Pupillage: a right or a privilege?

Response

You say that the best candidates don't get pupillage, but what is your evidence for this? It's in chambers' interests to get the best candidates and I've seen barristers make real efforts to find the best people regardless ethnic or social background.  Of course there is an emphasis on academic achievement over and above other professions (which partly accounts for the BME figures you quoted, along with the fact that many of those people go overseas to practise so it's a misleading comparison) but in my experience there are just as many people with family connections failing to obtain pupillage as those without. I think that if you're going to accuse the recruitment process of being nepotistic, you need to have more evidence for it!  Moreover, as is often pointed out, the 15% BME figure of those obtaining pupillage is actually higher than the proportion in the UK as a whole.

None of this is intended to play down the problems faced by people from non-traditional backgrounds in obtaining pupillage.  But I think the problem starts much earlier than you suggest (with educational attainment and encouragement to attend top universities) so I think the Pegasus scheme and others like it are the best way of addressing the problem.  

You are no doubt a very strong candidate and deserve a pupillage.  But perhaps there are just 450 people each year who are equally deserving.  That figure of 450 pupillages is very small when you think about how many schoolchildren aspire to a career as a barrister.  It's small because there isn't enough work available for any more people to enter the profession. It's therefore not a shock that there are many more talented potential barristers than there are pupillages available.  

You do have my sympathies, but I get a bit fed up of pupillage hunters implying that the successful people all have connections and don't deserve pupillage.  The fact is that you only have to look at the CVs of recent tenants to see the kind of competition you're up against - people with 1st class or high 2.1 degrees (often top of their year) from impressive universities, outstandings or high VCs on the BPTC, commendations or distinctions on the GDL, major Inn scholarships, often interesting hobbies and great success in mooting and debating, as well as some very impressive work experience (not all unpaid - often including work as a former solicitor or public employee, so it doesn't necessarily mean you need to have wealthy parents to work voluntarily for years).  On top of this they are usually personable, interesting and understand that their speaking skills are as important as their academics. It baffles me that people don't compare themselves honestly to these people before embarking on the BPTC.  If you honestly tick all these boxes then you have more of my sympathy, but even then you chose to take the risk when you could have chosen not to do the BPTC until you had obtained pupillage.

The comparison with medics is interesting.  The bottleneck there is the lack of places available on courses, so there isn't such a mismatch between the numbers qualifying and the available jobs.  Surely that is the solution somehow?  Either restrict the BPTC numbers (eg to those who already have pupillage or to those who pass an interview process) or incorporate its training more into the pupillage process so fewer people end up with a pointless qualification that doesn't lead anywhere.

Best of luck, anyway. I'm sorry it's been such a disheartening experience.

Anna Simpson -21 Aug 2012 | 13:03

The privilege of pupillage ... the right to be considered

A little honesty is needed here: when commercial sets say "a high 2.1" it means "on track for a 1st but just missed at the last hurdle", which means, to be blunt, that only a 2.i from Oxbridge will be acceptable - as these are the only universities in the UK with 100% final year exams.

Also ... for anyone with a "yeah but my friend X" story, please let me know if they also got tenancy.

Tom -21 Aug 2012 | 14:32

Response

I agree with Anna above. I also wanted to highlight that in my experience it is not an unwritten rule that you have to have completed five mini-pupillages. I would strongly recommend everyone do one certainly and they are compulsory for some sets - but minis just show you know what the Bar is like and still fancy it.

I totally agree with this Article's criticism of the BPTC as a lottery. Coming from a modest background I found the high expense with such low odds of success enormously worrying and stressful. It must put many people from non-traditional backgrounds off - who could also be the best in the profession one day.

I understand that in Northern Ireland the Bar course is only available to people with a pupillage. This could be one good route, but coming from a background without contacts in the legal world the Bar training actually helped me understand the legal process a lot and I don't know whether I would have succeeded in obtaining pupillage otherwise.

