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.

Definitely one of the best AMAs! Very interesting. Do you do pro bono and how does it work, do clients apply for it?

Thanks :) I do, through a variety of channels. The Bar Pro Bono Unit is brilliant and helps an awful lot of people. They set the client up with a barrister and then it takes the normal course of a barrister / client relationship. The case has to pass a merits test before it is accepted I believe.

Secondly, I work with a few charities, such as domestic violence and medical negligence charities to help some of their clients.

I would love to do more, but the truth is that I have to earn a living! Oh, and I end up providing lots of free advice to friends and family, so I guess that is pro bono too! I believe that if you have a skill you should use it to benefit society in some way.

*Barrister I did a spell on jury duty this year...AMA winkgrin

(if ever I'm in that position I think I'd rather have a trail without a jury!! Bench trail? grin)*

Ha - I hear this a lot from people who have been on juries (barristers and judges can now appear on juries too!)

I know that there are some dreadful things that go on in jury rooms. My own view is that it is the best of a bad range of options. The hope is that twelve members of the public have a modicum of common sense and the ability to come to the correct verdict. Judges are too cynical - I often lose far more in my civil / family cases than crime!

Very interesting thread. Thanks for sharing.

How does someone become a QC?

If you were the defendant would you prefer a trial by jury or by the judge?

What is typical for maternity leave?

If you win a case but you suspect your client is actually guilty, what emotions to you feel? Do you feel less satisfied at winning in these circumstances?

Do unpleasant clients ever blame you for not winning? Do you ever feel intimidated by your client?

How does someone become a QC?

Not entirely sure, as I am not one! But I believe it is an application form, lots of references and an interview. There is a panel who decides who gets appointed. It also costs a lot of money even to apply (I think somewhere in the region of £3k) so people only do it sparingly!

If you were the defendant would you prefer a trial by jury or by the judge?

Jury! They are far more likely to acquit me than a judge.

What is typical for maternity leave?

Well, as women do not get paid for it (and often have other expenses, such as rent to chambers) it is generally shorter than it might be in other jobs. I reckon the average is about 6 months. It is an incredibly difficult job for working mothers, particularly those with partners who have equally inflexible jobs.

If you win a case but you suspect your client is actually guilty, what emotions to you feel? Do you feel less satisfied at winning in these circumstances?

No, not really. I spend suprisingly little time worrying about whether my clients are actually guilty, because the truth is that it (a) really does not matter and (b) I will probably never know.

The only question is whether the prosecution can prove they are guilty. If I have won that argument, I am happy.

As for those that get away with it - they often commit so many offences that it is usually swings and roundabouts anyway. They will get caught eventually.

Do unpleasant clients ever blame you for not winning? Do you ever feel intimidated by your client?

Very very occasionally I get blamed. People are angry in the heat of the moment. More often than not, people are grateful for the help I have given them.

I have only felt intimidated by a client once. He was not even up for a particularly serious offence, but I was a young barrister and there was just something about him that terrified me. I learnt that he was later charged with murder in connection with another incident, but I have never been able to verify whether that is true or not.

How does someone become a QC?

You have to apply to the QC Appointments panel.
www.qcappointments.org

Fill in a Big form (you can download it at that link)
Pay £2,160 application fee (2018)
Get 24 referees (12 judges)
Interview if selected
Pay £3,000 more if appointed

You need to demonstrate excellence in 5 categories (use of law, advocacy, team work etc) - not just good, or very good or really quite good - excellence. If you think about your own life and how often you really had an excellent service...?

You need example 12 cases at the right level (cases of substance - so a tiny trial in the county court won't do).

You need

• 12 judicial referees - so 12 judges who will say you were excellent in all categories.

• 6 instructing solicitor referees

and this is the killer

• 6 barrister referees and ones not in your own chambers. Barristers are all self employed so it's like asking your direct competitors to recommend you for a promotion.

