I'm a Barrister..Ask me Anything

[BarristerAMA]

Except for legal advice on specific situations :)

I worry that there is such a lack of legal education in our society (the misunderstandings around the Tommy Robinson case being a prime example) so want to do my bit to contribute to the discussion.

I am a common law barrister, which means I practice in many different areas of law.

How easy is it get a pupillage? And what’s the typical Remuneration

Is getting a pupillage based on merit and academic ability or is it family connections,class and who you know?

What’s the typical demographic of a barrister, I typically think of a barrister as mc,white,private school education. I’m aware this may be a sweeping stereotype

are you male or female barrister? Is there institutional discrimination towards female barristers if there is discrimination how does it manifest?

Please can you outline your education/training pathway - what A'level subjects did you study, which Uni, post-grad training etc. TIA

What could your instructing solicitors do better when sending papers to ensure you are best prepared?

How easy is it get a pupillage? And what’s the typical Remuneration

Pupillage is not easy to get. At my set of chambers we have about 350 applications for 2 places. Of course, if you have a starred first from Oxbridge, you will find it easier than others.

Renumeration during pupillage depends on the area of law. It can vary between £12K - £70K.

Is getting a pupillage based on merit and academic ability or is it family connections,class and who you know?

The answer is somewhere in the middle. I do not believe the Bar is any more elitist than any other profession, and indeed, great strides have been taken in widening access.

There is very little nepotism any more - I am not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but it is greatly reduced. At my set we mark very clearly on merit and the paper sift is blind. We also do not rank universities.

That being said, my experience is that private education gives people a level of confidence and a way of expressing themselves articulately that means they find it easier to meet the objective criteria. I say that as someone who went to a comprehensive.

The truth is, that like in all areas of life, the inequality starts a lot earlier than when people are applying for pupillage.

What’s the typical demographic of a barrister, I typically think of a barrister as mc,white,private school education. I’m aware this may be a sweeping stereotype

I would say that this is still largely true for older members of the Bar (and judges). Nowadays, over half the entrants to the Bar are female and there is a much wider demographic in terms of ethnicity. I would still say it is dominated by privately educated people, for the reasons I mentioned above.

One of the biggest problems we have is retaining women. Barristers are self-employed and the work does not lend itself easily to a work-life balance.

are you male or female barrister? Is there institutional discrimination towards female barristers if there is discrimination how does it manifest?

I am female. There are certainly lots of great initiatives to encourage women to network with each other and apply for silk / judicial office. On the other hand, I know I have to be twice as good to be given half as much respect as my male colleagues. But again, I am not convinced it is any worse than it is in any other profession.

Please can you outline your education/training pathway - what A'level subjects did you study, which Uni, post-grad training etc. TIA

I don't want to say anything too outing, so I am going to be quite general. But my pathway was pretty boring - educated in a state school in the North, RG uni to do law, the BVC (the old name for the barrister year of classroom training), had a gap year then started pupillage.

More and more barristers are second career people these days, which only helps I think. Particularly if it is a related field (e.g. doctors doing medical negligence work).

Thanks for prompt answers, v illuminating

We also do not rank universities Interesting, is that an ethos of your chambers or widely held practice? I read a lot on mn one must attend RG uni to get on.and no point going to read law at a metropolitan uni

What could your instructing solicitors do better when sending papers to ensure you are best prepared?

Interesting question! I have to say that most of my instructing sols are amazing.

One thing that really helps is sending documents by email. I spend so much time travelling (I have a court based practice) that it is actually far more useful for me to be able to read documents on the go, or at the back of court whilst on another case.

Another slight bugbear I have is when my file does not match that which the court has (or I have not received a paper file, so I have no idea how the court's file is organised).

Finally, whilst not a papers thing, there is nothing so helpful as a realistic and sensible solicitor who has given the client proper advice.

I have encountered a few solicitors in the past (not many, thankfully) who prefer to be "good cop" and give the client over optimistic advice- leaving me to come along and ruin the party. It really does not help anyone in the long run.