One issue I have with the Bar is that barristers do believe it is a meritocracy and we are past the nepotism of the past, but this misses the huge effects of socio-economic divides. It still seems far less risky to sets to take someone with a nice accent from Cambridge than try out someone less conventional.

Perhaps the inns could circulate some success stories to celebrate the best pupils each year from non-traditional backgrounds?

Squeakingly Jen -21 Aug 2012 | 15:15

Moaning

This is a bit of a moan isn’t it… You ask for feedback but this is not realistic given the volume of applications and lack of HR department. Barristers are not paid to sift candidates let alone act as your guidance counsellor.

You say that there is no support for children of non-legal families – it seems to me that the inns and colleges provide more than enough support. Mentoring schemes, scholarships, away weekends, dinners, inn lectures, mooting, debating extras etc etc. Fact is, if you didn’t make it, you will always complain that there was not enough support.

Stop peddling this nonsense that there is an inherent bias against ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities are actually over represented as a whole. If you are good enough nobody cares what colour/sex/gender/sexuality you are…

The fact is this – you got a 2:1, big deal!!! A 2:1 is not good enough to give yourself a competitive chance. You need a 1st class degree, why did you not get one?

My experience is that a 1st class degree from a former poly is better than a 2:1 from a redbrick.

Ultimately, the odds are 1 in 8. This is not bad and certainly comparable with other jobs. Your point about surgeons is redundant. The bar is private, not public sector career

The problem is that nobody can tell you whether you have the skills to obtain pupillage until it is too late. You can tick all the boxes, 2:1, Commendation, VC, mooting, paralegal, debating etc etc but you need that sparkle or bit of magic that marks you out as different, somebody whom chambers are prepared to risk all that effort in the hope that you are going to be a good earner for the businesses. These characteristics (usually) cannot be taught or measured through pointless box ticking exercises.

Curtis Mayfield -21 Aug 2012 | 15:53

Reality Check

It amazes me that most articles like this miss the point. Look at the junior tenants of most leading sets in the country and are they former BPTC students with Oxbridge degress (of whatever class)?

No. Increasingly, they are former solicitors. So firstly the 1,500 vying for 450 places is a redundant statistic. Why is this? Becuase the Bar is if not dead then dying and Barristers need to pay chambers fees. They therefore go for people with a practice set up and who are not a risk.

RealityCheck -21 Aug 2012 | 17:07

The problem is not with the Bar. The Bar has its own interests to protect and the key part of that interest is ensuring they have the best candidate to fill their positions to ensure the biggest return. This is basic economics. It's also basic economics that they keep the number of positions down to ensure that there is sufficient work for those members already there.

The problem is with the Bar providers and the candidates themselves. Just take a look around, and you'll know how ridiculously hard it is to get these pupillages before you drop £16k on an academic course. Sadly, the BPTL providers are profit-making companies that want as many people through the door as possible to get the biggest dividend for their shareholders. It's therefore not in their interest to put up especially high barriers to entry. They want to make the standard just high enough that it keeps their pass rates up, but low enough to ensure they get the volumes.

The comparison to the lottery is an interesting one. Whilst it may feel like you have the same odds at times, it's clearly not the same. I however wouldn't choose to buy 16,000 lottery tickets, so it's all about risk/reward. If you chose to do the BPTL or BVC without having secured a pupillage, you pay your money and take your choice. It sucks for sure, but nobody can say they weren't advised beforehand. Nobody says that getting into the legal professional is easy.

Paul -21 Aug 2012 | 17:10

Nobody says that getting into the legal professional is easy.

@Paul

"Nobody says that getting into the legal professional is easy."

Well, that assumes there are no easy legal professionals.

Tom -21 Aug 2012 | 17:54

Economics and bottlenecks

Like the other comments, I find articles like this a little wearing - yes, it's competitive to get pupillage; yes, good candidates don't get pupillage first time round; yes, the BPTC is an expensive hurdle that does not distinguish you from the other 1,500 candidates.

