Do you choose your cases? Or are you at the mercy of someone else giving you the good/bad jobs? I remember a friend from uni when they were starting out getting all of the crap jobs (one day in Newcastle and the next morning in Cornwall for example)
Ah yes - the joy that is clerks. To answer your first question, no I am not allowed to choose my cases. In our code of conduct we have a rule called the "cab rank rule" - just as a cab must pick up the next person in the queue, we must pick up the next client, irrespective of our views on the individual or their case.
The only exceptions is if the case is not in our area of practice, we are not sufficiently experienced to do it or (very rarely) the fee is not high enough. Most of my work is publicly funded, so the latter does not apply (even though the descimation of legal aid fees in the last few years is a disgrace).
Sets of Chambers employ clerks. Their job is to liaise with solicitors to get us work, organise our diaries and otherwise sort our fees. My clerks are brilliant, but some are known to be rather domineering and bullying. Because they organise the work in Chambers, they have a lot of power. They can wield that power against the junior members of Chambers, although that should not happen.
However, the more experienced you get, the more likely you are to have solicitors who want to instruct you especially. So many of my solicitors will ring and ask for BarristerAMA for a particular case, and will not be put off by the clerks offering them X, Y or Z barrister. When you start getting your own following, the power balance between you and your clerks changes.
I definitely have more freedom than an employed person - I take time off as and when I like, as long as there is not a case in my diary.
Is there anything you would change about the justice system?
I would re-introduce the requirement that the Minister of Justice must be legally qualified. I would also pump a lot more money into the system (obviously on the proviso it is spent properly).
I would also ensure that there was more support for prisoners leaving prison and more programmes for female offenders, who often have a very distinct set of issues.
Finally, I would introduce more transparency into the family courts and reintroduce legal aid for private family and some civil matters.
I would also make basic legal education a compulsory part of secondary school education.
Oh, and I would re-open all the court canteens that have closed!
If this is something you are interested in, I would really recommend the Secret Barrister's book "the law and how it is broken". It is a fascinating read. No, I am not the Secret Barrister (I wish).
Or any verdicts that you really didn't agree with?
With jury trials, I find I usually accept the verdict, probably because they just say "guilty" or "not guilty", and so I cannot pick apart their reasoning.
I often disagree with judgments from judges in family or civil matters - who give a long set of reasons as to why they have concluded what they have.
But there are only a few occasions that I can recall where the judge has just been plain wrong. And in those circumstances there is usually a right of appeal.
There were some case studies I heard that I was astounded about the verdict, it made no sense to me! How do you deal with it if a case goes really badly?
With family and civil law, it is important to remember that a lot of the evidence is on the paper. So it is actually quite difficult for a reporter, listening in on the case, to get a full grasp on the issues. A good example of this is the terribly sad cases of Charlie Gard / Alfie Evans. Both were far more complex than can be gleaned from the media.
With crime, the truth is that it often comes down to whether the jury believe the witnesses or not. That is quite an intangible thing.
No doubt miscarriages of justice happen, but more of then than not there is just gaps in the facts the public have.
My approach to my cases is that I can only control what I can - so my job is to do the best job I can on behalf of whoever my client is.
The outcome of the case is usually out of my hands and I have become much more philosophical about things with age. I am not responsible for the mistakes made by my clients. But I always assess my performance to ensure that I have done everything I can. As long as I can satisfy myself of that, I can generally sleep at night.