We also do not rank universities Interesting, is that an ethos of your chambers or widely held practice? I read a lot on mn one must attend RG uni to get on.and no point going to read law at a metropolitan uni

I think it largely depends on the area of law. If you want to do chancery or commercial law, then academic prowess is the main thing they are looking for (to their detriment, in my view. I think some sets could do with thinking outside the box a bit).

Sets that do "people-oriented law" (crime, family, personal injury, employment) tend to be more focused on your analytical skills, your advocacy and your ability to relate to other people.

That being said, as a very broad rule, people who are better at analysing facts and arguing them convincingly are generally brighter than average, and brighter people generally go to better unis - but that is not by any means a hard and fast rule.

It means that as a consequence most of our pupils are RG educated. However, we would not hesitate to recruit someone from an ex-poly if they were the best on the day.

I think most sets take the view that ranking unis is a dangerous game to play, particularly when everyone is so aware that we are perceived as elitist. So I think most sets take a similar approach to ours.

Do you want to be a QC?

If you went to state school, do you notice that privately educated barristers and solicitors look "polished?" How can a state schooled person look "polished" and how can state schooled people compete in the legal world?

Do you have any Roll on Friday stories?

Thanks.

Do you want to be a QC?

I think so. The type of work changes, and becoming a QC is quite dependent on how well liked you are by judges etc - but it is something that might be on the cards in the future. I suspect by then it might be KC! (Sorry, Queen E).

If you went to state school, do you notice that privately educated barristers and solicitors look "polished?" How can a state schooled person look "polished" and how can state schooled people compete in the legal world?

I think, as I said before, it is a way of being in the world that private education gives you. It is very hard to describe, but there is often a confidence amongst my privately educated friends that I just do not have.

As state school people, we compete by being brilliant at our jobs and working out what our particular niche is - for example, I get instructed by solicitors because I am perceived as more approachable and down to earth than my peers. Like in everything, it is just a matter of taking what we have and making it work.

It is also important that those of us in these professions pay it forward and encourage the next generation to come through. The legal profession can only be credible if it reflects the society it serves.

Do you have any Roll on Friday stories?

I don't actually read ROF - I think that is more for solicitors. I certainly have a lot of gossip! The Bar is a small profession, everyone knows everyone, and scandal spreads like wildfire.

You may not feel that you can answer this but I have sometimes gotten the feeling that matters are dealt with before a trial even gets to Court. That there are behind the scenes deals going on

How do I choose a direct access barrister? I'm self repping thus far but need one for my final divorce hearing. Total assets inc house equity and pension of no more than 200k.

How far ahead do I look to instruct one?
What do they need to know?
How do I choose other than by price?
Are there questions I should ask to help me choose?
Anything I should either do or avoid doing?

Thanks anyway regardless of whether you can answer

You may not feel that you can answer this but I have sometimes gotten the feeling that matters are dealt with before a trial even gets to Court. That there are behind the scenes deals going on

Absolutely - and it is usually a good thing. Trials are expensive, traumatic and risky. It is not always in my client's best interest to go to trial, and if that is the case then I would not be doing my job properly if I did not advise them of other options.

For example, in crime, it may be that the prosecution are prepared to accept guilty pleas to some charges and not others. I would approach them and discuss it informally before we get to court.

In family law, barristers will often negotiate settlements in advance to prevent a judge making a decision, and therefore taking the power away from the parties. Same in civil - parties make each other offers to settle, and it is a tactical game to decide if to settle and for how much.

However, all these deals should be done with the full knowledge and consent of the client. Barristers are duty bound to act in their client's best interest, and failing to do that is very serious.

Thank you for answering

What do you think of judges?

What makes a good expert witness? I have to give evidence in my job (social worker) any pointers?

What's the difference between a solicitor, lawyer & barrister (I win most basic question award)

*How do I choose a direct access barrister? I'm self repping thus far but need one for my final divorce hearing. Total assets inc house equity and pension of no more than 200k.