The cause of all this is supply and demand - there are far too many candidates, following far too few pupillages. And this tension reflects (a) the wider economy and (b) competitiveness of other legal service providers (i.e. solicitors).

Articles like this can never seriously suggest that vast numbers of pupillages suddenly become available, because chambers are businesses that are entitled to offer the number of pupillages they choose (a calculation made on the amount of work available).

The only viable alternative to this is to put the bottleneck elsewhere in the system - instead of at the pupillage application stage, it could be at the getting onto the BPTC stage. But this is unrealistic, as BPTC providers are private companies whose main incentive is profit.

So, we are left with the current system that leaves large numbers of people unhappy. All you need to do is change the entire legal profession and legal education. Best of luck with that.

Alan Kittle -21 Aug 2012 | 19:25

Waste and scandal

These types of articles are quite sad and depressing. There are clearly thousands of people spending millions of pounds fruitlessly. It happens on the LPC too. There are two remedies: restrict access to these courses or allow those without the full training to practise in another way perhaps semi reserved activities. I think it a disgrace that the legal profession and the government has allowed this waste and profiteering on the back of false dreams to continue.

Phil -22 Aug 2012 | 00:01

Enough is enough.

Sorry to say this but I think there has to come a time when you take a realistic approach and decide that perhaps pupillage isn't going to happen for you. I agree that the system is unfair (although I don't know what the alternative would be) and I also agree that undoubtedly there will be some people who would have been great barristers, had they just been able to obtain a pupillage to prove it. But if you're getting second round interviews (which you obviously are), have the academics and are attractive to chambers on paper and yet have still been trying for 6 years (did I misunderstand that?), maybe you're just missing that bit of je ne sais quoi that makes you stand out enough to be made an offer.

I sympathise with your position - it took me 2 years to get pupillage which seemed like a lifetime. I'm also far from the 'typical' candidate (not wealthy, from a non legal family, went to a former poly). But do you want to spend another few years in limbo waiting for this to happen when, statistically speaking, it's more likely than not that it won't happen for you?

As a side note, I don't think it's a requirement to have completed at least 5 minis. Any more than 3 and you're probably wasting your time which could be spent doing something else.

Rebecca -22 Aug 2012 | 12:06

Degree result

A quick bit of research on the internet reveals that the blog's author actually has a 2.2 degree (unless you have the same name as someone else posting on thestudentroom, in which case, apologies). To be blunt, a 2.2 isn't good enough to become a barrister when there are enough strong candidates who have proved their academic ability with a 2.1 (and usually better). This is far more likely to be the reason for your lack of pupillage than the fact that you are 31, from a BME background, or don't have any family in the law. There are plenty of brilliant careers you can have with a 2.2 degree, but the reality is that being a barrister is too competitive for you to stand much of a chance.

You did the BVC a few years ago so perhaps you weren't warned of this state of affairs, but the Inns and BSB are now very careful to tell applicants that this is the case. BPTC students are free to ignore those warnings (it's their money after all) but please don't then become bitter and spread unhelpful myths about the impossibility of obtaining pupillage without family contacts. It does a huge disservice to talented applicants from non-traditional backgrounds (with the necessary academics, as pointed out in the Pegasus article) who the bar is actually very keen to attract.

Anna Simpson -22 Aug 2012 | 14:13

BME candidates

Much of the reason why ethnic minority candidates make up a large number of those called to the Bar but a lower number of actual pupils is that most ethnic minority students are from the commonwealth and leave England after being called to the Bar.

Sandman -22 Aug 2012 | 14:37

Be realistic

You do not say in your article what your degree level is but if it is a 2:2 then you are very unlikely to be offered a pupillage. The competition for places is so great that applicants with a 2:2 degree won't get a look in. There are too many applicants and one of the easiest ways to cull them is to disregard anyone with less than a 2:1. So if your CV has a 2:2 on it, I doubt it is getting a second glance.

