Is it because I'm not from round here?

Your honesty and candidness is admirable!

Thank you for an interesting article!

Pipps -15 Jun 2009 | 01:00

Being a lawyer and a foreigner myself, I believe that this article might reflect the reality of things but I must also say that I think it is only fair that foreigners should not receive a more friendly treatment.

Communication is one of the most important skills you need to acquire when you are a lawyer. If you have a very thick accent, this does not facilitate your interaction and communication with others, and will certainly not impress the Court or your client.

I believe you can only pretend to be offered similar positions if you can be as good as an English native speaker when it comes to delivering your arguments. So my advice would be to focus on your language skills and make sure you lose your accent as soon as possible.

Paul -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

As a practising barrister from an ethnic minority, I am disappointed by this article. It lacks any real analysis of the issue and makes unwarranted assumptions which are not put right simply by flippantly concluding “actually, none of the factors that I said above made it harder for foreigners really make it that much harder” as the author does.

First, to say that the statistics for minority applicants are “not very cheerful” is nonsense without comparing the proportion of the population that is made up of ethnic minorities. Further, there is no point looking at the statistics of the composition of the entire Bar, as relatively very few ethnic minorities were seeking to enter the Bar say 20, 30 or 40 years ago when many barristers were called. Had the author troubled herself to compare the statistics of entry into the Bar NOW, she would have seen that in fact there is a disproportionately high level of ethnic minorities gaining pupillage relative to the proportion of the population they make up – that is, ethnic minorities are in fact statistically OVER-represented at the entry point to the Bar.

There is no reason why being foreign should be a disadvantage, save to the extent that it hampers your ability to perform the tasks of a barrister. If you cannot communicate as well as an otherwise equally good candidate for whom English is a first language, then you can expect not to be selected over that person, because you are simply not as well qualified for the job. Similarly, if it took you much more effort to get a 2.1 than another candidate then that does not make you a better candidate than someone else with a 2.1, and indeed suggests that you are going to have to work longer and harder to do the same work as another candidate, making you less efficient and thus a worse candidate than that other.

I might suggest also that the author should connect the fact that she is the first Russian from her high school and BVC course with the absence of Russians at the Bar – that is, there are very very few Russians attempting to become barristers in England and it is this fact and not discrimination that accounts for there being so few Russian barristers. Similarly, there are very few people from deepest Timbuktu at the Bar – is this a sign of barriers to the progress of such applicants?

Anonymous -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

I agree with Anonymous, above. EZ - your post comes across, just a little, as sour grapes.

You mention that, with a good degree, a scholarship and legal work experience, you have the typical CV of an aspiring barrister, but perhaps you haven't noticed that there are lots and lots and lots of other aspiring barristers with a "typical" CV who struggle to secure interviews and, a fortiori, pupillage. I would suggest that rather than fixating on the things you can do nothing about (eg: your Russian name), you should instead look very closely indeed at the things you might be able to change, such as CV preparation, interview technique, and, dare I whisper it, losing your accent.

Having been through the process myself (approx 70 applications spread across 2 years before getting an offer) I realise the search for pupillage can be hard and sometimes heartbreaking, but it is not made any easier when you are carrying a chip on your shoulder.

Have you spoken to your college's careers people, your inn's E&T people, and your sponsor about these issues, and, just as importantly asked them to make sure your CV and interview technique are as strong as they can possibly be?

Try not to be disheartened.

Anony Non -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

Anony Non, I really don't think her problem is her accent. What's wrong with a Russian lilt? What's wrong with a Liverpool/Manchester/Yorkshire accent? She can obviously write well - and, let's face it, your state-the-obvious advice about Cvs and interview technique bla bla bla...isn't gonna get anyone a job.

Barry -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

There are too many reasons why good candidates of all types do not secure pupillage. It all boils down to the numbers game - gaining pupillage is the most expensive lottery on Earth.

After years of talking about it, the Bar Council is still not prepared to address the real problem: Limit the academic intake, don't give false hope.

Anon -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

Barry - I don't think there is anything wrong with a Russian lilt or a provincial accent. Nor do I think that an accent honed by Eton and The Guards is a sine qua non for entry to the Bar. I know plenty of barristers with regional accents, and even have the trace of one myself. However, it is not really important what I think about non-RP accents - EZ clearly believes her Russian accent may be holding her back. Please re-read her original post. Even if it isn't holding her back directly (in the sense of interview panels being prejudiced against her, or finding her difficult to understand), it may be holding her back indirectly by making her feel very self-conscious.