On top of all that:

The cost of application this year remained at £2,160 (£1800 + VAT). There will be a further appointment fee of £3,000 (+ VAT) paid by successful applicants. Those applicants with low incomes (gross fees below £60,000) are entitled to pay concessionary fees, which are half the standard level. The fees may be paid by debit card (preferred), electronic transfer, or by cheque.

Once you are a QC do you carry on in same chambers but charge a higher fee and get hired for better work? Or does your work change in other ways?

Wow I hadn't realised how difficult becoming a QC is.

If Barristers are asked for QC application references are they happy to provide them? Do you owe them a favour afterwards?! Does it negatively affect your reputation if you recommend someone and they aren't successful?

Are you QC for life once successful or can it be removed if you aren't very good later?

When do people decide to hire a QC? Is it just for complex cases, or do rich people hire a QC for everything?

Have you any idea if this is a realistic aim? Are law degrees obtained via apprenticeships viewed equally by employers or are the only firms offering apprenticeships with law degrees not the sort of company you would recommend?

I am the wrong person to ask on this really, because apprenticeships are very new and more of a solicitor rather than barrister thing.

As for the quality of the firm, my understanding is that all companies with over a certain number of employees have to offer apprenticeships or pay a government levy, so it will not be restricted to the poorer firms.

I would advise her to do some extensive research on the different firms and types of work - there is loads out there on the internet (far more than for barristers).

If it is the type of firm and type of work that interests her, I would say go for it. Far better than landing herself in a loads of debt.

* 6 barrister referees and ones not in your own chambers. Barristers are all self employed so it's like asking your direct competitors to recommend you for a promotion

It's actually not really like that, I don't think. We are not employed, so there is no direct competition for promotion as there would be in a firm. My friend's QC application has no bearing on mine, so I would be happy to provide a reference.

I think barristers in that position are more likely to get references from other QCs, rather than baby barristers!

Once you are a QC do you carry on in same chambers but charge a higher fee and get hired for better work? Or does your work change in other ways?

Basically, yes. If you do private work, you charge more and can do better work. If you do legal aid work, then the legal aid agency has to give authority for a QC to be instructed on a particular case. As budgets are tight, they don't give these out so often these days! So many QCs end up working for junior rates.

If Barristers are asked for QC application references are they happy to provide them? Do you owe them a favour afterwards?! Does it negatively affect your reputation if you recommend someone and they aren't successful?

Not sure, as never had to provide a reference! They are only given to the panel though, so it is unlikely to affect your reputation at the wider bar.

I imagine you would be happy to provide a reference and you probably would be owed a favour - in the same way as in any other career where people do each other favours.

Are you QC for life once successful or can it be removed if you aren't very good later?

All barristers can be disbarred by the regulator if they fall foul of the code of conduct. But aside from that, once appointed, you are appointed for life.

When do people decide to hire a QC? Is it just for complex cases, or do rich people hire a QC for everything?

Depends. Rich people (like footballers with driving offences) will often hire a QC because they can afford to pay. Typically though they will do the most serious and complex cases.

Once you are a QC do you carry on in same chambers but charge a higher fee and get hired for better work? Or does your work change in other ways?

Like all things it depends. The ideal would be you are already in a chambers that is working for you and your practice continues to grow as you become more senior.

But taking silk is a big risk because you are moving from being at the top of your tree (top of the senior junior barristers) to being the bottom run of the next tree (most junior of the silks).

Becoming a QC is sort of like becoming a consultant in a medical sense. So if you have a serious complicated medical problem, you are going to want to see the top most senior person you can find. The same is true if you have a serious complicated legal problem. You aren't going to want a baby QC; you will want a senior QC who has been leading in difficult cases for years.

For this reason it can take several years to get going in silk and income usually takes a dip.

This can cause new silks to panic and then move chambers thinking they will have a more supported practice elsewhere.

If Barristers are asked for QC application references are they happy to provide them? Do you owe them a favour afterwards?! Does it negatively affect your reputation if you recommend someone and they aren't successful?