Frances -22 Aug 2012 | 17:24

Nepotism

Miss Simpson, judging by how scathing she comes across without any degree of sympathy, clearly never faced this disheartening experience. Either she is awesome, or family got her in, if you had to graft anywhere near as hard as most, you would sympathise.

Nevertheless, I agree, a 2.2 won't be good enough.

Thomas E G -23 Aug 2012 | 16:19

Yawn...

Such a standard 'it's too hard' article. You were warned:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2282254&highlight=

And clearly you managed to have barrister contacts even in 2005.

Well done for getting on to a PHD with a 2:2 though.

PS Before anyone suggests otherwise, I was 19 the first time I even met a legal professional. I took 20 months to get a TC. I went to a comprehensive.

Tired... -23 Aug 2012 | 16:47

Look before you leap

This story is depressingly familiar, for hopeful barristers and solicitors. At the end of the day, law is a commercial environment and will only take on as many pupils/trainees as it needs. It is a highly competitive area to break into, and firms are at liberty to cherry pick whom they perceive to be the strongest candidates. Filtering applicants by A Level grades or degree results is an easy wasy to make recruiters' lives easier.

It baffles me that so many applicants jump into the BPTC/LPC without a pupillage or training contract. If more were a little less naive and did the maths, they might work out that their chances were minimal before they wasted money on qualifications that have little value outside law.

It must be a bitter pill to swallow, but if the legal profession is consistently selecting other (possibly better qualified) candidates, then looking for a career elsewhere is the only sensible option. You could become expert in an area related to law (finance perhaps), then maybe, if you are lucky and market yourself well, suceed in moving into law at a later stage.

Nickji -23 Aug 2012 | 17:02

Response

In response to this comment: "Miss Simpson, judging by how scathing she comes across without any degree of sympathy, clearly never faced this disheartening experience. Either she is awesome, or family got her in, if you had to graft anywhere near as hard as most, you would sympathise. Nevertheless, I agree, a 2.2 won't be good enough."

I do have some sympathy, but it's tempered by frustration (and some degree of anger) because I spend time talking to students from state schools and trying very hard to encourage them to aspire to the law and other professions. It's unhelpful and unfair for an article to make misleading assertions about nepotism at the bar, without disclosing that the author in fact has a 2.2 degree, which all access schemes advise is probably not good enough for the Bar without genuine, proven mitigating circumstances.

I'll admit that I was lucky enough to be offered pupillage in my first round of OLPAS, but only after several unsuccessful and draining interviews, and taking a careful look at my CV compared with junior tenants. There is no way I would have embarked on the BPTC without pupillage or a significant Inn scholarship since I certainly don't come from a wealthy background or have any family connections! (Though I concede that some people may feel they benefited from the BPTC year).

I have a great deal of sympathy for the many strong candidates who spend years struggling to get pupillage because I've seen how much luck plays a part, and how many of my friends tick all the boxes and still haven't been successful. It is a lottery for those people, and something should be done. But I'm afraid I have less sympathy for the author of this blog, who chose to embark on an expensive course without having the recommended qualifications for pupillage, and then proceeds to blame other factors for his failure - possibly putting off bright but disadvantaged aspiring barristers in the process!

Anna Simpson -23 Aug 2012 | 17:57

What is depressing is that someone who has now been shown to have a poor degree (2.2) and low UCAS points should be allowed to put forward such a negative and inaccurate view of access to the pupillage.

As has been pointed out, the high percentage (44%) of those called to the Bar who are BME is explained by the fact that many of those who are called to the Bar are from Commonwealth countries to which they return after call. That at least 15% of pupils are BME suggests that there is no colour bar to pupillage.

Nor do the vast majority of those who obtain pupillage come from legal backgrounds.

Pupillage is obtained by proven merit. It also helps to have done some mooting and some mini-pupillages, but it is merit that matters.

The problem in terms of the discrepancy between the number of those who complete the vocational course (at great expense to themselves and a degree of profit to the course providers) and the number of pupillages is because the Bar is unable to control the number of places on the vocational course. Any attempt to do so would attract the attention of the OFT.

