Who are the Inns of Court A-listers of the future? Dominic Carman meets 10 up-and-coming young barristers who are being tipped for the top
Laura John
3 Verulam Buildings
Called to the Bar: 2001
Educated: Royal High School, Bath; New College, Oxford
Banking, insolvency and commercial fraud specialist Laura John is bracing herself for a busy 2009. In January she will start an eight-week commercial fraud trial, acting for a large utility company in a case involving fraudulent schemes allegedly perpetrated by sub-contractors, after which she is scheduled to appear in a share sale dispute, Cavendish v GIL, in the Court of Appeal. Plenty more credit crunch-inspired work is likely to follow for the Oxford graduate, who is regularly instructed by a host of major City firms, including LG, DLA Piper and Herbert Smith.
John, who cites Jonathan Sumption QC as an influence (“I’ve been very fortunate to see his appellate work”), is regarded by those she works with as having “natural authority and gravitas”. She is also said to be blessed with an attractive speaking voice — always helpful for an advocate — and a good sense of comic timing: “She knows the right moment to use humour,” says one senior colleague.
Jeremy Brier
Essex Court
Called to the Bar: 2004
Educated: Haberdashers School For Boys, Christ’s College, Cambridge
Former president of the Cambridge Union Jeremy Brier aims to pursue simultaneous careers in law and politics. As the Conservative candidate for Luton North, he has high hopes for what he describes as “a fairly winnable seat”. “But first and foremost,” adds Brier, “I’m a barrister.”
The Essex Court tenant has had a busy 2008, acting as sole advocate for Barclays in a series of disputes, undertaking a successful judicial review on behalf of the National Farmers’ Union in respect of farmers’ compensation for bovine TB and appearing in several fraud-related ICC arbitrations. Next year Brier will be doing a one-month trial involving oil contracts and the Iraq War.
“Superbly confident, he’s a genuine class act in the making,” says one instructing solicitor. Elsewhere, there is caution: “Brier is undoubtedly very able but he should avoid appearing too pleased with himself.”
Richard Sear
1 Hare Court
Called to the Bar: 2005
Education: Magdalen College School, Oxford; King’s College, London; Green College, Oxford
Although naturally more measured than the frenetic, flamboyant Nicholas Mostyn QC, some leading voices speculate that one day Richard Sear might inherit Mostyn’s mantle as the best family silk in the business.
His caseload is confidential, but Sear highlights the human dimension of his practice as the most attractive feature. He is particularly looking forward to a divorce case between a Muslim couple involving the ownership of various company assets, which he is booked to handle next year. “It has very interesting cultural and commercial dimensions,” says Sear.
A former junior hurdling champion, Sear has “tremendous natural instinct,” allied to an “unassuming manner”. The result, say colleagues, is that he can operate at any level. Sear confesses to “a definite ambition” to be a High Court judge, should the opportunity arise later on in his career.
Diya Sen Gupta
Devereux Chambers
Called to the Bar: 2000
Education: North London Collegiate School; Magdalene College, Cambridge
Employment junior Diya Sen Gupta is a favourite of City firms. This year she has been instructed by Clifford Chance, Lewis Silkin, Baker & McKenzie and Mayer Brown in a variety of unfair dismissal and age discrimination cases, including a claim from the former employment counsel of a Canadian law firm.
Described as “pragmatic, tough, passionate and fiendishly bright”,
Sen Gupta first wanted to be a barrister aged “about eight or nine”. Shortly after being called to the Bar, she spent a year as Judicial Assistant to the Law Lords, before joining Devereux Chambers
in 2001.
Her most enjoyable case? ‘Appearing in the Court of Appeal (in Khan v Heywood & Middleton Primary Care Trust) without a leader — “it was exhilarating,” she says.
Anna Edwards-Stuart
11 South Square
Called to the Bar: 2002
Educated: City of London Girls School; New Hall College Cambridge; Magdalen College, Oxford
In common with many at the intellectual property Bar, Anna Edwards-Stuart has a strong scientific background, having read natural sciences as an undergraduate, before completing a PhD in molecular biology. “Good on the law and relaxed on her feet,” she has appeared un-led twice before the Court of Appeal this year.
Edwards-Stuart is in the middle of a trial involving three large pharmaceutical companies, in which she is being instructed by Nabarro. Earlier this year she won a patent infringement case, Nuttall v Fri-Jado, in the High Court. In 2009 she is booked to appear in several trials, including a large patent case for Tyrell and patent revocation proceedings for Tate & Lyle.
Edwards-Stuart is popular with instructing solicitors: “We like using Anna. She’s extremely thorough, always charming — a strong character,” one told Legal Week.