Taking those one at a time:

Like all reference requests it depends. There is a real issue with barristers at a certain level of seniority (ready to apply to become a QC) being against barristers of the same level in same area of work (direct competitor). If Barrister 1 has been in a big case and his opponent is Barrister 2 and both of them want to apply in the same year, neither will be motivated to give the other one a good reference as they are in competition - both to get silk and after that in their practice.

The reference forms (also on that link) are really detailed and you are supposed to provide a lot of evidence of excellence (ie. worked examples).

It isn't "This man/woman is a good chap and I thought they did a good job".
It's more "in this case, they were faced with a witness who was hysterical. They appropriately suggested the Court took a break even though it would be to their client's advantage to cross examine there and then. When Court resumed they structured their questions to get the material they needed without upsetting a very sensitive witness. I think this demonstrated excellence in appreciation of needs of the witness and working well with the court and the other parties to progress the case".

SO because filling in these forms properly is a huge amount of work, I don't think anyone is really happy to fill them in unless it is for a close buddy - but most people realise this is how the system works and are "happy" to play ball in that sense.

No you don't "owe them a favour" in any bargaining corrupt sense.

Are you QC for life once successful or can it be removed if you aren't very good later?

At the moment, it is for life. There was talk of competency re- accreditation in criminal law but that has been abandoned. You could still be disbarred of course but that is about fitness to practice rather than QC excellence.

When do people decide to hire a QC? Is it just for complex cases, or do rich people hire a QC for everything?

Usually just for diffficult cases or cases where it matters (eg. a lot at stake financially) or where the other side has a QC and there is a strategic concern that their QC will have more the ear of the Judge than your junior barrister - so "if they have one, we'll have one"

It is not unknown for the very wealthy to instruct more senior than they need but this is really against trend. It is usually the other way round. People normally want to pay as little as they can get away with so tend to instruct down. It is how you grow as a practitioner really - always doing work a bit more difficult than your level.

If need a baby junior, instruct a pupil - cheaper.
If need a senior junior, instruct a mid ranking junior
If need a QC, instruct a senior junior
If need a senior QC, instruct a baby QC
If need David Pannick QC, instruct another less expensive senior QC.

(Junior in this context just means a barrister who is not a QC - ie. a barrister who acts as a junior to a leader. It's an odd term because "a junior" strictly can apply to any one from newly qualified to 30 years experience. That is why we have the stupid term "senior junior"!)

Hopeless,

There was a TV program called Silk and I loved it as it romanticised the Bar for me .

OP, thank you for your answers. I thoroughly love it.

I object to this thread ;)

or the

It's actually not really like that, I don't think. We are not employed, so there is no direct competition for promotion as there would be in a firm. My friend's QC application has no bearing on mine, so I would be happy to provide a reference.

With respect, I think this is very naive. I accept that if you are working in a broad practice area, it may apply - if you practice crime mostly on the S.Eastern Circuit and your friend is practicing crime mostly in Manchester.

But for alot of people especially those in smaller practice areas (both geographically and in terms of specialism), it is a huge problem.

Say for example, you practice tax law - there basically three or so chambers that do this work. There is therefore a limited pool of work for silks. If Barrister 1 and Barrister 2 are the same level of call, they aren't going to be thrilled at having a direct competitor promoted to silk at the same time.

I know a few horror stories of people working out in from their feedback that they have had a fellow competitor put the boot in (in more than one case where the fellow competitor got silk in that year and the bootee did not!!).

Thanks, v interesting.

Is there a quota of how many QCs are appointed each year? Or do they appoint however many meet the criteria?

Is there a quota of how many QCs are appointed each year? Or do they appoint however many meet the criteria?

They claim not. See here at para 10:
www.qcappointments.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/QCA-Guidance-to-Applicants-2018.pdf

10. There are no quotas of any kind. All applicants are judged individually against a standard of excellence.

Forgive me for being a tad sceptical about that - they need to maintain it as a standard of excellence plus it would look weird if in one year they appointed almost 100% of applicants and equally if in another they appointed only 1%

I'm a raging cynic though so ignore me!

Sorry if this has already been asked but what areas do you specialise in and how did you ‘get into’ these areas so to speak?

Do you have a young family to juggle?