When criminal barristers talk of having to diversify in order to survive, it's generally assumed that they mean developing expertise in different areas of the law. The expectation isn't that they would, say, start up a company that charges wannabe barristers £186 a pop to receive advice on 'How to get a pupillage'. But that is what Tooks Chambers barristers Naeem Mian and Sultana Tafadar have done, enlisting their head of chambers, Michael Mansfield QC, to dish out the advice...
After being alerted yesterday on Twitter to a web page promoting an event called 'HOW TO GET PUPILLAGE : APPLYING & INTERVIEWING', featuring Mansfield and a host of big name barrister speakers, we did some research and found out some information about the company behind it, Osbourne McKenna Limited.
As you can see below, the directors of Osbourne McKenna – which was incorporated earlier this month – are Tooks duo Mian and Tafadar.
Tickets for the event cost £186.15, or £133.15 at the "early bird" rate. An additional advert for it on Tooks' website promises, amongst other things, to give attendees "invaluable tips that will give you the competitive edge in the legal market place", "find out how chambers carry out their selection procedure" and "see samples of successful and unsuccessful answers". It adds: "Whilst this seminar cannot guarantee pupillage, it will certainly help to maximise your chances of success."
Alongside Mansfield, the other barristers listed as confirmed to speak are Mian himself, his Tooks colleague Garry Green, Andrew Hall QC of Doughty Street Chambers, Blinne Ni Ghralaigh of Matrix Chambers, Nadia Motraghi of Old Square Chambers, and Carmelite Chambers' Laurie Ann Power.
Hall is chair of the Kalisher Trust which "helps talented students otherwise unable to come to the criminal Bar due to financial constraints".
Speaking to Legal Cheek yesterday evening, Mian said:
"The real story is that the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) costs students £16,000 a year. The students have a choice whether or not to come to our event, which has backing from Gray's Inn."
When asked whether the paid-for event could favour students from wealthy backgrounds, he responded:
"That is an old-fashioned and outdated argument. The event is priced to attract people who have paid in excess of £16,000 in BPTC fees, so in relative terms the sum we are charging doesn't strike me as exorbitant."
In a subsequent conversation, Mian added that a number of free tickets would be provided for students from poorer backgrounds. He was unable to confirm how many. "These have not been listed on the website for obvious reasons," he explained.
Speaking this morning, Tafadar said: "We incur our own costs running the event. It is not possible to run the whole thing for free, but we have set aside some tickets for students from less wealthy backgrounds."
News of the event follows the decision of the Bar Standards Board earlier this week to more than double the cost of the new Bar Course Application Test (BCAT), which was expected to be priced at £67 but will now cost £150.
Similar information to the type being offered by Osbourne McKenna Limited is available for free from some of the Inns of Court. For example, Inner Temple is offering its student members free pupillage application advice next Wednesday evening.
It shows how desperate things have gotten at the criminal (and family) bar. If you are on the BPTC course and spend £180 to attend this event, then you don't deserve pupillage.
Don't all the Inns do this for free? Doesn't TargetJobs do similar events at their Pupillage Fair? Don't the BPTC Providers do similar jobs (at least out on circuit?)
If you pay for this (and I doubt it'll be any different from any other talk that goes on i.e Having something to stand out on your CV, throw in a legal buzzword, show awareness of current issues, this is how the application process works) then you're a muggins.
"It is not possible to run the whole thing for free."
Oh give me a break. How bloody lazy.
It cannot be that hard to persuade your Chambers to let you use a room or two and do it for free out of the good of your heart. You could even earn some CPD points or count it as pro bono work, instead of creating what appears here to be another smarmy business enterprise.
And please, the course fees are almost always covered by a bank loan (and only cover these fees), or a well-deserved scholarship award. Yet even the best named awards average only half the fee amount.
This extortion and ignorance is mutilating fair access to the Bar.
"It is not possible to run the whole thing for free"
I am sure it wouldn't be tough if you tried though, and you could certainly manage better than £186.15
The Inns do it - Middle has weekends for this.
I am trying really hard not to point out that the Chambers involved in charging for this are those committed to human rights and politically sexy causes. Whoops, I failed.
An email advertising this event was sent to the College of Law. I thought 'hell yeah' and clicked the link only to see the price....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no way that I or any of my classmates would EVER attend an event of this nature for THAT price. This is absolutely ridiculous and Michael Mansfield is definitely proving himself to be a Champagne Socialite. Those organising the events are also creating a reputation for themselves as scamstars.
Anyone who attends this event is an idiot.