Gerard Rothschild
Brick Court
Called to the Bar: 2005
Education: Westminster School; Magdalen College, Oxford
Brick Court’s Gerard Rothschild, who incidentally is not related to the Rothschild banking dynasty, has acquired a reputation as a naturally modest young barrister with a voracious appetite for work. Inspired to become a member of the Bar by the various books of Lord Denning, Rothschild found himself — fittingly — awarded a Denning scholarship from Lincoln’s Inn to get him through Bar school.
Of late he has been involved in the Virgin/BSkyB case, involving a spat over TV rights and pricing, which has seen him work with Sir Sydney Kentridge — an experience Rothschild describes as “wonderful”. The case goes to court next February for up to eight weeks.
The former Westminster schoolboy’s intelligence — Rothschild’s CV is punctuated by glittering prizes — is matched by an ability to get on in the commercial world. “He’s easy going, diligent and never misses a deadline,” says a fellow barrister. Earlier this year he acted in Chester City Council v Arriva, an abuse of a dominant position case concerning anti-competitive behaviour on bus routes.
Miranda Hill
6 King’s Bench Walk
Called to the Bar: 1999
Educated: James Allen’s Girls’ School; Manchester University
Miranda Hill is currently acting for the command team, including Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Cressida Dick, at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. The Manchester University graduate appears to possess all the necessary attributes to excel as an advocate in high-profile criminal cases, including a sense of humour. Those who know her describe her as “dedicated, thorough, disciplined and great fun”. She was the defending junior in R v Sir Stephen Richards — the widely reported case in which a Court of Appeal judge was acquitted of indecent exposure.
Hill, who is regularly instructed by leading criminal firms Kingsley Napley and Russell Cooke, also does a fair amount of fraud work. She was instructed by the Serious Fraud Office as second junior in R v Virendra Rastogi and Others, a multi-million pound fraud committed against various financial institutions, in a trial which lasted seven months.
Sharif Shivji
4 Stone Buildings
Called to the Bar: 2001
Education: Winchester; LSE
Following two years as an interest rate swaps dealer for Fuji Capital Markets, Sharif Shivji left the City and, after studying law, arrived in the contrasting surroundings of Lincoln’s Inn as a barrister at Chancery and commercial set 4 Stone Buildings. Commercial clients involved in disputes with financial markets components say they enjoy being represented by someone who really understands their businesses.
Shivji has recently acted in a number of cases concerning insolvent companies (BA Peters, PRG Powerhouse) and companies in administration (Baron Jon Menswear). He also appeared in Re: Dotolo, one of the first applications under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.
Praised for his personable style and direct approach, Shivji is currently acting in litigation relating to Yes Car Credit, while in 2009 he will be junior to Jonathan Crow QC in a case involving the ownership of a large international construction firm.
Anna Boase
One Essex Court
Called to the Bar: 2002
Education: Pate’s Grammar School Cheltenham, Downing College, Cambridge
Currently on maternity leave — she will be returning to the fray in the New Year — Anna Boase is an “extraordinarily driven” commercial specialist who “is never fazed by anything”. She has been junior to some excellent leaders, including Ian Glick QC, Geoffrey Vos QC and Lord Grabiner QC. Boase was led by the latter in Alexander Krasner v Vitaly Machitski, representing the defendant in a Commercial Court dispute over the ownership of Romanian aluminium interests.
Boase enjoys a good relationship with the Financial Services Authority, which has instructed her on several occasions, including in the ongoing case brought by the Office of Fair Trading against eight banks accused of levying unfair overdraft charges. She also does regular work for LG and Linklaters. Solicitors at the firms gush with praise for the Cambridge graduate: “She is always in control and does everything to perfection.”
Adam Zellick
Fountain Court Chambers
Called to the Bar: 2000
Education: City of London Boys School, Caius College, Cambridge
Adam Zellick resisted the law for as long as possible — probably, he thinks, because he saw it as the territory of his father (the distinguished legal academic Graham Zellick). But eight years into life as a barrister specialising in civil fraud, aviation, banking and insurance, and Zellick is happy with his decision.
The Londoner is seen by insiders at SJ Berwin, Linklaters, Slaughters and Simmons & Simmons, which regularly instruct him, as “tough, technically brilliant and, when necessary, great fun”.
“He is a match for any silk: I wouldn’t want to meet him in a dark judicial alley,” adds one partner.
At the moment Zellick is acting for a claimant in civil fraud proceedings arising out of Operation Eaglewood, a series of anti-drugs raids carried out by the police earlier this year. In 2009 he will appear in a £1bn-valued commercial arbitration.
Click here to comment on this article.
Surprise surprise - they all went to Oxford/Cambridge, it's just the usual elitist cr*p. To be honest, the talent these days is in the City.
This is a disappointing piece. All excellent barristers, but most are such obvious choices. Not very much research would have yielded a range of outstanding young barristers with a far more diverse range of backgrounds than this Oxbridge-dominated list, which is not reflective of the modern young Bar.
Readers are welcome to make suggestions about young barristers that should have been included.
Where are the employed barristers?
Errr....no, they didn't all go to Oxford/Cambridge. One went to LSE and another went to Manchester.
Aside, presumably, from the two who went to Manchester and LSE respectively. I hope that the first poster does not count himself amongst the City's finest!
I really must agree with most of the other posters on here- I read the article with a growing sense of resignation that only those from Oxbridge or red-brick universities and, I'm sad to note, private schools are always considered to be the best. Why did their schools even need to be included or mentioned in the piece? I can't see how where they went to school is relevant in the slightest. I have no doubt they're all excellent lawyers, but where's the variety? This really depresses me, and makes me think poor old, much maligned John Prescott may have had a point on his recent programme. The notion that the Bar is dominated by the same types of people really hasn't been challenged in any way in this article, which is a shame. However, I did like the inclusion of the comment that one of them needs to be cautious about "appearing too pleased with himself". Ha! I bet.
Simply reflects what we all know. Widening entry to Bar school means chambers that are overwhelmed with applications and therefore can only look at the first three lines of the applications to sift - name, school and Oxbridge.
Oxbridge dominance is not an argument for the fusion of the two arms of the profession. Many City firms operate similarly in their recruitment - it is their size that means they are able to look a little further. Nor is everyone one in the City firms automatically talented - some firms are often full of similar old-school cliques and arrogant personalities. Despite my reservations about an Oxbridge dominance, the Bar itself is an excellent independent profession and on the whole offers an excellent independent service to be valued.
Just because they went to Oxbridge/public school doesn’t mean they aren’t good.
Okay, public school is about having money, but I reckon there might be a correlation between getting a first from Oxford or Cambridge and being clever.
What is more interesting than Oxbridge is the overwhelming preponderance (is it 100%) of private or direct grant schools. Oxbridge often follows on.
I don't think anyone is denying these lawyers are good at what they do - of course they are. But the point is that there are likely to be a wide array of non-Oxbridge educated, and highly talented and intelligent, barristers out there too. A little bit of variety and open-mindedness really wouldn't hurt the profession - or, indeed, compilers of these sorts of lists.
This article really does perpetuate the impression that the Bar remains the domain of the privately-educated elite. It would have been far more interesting to have had an article comparing the level of state school educated pupils amongst the elite of the Bar on a generational basis. My suspicion is that the Bar is going backwards in this regard and currently losing the real non-private educated talent to the "other side" of the profession
What does it matter where they went to school/university? Should the compliers have applied "positive discrimination"? Surely they should be looked at for their achievements rather than their backgrounds? In any event it is hardly surprising that Oxbridge graduates dominate - an Oxbridge degree encourages you to think and work in a different way to the vast majority of other universities. The challenging environment and encouragement of independent thinking and working tends to produce a lot of high class barristers who are likely to be the stars of the future, and what is wrong with that? They will have worked hard to get to Oxbridge and to get their degrees and to where they are now - don't discriminate against them simply because they were good enough to get in. I suspect a number of the posters may be Oxbridge rejects.
To the last poster; I think the point is not a bitterness towards Oxbridge - I'm sure the eight on the list who were educated there are excellent barristers - it is not true to say that 80% of the rising talent at the Bar stems from an Oxbridge education. There are many outstanding junior barristers who went to neither. It is a shame that their talent is not reflected in this piece which reinforced factually misplaced stereotypes.
Perhaps your Bar reporter, Claire Ruckin, could do a piece with the 10 Rising Stars at the Bar who didn't go to Oxbridge?
Yes, you could call it Scroats at the Bar.
Or Chavs at Chambers
Pretty facile to call a 3 yr call barrister anything but green behind the ears. Surely these City firms can't be serious in instructing these greenhorns on anything that really matters?
Not a single barrister from outside of London? Seriously? As if any more evidence was needed of the insularity and self-importance of the London Bar. It's also depressingly predictable that only one of these barristers is a Criminal specialist.
