point you made in this post. They all seen very sensible and workable. I only wish that these things will one day be implemented.... and I hope that that day is sooner rather than later.
Keep on trudging
A non-practicing Barrister is challenging the Bar Council in the Employment Tribunal over compulsory funding of pupillages rule. The Claimant alleges Indirect Race Discrimination against the Bar Council. The Claimant is Black African!
Venue : London Central Employment Tribunal
Hearing Dates: 26-28 August 2009
Post a Comment