Why the bar really is a meritocracy
I have the utmost sympathy with @Dusty_Cobweb author of ’Access Denied’. The hunt for pupillage is a miserable time, but that really is no excuse for continuing to peddle the easy myths about how you can only succeed in getting a pupillage at the bar if you are white, male, middle-class, went to public school, Oxford, Cambridge, have lots of money, blah blah blah.
If all those things were true the bar wouldn’t be as diverse a place as it is; admittedly not yet as diverse as society as a whole, but the statistics simply do not support the myths.
Don’t get me wrong, some of my good friends are barristers and some of those are white, male, middle-class, went to public school, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. but I don’t hold it against them because despite all these inherent disadvantages they are also charming, funny and generally good company as well as being damn good at what they do.
The reason they and others like them are damn good at what they do is not because of their backgrounds it is because they are persuasive. The key to being a good barrister is the ability to persuade - an obvious point perhaps, but it bears restating because it is so rarely included on the list of things everyone says you need to become a barrister: stellar academic qualification, work experience, connections, money, blah blah blah.
Sadly, this mythical view of the bar seems to be pretty pervasive. When I went to my careers office at university and told them I wanted to be a barrister I was asked whether I was going to get a first. I answered that I was not and was told ’oh well then don’t bother’ that was the entire extent of the careers support that I received!
Luckily I am not the kind of person who takes no for an answer so I did all the research about becoming a barrister myself. I applied for scholarships, scrimped, saved and got myself into further enormous debt to do the bar course and mini-pupillages. I completed the ghastly OLPAS and even more ghastly interviews and eventually got myself pupillage. I don’t fit the stereotype, I didn’t go to public school, I didn’t go to Oxford or Cambridge, etc. I’m just very determined, which makes me a lot like most of the barristers I’ve ever met!
Let’s be honest - the difficult part about getting pupillage is that there is fierce competition for every place, as I have discussed elsewhere . I have been involved in sifting applications for pupillage and interviewing potential pupils for my chambers (www.stjohnschambers.co.uk) for a number of years and we get around 500 applicants for each pupillage. We have to sift those somehow and I suspect our criteria are much the same as other chambers.
If you have straight As or A*s, a double first from Oxford or Cambridge, work experience (e.g. mini-pupillage, marshalling, vacation placements with solicitors), a masters, internships, volunteer work with NGOs, etc. we probably will have a careful look at your application, but if you haven’t got all or any of those things that doesn’t mean your application goes in the bin.
Some of my colleagues have come to the bar from non-traditional routes and alternative careers as varied as aerobics instructors, midwives, and the military. Some of us have children, some of us are single-parents, in general we’re a pretty diverse bunch and nothing like the “unmarried, childless, parental-funded, internship-wielding super-students” @Dusty_Cobweb envisages. Frankly, I’m not sure I would want to be in a chambers full of such stereotypical barristers, even if one existed.
I can’t speak for how to get a pupillage in other chambers but for my chambers it is really pretty straightforward. I know that we can only really manage to interview 20 / 30 students out of an average of just under 1,000 applicants, so we have a shortlist of 50 applications which we try to reduce to 25 for first interview. If you want to get into the 50 you have to write a persuasive application. If it’s persuasive enough you get a chance to come and persuade us in person.
If you haven’t done the ’standard’ things and don’t have stellar qualifications then you may simply have to work a little harder to persuade chambers that you have got what it takes to be a really good barrister. That’s just the way life goes and it’s exactly the same as being a barrister: sometimes you have to argue difficult cases where the odds seem stacked against you. Your job is then to persuade your tribunal that those odds are wrong. If you can’t persuade chambers about your own potential perhaps you should have a careful think about whether you really have what it takes to persuade your clients, whether lay or professional, or your judge about your case, whatever it may be.
Zoe Saunders is a family barrister at St John’s Chambers
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
Tom | 27-Oct-2011 3:12 pm
"the statistics simply do not support the myths."
I may be missing something, but as far as I can see, those statistics are just about gender and ethnicity; nothing about background or schooling, which are at least as important.
I certainly agree that it's possible for someone from a disadvantaged background to become a barrister - but it's much, much harder for them than someone of the same ability with a more privileged upbringing, family or family friends who are barristers and can provide advice and contacts, the money to allow them to gain a lot of unpaid experience, etc.