*Champagne Socialist. In my defence, I am in the middle of Civil Procedure revision on the BPTC and cannot be bothered to re-read anything I type on here. I am sure Legal Cheek readers understand my pain...
Actually I quite liked champagne socialite - it might be more apt in fact.
ROFL- The have used this to sift applications. If you go to them asking for advice you pay them and they never look at you application because if you do not know what Chambers want you should not get a pupilage anyway.
*"That is an old-fashioned and outdated argument. The event is priced to attract people who have paid in excess of £16,000 in BPTC fees, so in relative terms the sum we are charging doesn't strike me as exorbitant."*
What a ludicrous argument. Some people (like myself) saved for years in order to do the BPTC, tried for every scholarship going, every essay competition going, and work part-time in order to fund themselves through it. It's daft to think that just because you have taken the course you automatically have money to throw around.
I'd have thought better of the Chambers involved in this. Matrix even had a question on their application form last year about elitism in the profession. Glaring irony.
I agree! This is elitist, and offensive. I've also had to fight for every penny and eventually get a scholarship which doesn't even pay for me to eat. The reference to high course fees is like saying "you're already carrying 1000 lbs, so adding an extra 50lbs won't hurt". Well, yes actually, it will. The sad part is that many others are like this, they've fought hard to get where they are, and benefiting those with financial backing at the exclusion of those without is too far in an already elitist, unjust profession.
As a parting shot, Michael Mansfield graduated in the 1960's with a degree in History and Philosophy from Keele University. I'm sure he's a great barrister, but I wonder if he and others appreciate how hard it is now, compared to when they themselves decided to become barristers. If they do, I hope they're thankful.
Tooks: The event COULD be for free, you lack the imagination to make it so, or the courage to tell the truth.
I agree with the majority of the comments; this is truly absurd, elitist and, frankly, dim. I was able to do the BPTC because I obtained a scholarship that covered the fees and took a bank loan to cover living expenses, working part-time as well during the year. When I found out I'd failed the multiple-choice part of the professional ethics assessment this year, I didn't have the £60 at the time to pay for the BSB to do another 15-second scan of my result sheet to check that the grade was accurate (scholarship and loan already having been spent). Two days before the repeat assessment, I was informed that, actually, the BSB had made a mistake and had added the wrong grade to my results sheet (they kindly compensated me for having to change my flights back from my holidays, though refused, naturally, to admit they'd done anything wrong).
It doesn't really say much for the profession as a whole when the BSB charges an irresponsibly high amount for an entrance test, the results of which will probably determine whether poorer applicants get the loan to pay the painfully high BPTC fees, and now the more outwardly ethical-appearing chambers are charging silly fees for access to the profession for those rich-but-dim students who don't already have contacts in the profession through their parents.
Disgusting.
I've just logged on to the ticket web site - tickets are now £42.50. This is not a quick presentation in a spare room in Chambers. This is an 8 hour course, in the large meeting room at Friends House - which presumably has been hired. To suggest that anyone who attends "doesn't deserve pupillage" is vindictive and illogical. Let's lower the hysteria level, shall we. If I was looking for pupillage, I'd attend.
I wouldn't. In principle, the idea of Chambers making money from applicants is wrong. There is no compulsion to hold such an event (and no reason why the people speaking should not do so for free). If you aren't prepared to cover your costs - presumably on the basis that the best applicants would apply to you and the publicity would be positive - then don't do it.
Can Michael give a Victor Kiam advertorial guaranteeing your money back if you don't get pupillage?
I may have missed something, but I didn't notice Michael Mansfield's chambers advertising any pupillages, other than 3rd sixes, over the last year in Counsel magazine.
The question arises: is anyone really content to pay to attend a seminar on obtaining 1st & 2nd six pupillages run by a chambers that doesn't currently offer any such opportunities?
I struggle to see what is wrong with this. A set of Chambers is a commercial operation. I very much doubt they expect to attract more than 20 people onto this course at £186 per head - hence it would generate revenue of £3,700. Whilst they would probably get more people (maybe 50?) at the new lower 'early-bird' price of £42.50, that only generates revenue of £2,100. As TheLawLecturer points out, they've hired a room, are presumably paying for refreshments - that's going to cost a minimum day delegate rate of £75 per head, and probably more at a weekend.
Someone above points out that it's not mandatory to attend this sort of course. Precisely. Market forces will drive it, and indeed market forces have forced the organisers to drop the price from £186 to £42.50.
I dislike the sense of entitlement displayed by some of the posters above. You do not have a right to a pupillage. You might learn something useful at the course, or you may not. That's a judgment call for you to take. If you think the Tooks course will offer little that's not available elsewhere for free, don't go. But don't attack a Chambers which is seeking (albeit spectacularly unsuccessfully) to shore up some of the diminishing revenues available to the Bar.
