Foot inn the door

When I heard that Middle Temple interviews all of its scholarship applicants – the only Inn of Court to do so - I decided to have a go. I wasn’t hopeful. But I thought that it would be a good opportunity to get some invaluable interview experience - much-needed before I embarked on my pupillage applications.

As I didn’t have much experience in filling out application forms or attending interviews, I paid a few visits to the university career adviser, who, to my great disappointment, informed me that there were no set questions for scholarship interviews. He did, however, point out – somewhat predictably – that there was bound to be a question on career motivation. I figured that I should also pick an interesting case to talk about, mention my mooting experience and be prepared to expand on anything that I’d mentioned in my application form.

On the day of my interview, having rehearsed my reasons for wanting to become a barrister a hundred times, I thought that I was ready for anything. I was mistaken. I was pleasantly surprised - and horrified at the same time - when I discovered that my interviewing panel was chaired by Rosalind Wright QC. I did Financial Crime as an optional module at university, but never dreamed that I’d actually meet the former director of the Serious Fraud Office in person. Because of a slight cold my voice was ridiculously husky, almost disappearing at times.  I whispered greetings to the panel as I went in and apologised for my lack of voice. The panel was extremely patient with me, even though they all looked quite tired – as I’ve discovered, having a surname that begins with a ‘Z’ isn’t conducive to being interviewed by fresh, wide awake panels. But there was nothing that I couldn’t answer. The main problem was saying the answers out loud.

I was asked about my career motivation and areas of interest, followed by some questions from a chancery barrister. When they enquired about my favourite case, on the spur of the moment I picked a strange one that I didn’t know that much about and managed to talk myself into a dead-end. Luckily, we moved on swiftly to the topic of my most recent moot, where I tried to explain the arguments I’d put forward and the cases I’d used. There were other questions about my application form - for instance, I was asked about cases I saw on my mini-pupillages, extra-curricular interests, that sort of thing.

Financial need plays an important role in the selection process, but I didn’t want to come across as disingenuous by going on about how I wouldn’t be able to survive without a scholarship. As much as I wanted the extra funding at the time, there were other options, such as career development loans, which I’m sure the interviewers knew about.

Before the end of the interview, there was the usual ‘is there anything else you’d like to add?’ question. I wanted to mention my financial crime coursework, where I criticised some of the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006, but with Rosalind Wright QC in attendance, I decided against it.

On the train home, I went over the interview again and again in my head, beating myself up over the parts that I’d messed up. As the days went on, I tried to forget about the whole experience altogether. Then, a couple of weeks later, I received a letter from Middle Temple notifying me that I’d been awarded a major scholarship. I couldn’t believe my luck. Hopefully I’ll receive a similar letter offering me a pupillage one day.

For more of Ekaterina's experiences, see Reach for the Bar and Join the queue from the most recent Legal Week Student supplement.