You can dismiss that with 'life isn't fair, and you'll have to get used to dealing with the odds being stacked against you', but it's not good for the profession if the playing field isn't level.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ZASaunders | 27-Oct-2011 5:28 pm
Inner Temple have some interesting research on academic background here: http://www.innertemple.org.uk/downloads/prospective-members/Inner-Temple-Prospectus.pdf
I really think there is a much more level playing field than there used to be in terms of background once you are looking at graduates seeking to become barristers - the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds getting good exam results and into good universities is a whole other problem; but the old cliche of it's not what you know it's who you know is no longer true of the bar in the way it once was.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Oct-2011 11:51 am
Newsflash to Tom: it's much harder for someone from a disadvantaged background, with the same ability as someone from an advantaged background, to do all sorts of things. LIfe isn't fair and this has nothing to do with the Bar or the solicitors' profession providing a level playing field. As a barrister who worked damn hard to get where he did today, I find the number of people posting about how "unfair" things are quite staggering. If that's your view, you're not cut out to succeed in many walks of life, the Bar being just one of many. Get over it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Toby | 31-Oct-2011 12:42 pm
I agree with the statement that it is a tough profession to enter, but it is tough for a reason. I am not the traditional stereotype but I have succeeded due to determination. I think it's time to stop moaning about how unfair the system is, although I believe that this is one of the cornerstones of our society right now, and develop a strategy on how to succeed
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom | 31-Oct-2011 12:45 pm
Zoe: thanks for that. Still nothing in there on pre-university stuff that I could see, though? I agree it's no longer about who you know in the old school tie sense, but there definitely seems to be an advantage to those who know the system better, know what they need to do from day 1 of university, or even earlier, and have the support to allow them to do whatever it takes.
Newsflash to anonymous: you're a prat. No, life isn't fair. So let's try to make it more fair, rather than just sitting around congratulating ourselves on how hard we worked, and how well we've done, and assuming that's a universal causal relationship.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Nov-2011 11:08 am
Tom, if you descend to name calling it may be because you either can't or choose not to understand the point. Good luck with your attempts to make life more fair, presumably by outlawing people with family friends who are barristers from applying for pupillage. And congratulations on your conclusion that people who have the support to allow them to do whatever it takes "seem" to have an advantage. Your forensic ability will plainly take you very far so please do let us know the results of your studies into the Pope's alleged catholicism.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
M | 1-Nov-2011 2:59 pm
Look at top Commercial and Chancery sets. Most of these only have one or two out of twenty at the junior end who were at state schools. The statistics blatently do not support the proposition that there is a level playing field for everyone who wishes to pursue a career as a barrister. Many sets even have individuals who have Eton scholarships etc on their cvs! Some achievement that is...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Nov-2011 7:12 pm
Doesn't it depend on how you define "level playing field", given what seems a fair assumption that sets have to choose trainee barristers on some basis? And given that the majority (just) of students at Oxbridge are from state schools, don't M's "statistics" also possibly support the proposition that state schools don't encourage their pupils to believe they can be barristers? As I understand it the Bar and many chambers now strive to visit as many state schools as possible to show that it's achievable. The real question which people who complain about the lack of a "level playing field" sometimes seem to dodge is "what exactly would you change about the system to make the Bar do things better?" Ban people with Eton scholarships from applying on the basis that it's not much of an achievement, as M would have it...?!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fin | 4-Nov-2011 3:36 pm
"if you descend to name calling" ...from the person who began and ended their statement of the obvious with the puerile 'Newsflash' and 'Get over it'.
As for the Pope being Catholic, it's no more of a surprise to see people who have 'worked hard' and succeeded denying that that could possibly be down to anything except their own merit.
The logical flaw in repeating 'Life isn't fair' while claiming to have earned their privileged position without undue advantage apparently escapes both the author and 'Anonymous'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Nov-2011 5:35 pm
speaking as a customer, I can assure you that I choose barristers on merit alone. Many, but all, are Oxbridge graduates. That's no coincidence - they've been to one of the best two Universities in the world. Why wouldn't a high proportion of them be extremely bright?
I don't see it as the job of either branch of the legal profession to sort out the mess which successive governments have made of the State education system. Our job is to provide the best possible service to our clients.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment