Crime doesn't pay

Response to Myerson QC

I am Alex Deane, the author of this piece. I have noted the response by Simon Myerson QC (http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/analysis/1563293/the-defence), and I therefore thought I would add a little here.

Over the past couple of years I have often been asked by people whether they should go to the criminal Bar. I have become increasingly firm in my negative view and I would send such friends and acquaintances a list of bullet points, which effectively made up the piece here. So it evolved from that process of being asked to give a list of the problems in my profession which face newcomers, not an essay weighing up all sides, up to and including the happiness of being a silk. It is right to characterise this piece as negative; that was the point. I hope it appears less of a distorted perspective given that context.

I should therefore say I frequently enjoyed the work of the criminal Bar. Indeed, I was passionate about it – hence going into it in the first place. I had no doubts about the importance of it. I would like to think that I was sometimes good at it. There were many kindnesses shown me, as well as the less pleasant experiences identified here which I know from discussions with fellow junior members of the Bar were far from uncommon.

Certainly, too, I cannot pretend to speak about life on any circuit other than my own, and it may be that things are far, far rosier on Myerson QC’s provincial circuit than in London.

I cannot help but notice, though, that our esteemed silk does not even address a number of the concerns raised here. Perhaps it is simply that, as one becomes more senior in the profession, the problems of the junior end seem less significant or part of the "rub" of making one's way in the profession. That might be what one should draw from the total absence of response on those points - but I think that such concerns are no less real for being ignored.

There are very real downsides to entering the criminal Bar, and my piece was a genuine effort to point some of those out to the many considering it notwithstanding the current climate. I am glad to read that Myerson QC has been happy in his practice and have no intention of falling into ad hominem remarks about that practice. But I do hope that the issues that I have raised don't get so blithely dismissed by all who read them, established or otherwise, as they are of real concern to many in the profession and are actually driving out of the profession many who might otherwise go on to develop blissfully happy careers at the Bar like Myerson QC.

Alex Deane -26 Nov 2009 | 16:01

Government Warning: Legal Aid Will Damage Your Wealth!!!

Alex is giving good advice to potential barristers and solicitors. He is saying that you can not make a decent return for your standard of education in criminal law.

The Government has cut the Legal Aid budget (which is good) if this is balanced with a cut in crime (great).
In business a reduced turnover equates to a reduction in staff. The Government has slashed the Legal Aid budget, but there are still too many barristers and solicitors in the system!

Terence Hyde -26 Nov 2009 | 19:03

Beyond All Reasonable Doubt

I have posted a comment on Simon Myerson QC's article (http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/analysis/1563293/the-defence) and thought it prudent to disseminate here. I would add, and neglected to do so there, that I, like Mr Myerson QC, practise on a provisional circuit. This is by far a London-based problem.

Whilst I express my view with the utmost respect for that of Simon Myerson QC, who one recognises bears the hallmark of an advocate skilled in the deployment of his argument, I must highlight that the proof is in the pudding.

The idea that this is a battle of talent (and therefore if you are good enough you'll be fine) is belied by the inequity of the fees model. Sent to Truro for a sentencing hearing, at a cost to me of something like £45 for the B&B (I could not travel down on the morning) and my train fare (the exact amount escapes me but around £30), I arrived to discover Probation had been overworked and had not prepared a report. The case was adjourned and I received £47.50. Whilst Barristers are not known for their arithmetical skills, the point is obvious. This was not an issue of talent. I was a hostage to fortune. I paid aroud £30 to be at work that day. This was not abnormal.

Of course not every day is like that, but the inequity of the fees system demonstrates that talent aside, your earning can be very negatively impacted by outside forces. Leave aside whether you can earn a good living, that problem alone is very despairing.

Moreover, its a myth that being talented leads to having a good practice, especially at the junior end where your professional clients do not come along to court to view your performance.

As to the Bar Council official figures, they should be viewed with great scepticism. I was one of the lucky few on the Western Circuit who very swiftly gained a defence practice and picked up some lucrative cases. My first year earnings were around £10k, and my second £24k. Perhaps not breadline amounts but when you consider I am funding a £20k postgraduate loan and a £13k undergraduate loan the figures are significantly more bleak. It is again despairing to know that I would be financially better off had I not done a degree and taken unskilled work. The only small mercy was that the government considered I was not earning enough to make any real repayments on my undergraduate loan.

The argument that you can make a decent living after a few years is also, with respect an empty point. When one starts any sort of decent career one is making a personal investment. So consider normal investment advice. Bigger risk, bigger prospective payout. Smaller risk, more modest payout. That's obvious. With criminal law you are plumping for a more modest investment (lower comparable earnings) but the uncertainty of the profession's future means you are taking on a much much greater risk. You wouldn't invest in a fund which had below average returns when there was a higher earner with much lower risk. Why do so with your career?

Do not kid yourself. I am not advocating eschewing a criminal practice. But make sure you are getting into it for all the right reasons. You must love criminal law and not like money very much.

Ok, perhaps a little flippant in that final comment, but the point is still well made. The glitz and glamour is also overrated. Do not get me wrong, I enjoyed it immensely, but the glamour of waiting around court or the Friday Plea and sentencing hearings are far from courtroom drama. So again, make sure you are fully aware of what life is like at the criminal Bar before even beginning to consider it.

One final reminder of the (anecdotal) proof being in the proverbial pudding, but criminal pupillages are dwindling as sets become more cautiously pessimistic about the future. If the risks weren't high enough before, they are certainly high now.

The head of our criminal department tried to persuade me not to give up crime. He highlighted that the changes would cull a great many but would allow the talented few who survived to make a good living.

Every other barrister advised against it.

There is, in my view, just too much luck for talent to protect against the risk. The risk will always be present because the criminal Bar is funded by the government who score no votes for it.

Good luck to those of you who don't heed the warning.

Allan Roberts -27 Nov 2009 | 17:44

Never a truer word spoken

I cannot think of a more interesting, stimulating, challenging and exciting job than being a criminal barrister. While there I enjoyed pretty much every second in court. I loved preparing for trials as it was like reading a copy of the Sun. Clients were a fantastic mixed bag of characters you wouldn't want to meet in a busy street in broad daylight. I fondly remember my time there and miss both the adrenaline rush of addressing the court and the dinner stories after.

However every word Alex writes is true. It is not the place I would recommend someone without a private income consider going. The junior Bar is extremely difficult with many unable to move out of their parents' homes for lack of finances and plenty getting into trouble with the tax man for spending their VAT as they simply don't have enough money in the bank. I have now left and would never go back. There are a number of my ex-colleagues chambers (a large and successful set) who have either left the Bar or are looking to leave. This seems to be barristers of ten or so years call or fewer. It is certainly the case that the more senior barristers, particularly the silks, are happy with where they are but their view of the Bar and experience of it is vastly different from the reality of life for the more junior members.

Finances will be a struggle if you don't have private income but if you do, or are happy to live the life of a student, then I couldn't recommend a better job.

Anon -02 Dec 2009 | 11:13

Briefly

I have cross-posted this.

I have only just come across the responses and thought I ought to say something.

I didn't remotely say that all was well and attempting to characterise my remarks in that way is foolish. But I do think that the sense of entitlement which I picked up in Alex Deane's article (and which was echoed on is behalf by sixyearscall) is simply unjustified.

This is a self-employed profession. No one would dispute an element of luck, but I have not heard anyone seriously suggest an alternative way to success than simply being good at it. The corollary of that is that a lack of success may be down to you. Everyone can make excuses, but what is the better answer? I cannot discern one.

Similarly, I relied upon the Bar Council's figures. With the best will in the world, a couple of anecdotal assurances that these are wrong are not exactly persuasive. This is not about puff pieces - it is about reality.

Finally, I actually said that you should not go to the criminal Bar for the money. But I don't think you should go to the Bar for the money at all. This isn't about investment - it's a vocation for Pete's sake.

I know that it is all too easy to confront anyone who says something you don't like with the accusation that they are out of touch. So let me throw down the challenge I habitually pose in such circumstances. Write me an article about why it is different - a proper article with real facts and identifiable sources. Send me your real name so I can confirm that you are who you say you are, and I will publish you on the blog - anonymised if you wish - without editing. So far, no one has done this, but I live in hope.

Simon Myerson -10 Jan 2010 | 18:56