Anyone who has a strong academic record should not be deterred by the experience of Vishal Vora.

Mark -07 Sep 2012 | 15:35

business!

Isn't this criticism of the "system" of training and qualification, all blown out of proportion?

The legal system in the UK only has enough money in it to support a certain number of practising barristers. As barristers leave the profession, retire or move onto other posts in the profession (e.g. become judges), and through natural gradual expansion of the profession, there is space each year for a certain number of new barristers (granted that, technically, these are those receiving tenancies rather than pupillages, but the number of pupillages is not infinite either, (and if there were significantly more pupillages than tenancies/jobs for qualified barristers, then the same problem would exist in the training process, just a year later)). Anyway, in order to fill the spaces which appear in the profession, "firms" (chambers) select from the eligible population those who they expect to make them most money, success, fame or reputation. We, those who want jobs/pupillages, have to pander to what the 'firms' want to see in a candidate. Thats the same i nbanks, schools, supermarkets, every job in the system. There isn't an error in the system, there is simply a lack of vacancies, in comparison to the number of people who want the vacancies.

The answer to the problem is surely not "increase the availability/accessibility of or the selection criteria for pupillages" but instead "reduce the number of suitable candidates" An undergraduate LLB is pretty easy for the majority of motivated A-level school leavers to get into, and a GDL has almost no selection at all, except for the obvious second class degree. If the number of people with LLBs and GDLs dropped, and the places at each college onto the BPTC were restricted, there would be less of a bottleneck at the pupillage stage, and also, the chambers would be able to share some of the burden of sorting wheat and chaff with the law colleges and universities, who would have "filtered out" some of the candidates they thought less appropriate. (to use an horrific expression, considering I might be reckoning myself among that number)

It's like a traffic jam, if you have queues at a roundabout, you can't increase the number of cars you get through the roundabout per minute, but you can reduce the number of cars arriving at the roundabout, so the congestion does not all occur in one place. (Like on a motorway when the overhead signs say "congestion: 50 mph" ! ) Thats my obiter dictum anyway.

undergrad LLB -20 Sep 2012 | 00:38

Personality issues

I agree with the earlier comments above about having the right personality. I am white, went to private school -secondary and primary, got a 2:1 from Oxford then a CPE Commendation, got 12 pupillage interviews but no pupillage. I had been involved in student politics but basically had a poor personality type which meant I struggled to relate to people. I'd didn't really bother with other people/interests at uni, thinking it didn't matter - how wrong I was. So having someone who is personable and at ease with people is essential for a career at the Bar

pork23478 -14 Dec 2012 | 08:04

solution

This issue can be easily resolved, but before I get to that let me write a preamble:

Everyone in the law business would agree that there is a paramount need for access to justice. Why then is there such huge disparity between the publicly funded side of the Bar and the private one. Answer: the private one is beyond the ambit of governmental powers (despite the mammoth efforts of Lord Wolf to reform it), and the sad truth is that barristers, clerks, solicitors and partners in law firms want to keep it this way because the fees they charge are very handsome indeed.

My suggestion to solving the problem then would be as follows:

Have a level playing field in relation to funding both for barrister and solicitors alike when it comes to pupillages and training contracts and this should be the minimum requirement. This way more pupils and trainee solicitors can be taken on; as a result everyone benefits because:
a) the pupil/trainee solicitor would have completed the next stage and a such be entitled to a practicing certificate;

b) Chambers/Firms will be spoiled for choice and definitely choose from an array of quasi-qualified lawyers rather than finding half-way through the apprentice who looked amazing on paper and in interview is instead a dud; and,

c) the access to justice conundrum is aided by the fact that pupils without tenancy but with a practicing certificate will be doing a lot of pro-bono work to keep their certificates alive until they finally get employed or obtain tenancy.

A Dyrma -11 Mar 2013 | 20:10