You have criticised my common sense advice, but have not suggested anything better. What do you suggest she does then? Embark on a single-handed crusade to reform the Bar and all its prejudices (real or imagined) against Russians, or just do her damndest to make sure her CV and presentation skills are so perfect that the scales will fall from their eyes?

Anony Non -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

I agree with the points made above.

Also to my mind the problem Ekaterina is failing to address here is that she DOES have the CV of a "typical" applicant, and the typical applicant doesn't get pupillage...that is assuming that by "good degree" she means she has a strong 2.1 from a well-respected university (anything less and she is not even a "typical" applicant).

I hate to point it out but I have read all of your articles Ekaterina and I don't think you did go into the process "knowing you had a slim chance of success", I think you went in confident of success, not least because it is extremely optimistic to start applying to chambers before you've even finished your undergrad degree. I don't know anybody else who did this, save for people who already had a degree in another subject and/or a previous career. Whether your naivety is 100% your fault or not is another matter.

Jamie -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

To the writer: who asked you the question you quote at the start?

Anonymous -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

I believe I was the person who originally posed the question, on your blog, which inspired this article. I am delighted to see that you attempted to tackle this rather thorny issue - although some of the logical leaps your article makes are not fully sustainable. I have had some practical experience of the application/interview process since I asked you the question, and perhaps you could benefit from my experiences. By way of preface, I am from a country comparable to Russia (i.e. English not the first language, non-EU, majority white population) - unlike you, I attended school abroad (i.e. not A-Level but IB system). Our academic backgrounds are slightly different - I have a First Class LLB from one of the more traditional law schools, as well as the top scholarship at my Inn, professional legal experience, mooting and a few publications. I do not make note of this by way of self-aggrandisement, but just to set the baseline for our comparative struggles with the unusual origins. This has been my first year of applications (I am taking a year out to work, starting BVC in September); I submitted 25ish overall - mid-range to top civil/common sets in London, largely. Initially, I had to decide between trying to minimise my background or try to exploit it. I decided to go with the latter, thus emphasising the advantage of my linguistic abilities (fluent in 3 languages besides English) and, as you noted, a more insightful understanding/appreciation for the English legal system, borne of international experience. As such, if the sets were inclined to reject on basis of my provenance alone, they could have done so at the paper sift. So far, I have 11 interviews, 1 rejection and the remainder are outstanding - chambers that have not replied to anyone, either way (to the best of my knowledge). I think it is safe to conclude that being foreign is not a fatal attribute at this stage. Naturally, your concerns mostly (and justifiably) relate to the interview stage. I have considerably less experience to rely on at this stage. I have had a scholarship interview and three pupillage interviews so far. On each and every occasion, I was asked why I chose not to be a lawyer in my home country - a question that I find entirely justifiable and answer honestly. I am also asked about my eligibility to work in the UK - usually, this is done apologetically. My general impression, as you mentioned, is that while facing countless carbon-copy University-->BVC candidates, panels are delighted to have a bit of variety. This results in the person being memorable - whether this be a boon or not hinges on the performance that is to be remembered. I do have an accent - having heard your podcast, I think yours is not at all unpleasant/unclear and comparable to mine in intensity. Concern about the accent is what led me to pose my question to you, in the first place. As regards the fluency/clarity of communication, in my experience foreigners can often have a better grasp of the grammar, if not idioms, than natives - simply because we learn the language in a more structured fashion. While that may well be controversial, most would stipulate that I can speak at least as well as my competitors. From the three interviews I've had so far, I've been invited back for second rounds in all 3 cases. What does this prove, vis-a-vis your original question? Just that being foreign and speaking with an accent is not fatal. It cannot show whether my origins are a detriment or an advantage - I could have been sub-par in terms of performance yet been given a boost to 2nd round due to my origins; alternatively, I could have succeeded in spite of it. Personally, I believe (if correctly 'spinned' and without resorting to defensiveness) that it is an advantage or at least, not a disadvantage. This has been confirmed by the numerous barristers I encountered in my mini-pupillage travels - many of them on pupillage committees (of course, one can hardly take that at face value). Now, I realise this has been an exhaustive reply. I only spent as much time on it as I had to give you a measure of inspiration in your pursuit of pupillage. Even if a hamper does exist as you suggest, much can be done to mitigate it. Alternatively, you can compensate for any disadvantage by boosting your credentials/'marketability' elsewhere in your application. Should you fail, the cause is unlikely to be your origins or accent.