How far ahead do I look to instruct one?
What do they need to know?
How do I choose other than by price?
Are there questions I should ask to help me choose?
Anything I should either do or avoid doing?

Thanks anyway regardless of whether you can answer*

I think this largely depends on what you feel you need the barrister for. Are you on top of the finances? Do you have all your paperwork together? Does your ex have a solicitor / counsel who is contacting you and you feel forced into a position you don't want to take? Or do you just need someone for the hearing?

I think, for that kind of asset value, someone between 5 - 10 years call would be fine. No need to go above that. If you have used a solicitor in the past, ring them and ask them which counsel they use (or, if you are being really sneaky, ring a good solicitors firm to speak about instructing them and ask them which chambers they use).

Sets "in the provinces" (which is anywhere that is not London) tend to do a wider variety of work. Sets in London are more specialised. For example, here are the best matrimonial finance sets in London according to a legal directory.

www.chambersandpartners.com/11841/175/editorial/14/2

Find a few barristers that you like the look of who specialise in Mat Finance. I think you need to work out what kind of lawyer you want - do you want someone who will intimidate your ex and bring about settlement, or do you need someone to hold your hand?

Ring the clerks of the set you are interested in. They should be able to help you find the right counsel. They are sales people, but it is in their interest to help you find the right person for you.

Really, we prefer to be instructed as far ahead as possible. That means you have a better chance of getting your first choice, as there is more chance they will be free on the day of the hearing.

They will need everything on yours and the ex's finances, set out as clearly as possible. If you struggle with this (many people do) you may wish to get a solicitor involved to help you. The easier it is to understand, the less time they will need to spend reading. The idea behind direct access is that you perform the role of the solicitor yourself - so getting everything together is your job.

It does not matter if it is not all relevant - as long as it is there and easy to digest, the barrister can work out what they need and what they don't.

Finally, you may want to pay for an advice from counsel (or indeed a conference) before you make a decision on representation for the final hearing. If you have not received legal advice yet on your position and chances of success, this might save you a lot of time and money in the long run.

What do you think of judges?

Varied - some are brilliant, some are dreadful!

What makes a good expert witness? I have to give evidence in my job (social worker) any pointers?

Clarity. A well-reasoned conclusion. Someone who has considered the other side of the argument, but has come out on the side they have for a reason. (e.g. "I know that mum has been making progress in the previous X months. However, I am still concerned about her ability to keep the child safe for X Y and Z reasons")

A lack of hyperbole. Honesty. Answering the question you have been asked. Conceding when the barrister asking you questions makes a point you agree with. Seeking clarification when the question is unclear or too general for your answer to be helpful.

What's the difference between a solicitor, lawyer & barrister (I win most basic question award)

You would be surprised how many people don't know. A lawyer is anyone who practices law. It is not a "protected title" (i.e. you can use it whether or not you have the right qualifications or are subject to a regulatory body).

Traditionally, a solicitor is like a GP. They are instructed directly by members of the public. They litigate - prepare the case, write letters,, settle cases, sort out your house purchase, whatever. They then refer onto a barrister when they either need specialist advice or advocacy. The barrister is like the consultant. Historically, they did not take instructions directly from the public.

Those lines are blurred these days. But I am still a fan of the split profession (solicitors and barristers doing separate but equally important jobs).

Another major difference is that most solicitors are employed, whereas most barristers are self-employed.

Do you ever feel out of your depth? How do you cope with that?

Do you ever feel out of your depth? How do you cope with that?

Of course. Imposter syndrome is a huge issue for many people. You are very exposed, you work alone, and you rarely get praise or criticism.

I deal with it using a combination of CBT and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. I find these cartoons on Youtube to be very helpful:

Do you know any practising barrister from a working class background?

What do you think of our adversarial legal system?

Who is your typical client?

Thank you so much. I definitely need someone who can help me settle. I'm on top of the paperwork and know my position. I need someone to negotiate with him and get it settled. Thanks for taking the time to reply,