I, for one, applaud Legal Week on publishing the schools data in this piece. So many people think that the Bar really is available on a plate to Oxbridge graduates. However, the sheer impossibility of all but one of the ten having gone to a renowned, top-of-league-tables school (and incidentally, is it no sheer coincidence that this barrister went to the best Oxbridge college for law?), indicates even Oxbridge is not enough.
Large American firms disregard Oxbridge and school type. They look at ability and the fully rounded person. This is because they wish to recruit the best people who will make their firm the best and give it the competitive edge. It seems the Bar, with all its anti-competitive practices, simply wishes to perpetuate people whose parents have paid for their place. Of course, these people aren't stupid - they've had a prized education. But are they necessarily the best? The answer is a resounding no. I actually think that the publication of this article is useful because it shows up to everyone what the class-ridden barrister's profession is really all about.
It is not a particularly representative portrait of the Bar as a whole, but from an individual perspective, these barristers are deserving of the accolade, whether or not they had an easy path. Two on the list are friends of acquaintances, and I have heard of their formidable reputations and from time to time followed their work. One barrister I have met very briefly and he also is deserving of his reputation.
It is what it is. I did not go to Oxbridge, I did not apply. This does not stop me from becoming as proficient as those mentioned above. And if that happens and I am screened out because of the school I went to then more fool legalweek. But it won't make me any less good at my job.
Lord Neuberger - are you reading this?
I have no idea how Legal Week selected these 'rising stars of the bar' - no information is included as to the basis on which these ten people were picked above all the many hundreds of junior barristers out there. (No disrespect is intended to the individuals represented, who, for all I know, may or may not be the most talented members of the Bar to have been called since 2000). Nonetheless, the article would have been far more informative if it specified precisely what its selection criteria were.
However, for those critics who claim that this article suggests that the Bar, in general, is 'self-important' or dominated by people with any particular type of education is absurd: in part precisely because there is no way of determining whether Legal Week's selections are in any way meaningful or representative. Legal Week is not, as far as I am aware, a magazine specifically of the Bar, and its choices cannot, therefore, represent what other members of the Bar consider to be important.
Moreover, to state that a profession is insular simply because many of its members were educated at prestigious universities is fundamentally misconceived: people who are ambitious and able are the sorts of people most likely to be admitted to a prestigious university, and simultaneously the sorts of people most likely to have a successful career - in any profession demanding intellect.
It is the desperately dangerous ultra-leftist forced egalitarian view that it matters one jot what the preponderance of people from any particular background in any profession is, as opposed to whether people are arbitrarily admitted or denied entry to the profession on the basis of irrelevant aspects of their backgrounds, or that any such preponderance can ever be, in and of itself and without more, evidence of such arbitrary selection.
These youngsters can hardly be regarded as anything other than advocates with potential. Leaving aside those practising criminal law, they are unlikely to spend any real time as the lead advocate and will over time need to earn the respect that counts the most - that of their peers and the judges/arbitrators that they appear before. Based on limited experience of one of these "stars", there is a long way to go. Good luck.
Nothing mysterious about the selection process. Boringly obvious actually - the writer contacted a group of instructing solicitors and asked who they rated. That formed the basis of the list after it was whittled down a bit. The stuff on schools wasn't a factor in selection, just background.
Mr Petts, if those observations were aimed at my comment, I was calling the London Bar self-important and insular vis-a-vis the Circuits, not because of the educational backgrounds of the barristers listed here. I was independent-school and Oxford-educated, so I'm hardly one to complain about that. My complaint is that Legal Week doesn't seem to think there's a single barrister outside London deserving of this "rising star" accolade.
Most of the comments posted in response to this article are moronic. The educational information was obviously included in the article to set up the "debate". Even more predictable than the fact that some of the brightest stars at the Bar received some of the best education avaiable, is the overexcited and mis-informed response this piece has provoked. A private school education is not synonymous with wealth or privilege - many students earn their places through scholarships. Junior barristers cannot build a successful practice based on where they were schooled. Clients and instructing solicitors expect quality and results. If that is what you deliver, you will succeed; if not, you will fail. It's as simple as that. If 'large US firms' and the 'City' are so clever and meritocratic, it is ridiculous to suggest that they would be so stupid as to instruct useless barristers just because they went to Oxbridge. The overwhelming sentiment expressed by previous posters is professional jealousy!
Well said anonymous above me!
Is it any surprise a lot come from Cambridge and Oxford? They are consistently the best universities in all the independent studies. Criticise their selection policies if you will, but it's a bit rich to suggest chambers should ignore the first 20-25 years of a person's life when making their selections!
Can Legal Week confirm who 'tipped them for the top' and what was the basis for this prediction of future performance?
Providing this information would surely contectualise their Oxbridge education.
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