Author of Original Question -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

Q: Is it because I'm not from round here?

A: No.

Desperately Seeking Pupillage -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

From your previous pieces on here, we already know that your degree (or, more correctly, your alma mater), is not good enough. There's precious little point discussing anything else which may be preventing you from gaining pupillage.

Anonymous -16 Jun 2009 | 01:00

My experience of working in the UK is that the standards are much lower than I am used to in Australia. Lawyers here do not work as hard, or to as high a standard. I think legal education here is very shallow, and I often find that people are surprisingly ignorant of basic and fundamental principles.

That said, they do fancy themselves as being much better than they are. I think they tend to discount foreign experience, and over-rate anything with a plum in its mouth. They do suffer the consequences of this, with a great deal of bluffers who are well and truly out of their depth, creating all sorts of dysfunction around them.

But I think it's hard for anyone to get pupillage these days so I doubt your being Russian is the cause of your difficulties. I know plenty of Brits who can't get started at the Bar, and many talented people make it to the Bar only to find the work isn't there for them. Where I come from, you go to the Bar after you have someone to brief you. Usually this means having a career as a solicitor first, building a reputation, and establishing a network of contacts. I think the UK is naturally heading towards this model. The idea of becoming a barrister after a one-year conversion course and a training period seems silly to me - you aren't ready (either in terms of skills and knowledge or in terms of reputation and contacts). Why choose such a precarious path? Is it a vanity project?

P White -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00

It's easier to win a lottery than to get a pupilage if you have a 2.1 degree from a red-brick/Oxbridge uni. Accent or nationality does not really matter. Masters won't help either. Experience may have some weight, but it would take years to build some valuable experience.

Having seen friends in similar situation, who wasted years and money pursuing their dreams of becoming a barrister, this is the best advice I can give.

Anonymous -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00

Where's your degree from? If it's not Oxbridge then you're fighting an uphill battle right from the start. Sorry, but that's true. It's not the old boys' club, but the Bar takes some of the best academic minds, and they are found at Oxbridge....

Anonymous -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00

I recall the writer's degree is from a not especially well-regarded university. I think the last comment about Oxbridge is a bit of a generalisation, as some of the best academic minds end up elsewhere, by choice or otherwise - but they demonstrate this by getting top degrees. The Bar is an elite profession - it IS elitist, intellectually elitist. For most areas of law/chambers, you need to be academically something special. If your CV screams "average" you're in trouble.

Anonymous -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00

The author is not the first and will not be the last in her disappointment.

As a foreigner, I have always been aware of the obstacles which are bound to face me in my chosen field. Language, accent, eloquency - a lot to overcome when becoming a solicitor (as I have), let alone a barrister. I would suggest that it would be just as difficult (and even more so) for a foreigner to become a lawyer in Russia than the other way round.

I think the author has been a bit too over-ambitious. Her next step should be to accept reality and requalify as a solicitor.

Anonymous -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00

I think that degree result, for better or worse, is a major factor that the author here might not have suitably accounted for.

More interesting to me than the question of accents/provenance (which seem like small potatoes) is the question of degrees from INTERNATIONAL institutions. How many of those (in the US? in Europe? in Australia) are generally looked upon as equivalent to Oxbridge?

recorta -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00

I am originally from southeast Asia, and finished my undergrad at a British university which was nowhere near red brick in terms of ranking. Got good grades in both GDL and BVC and a Major scholarship from an Inn. Applied for pupillage in the last two years and got as far as first round interviews at top 8 common law sets, but only 1 second round. Good research before interviews helped as far as being able to answer the questions quite well. But to get through to second round, not only your answers have to stand out but you also have to give them in a concise and persuasive manner. Maybe that's where foreign candidates suffer compared to an articulate Oxbridge or red brick graduate. At most chambers I had interview with, they ask 5 or 6 same questions to everyone so there's not really much opportunity to talk about your background or stand out from the crowd in that way. I suggest during your preparation, think every answer through very carefully and try to avoid spending too much time on giving predictable answers. Practice how you answer those questions. Some Inns run very helpful mock interviews. I'm afraid, not having a strong accent may help a bit. Good luck.

Anon -17 Jun 2009 | 01:00