Perhaps some of the above posters should reflect on this: if a reputable Chambers such as Tooks is driven to this sort of commercial offering, things must be pretty dire. Do you really want to be joining such a profession? Are you prepared to put up with the many years of self-sacrifice that being a junior tenant in most Chambers entails? Hard times don't end when you complete the BPTC.
Of more interest is whether the organisers are refunding £143.50 (£186 - £42.50) to those 'early birds' who booked a place before the bad publicity caused the lower 'early bird' price to be introduced. LEGALCHEEK - why don't you ask them?
In fact, having just been on the website for their venue - http://www.friendshouse.co.uk/large-meeting-hall - I see the 'large' meeting room has a capacity of 1,100 people and a day delegate rate starting at £36 (although that, I suspect, would be with a pretty hefty guaranteed minimum number).
So my assumption that they were expecting only 20 people at £186 is plainly wrong. On the basis the 'small' meeting room takes 200 people, one can infer Tooks anticipated more than 200 attending. Based on £186 per person revenue, and cost of (say) £50, and deducting the VAT element, leaves a profit of about £100 per person. Multiply that by 200 delegates, and it's a nice little profit. Multiply it by 1,100, and it's even better!
I'm off now, to set up my own seminar for Bar students on how to get pupillage...
CORRECTION:
Gray's Inn has been cited by Mr Naeem Mian as having given its backing to this enterprise. This is completely incorrect. The Inn was asked to circulate the advertisement, which upon discovering the cost to students, it did not. Gray's Inn offers its students, at no charge, advice on covering letters, CVs, pupillage applications, etc. In addition, and at no cost to our members, we will set up a mock pupillage interview for a student who has a confirmed pupillage interview scheduled at either a self employed or employed organisation. Students have an incredible amount of money invested in their pursuit of a career at the Bar. The Inn does all in its power not to add to that financial burden, but to help ease the burden wherever possible.
The people running this course have no interest in helping people and wish to line their own profits. It is a disgrace that Tooks Chambers is even countenancing this, but not surprising.
I have it on good authority that some of the guest speakers did not know students were being charged to attend. I am aware that L Power, G Greene and A Bell, all named speakers offer their advice through different agencies for free. Moreover I am reliably informed that each was under the impression that this was not a paid even. It seems the students were not the only people who had the wool pulled over their eyes.
Any student needing this sort of advice should go to their Inn or seek free or nominal fee courses.
Any barrister charging that sort of prices to students should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Clearly they are either independently wealthy or they have forgotten how hard it is to be a student trying to obtain pupillage.
Due to sponsorship being withdrawn at the last minute, and having made commitments to launch this event, the initial price was in excess of £100. The ticket price had originally included not only the one-day seminar, but also intensive, follow-up, small group training sessions post-event, as advertised on this site. (Due to funding restraints, this service is no longer available).
Due to unnamed sponsorship that we seemed to have easily replaced we decided to try and make several grand for our newly minted Ltd company. Now that the negative publicity has resulted in us being shamed into offering this for free, we have removed the intensive follow-up session due to funding restraints which we didn't have when we wanted to charge you £130 a pop, wouldn't have had if we had retained the earlier unnamed sponsorship, but can't afford with the new sponsorship.
Over the course of this weekend negotiations that had been ongoing were concluded. The result was that we were able to offer this seminar for £42.50. In order to further reduce this cost, we have today secured additional sponsorship from Ahmed & Co. Solicitors with the result that attendance at this seminar will now be free.
We realised that £130 was pie in the sky so we tried it on at £42.50 (£46.50 would have been more poignant but money really is too tight to mention) and that still caused a storm so this afternoon we decided to charge nothing. Much like everyone else who provides this sort of advice.
Despite being a recently established commercial organisation, this particular project was never envisaged as being one aimed at generating profit. Indeed, we have provided in excess of 100 free tickets (before securing sponsorship) to various educational institutions (including the various BPTC providers) to be distributed at their discretion to students whom they consider may find the fee prohibitive.
Come on, who hasn't started a Ltd company with a bizarrely unrelated name three weeks before an event with the sole purpose of not generating a profit...
To be honest, nobody is forcing you to hold this event. If you can't afford to run the event, then don't do it. Instead f0cus on advising clients, and once you have saved up 10% of your salary, you can use that money to pay for the event so that student can attend for free.
Surely life at the Bar isn't so tough that you have to supplement your income by charging students sky high fees for information that is freely available online and at the Inns. If Micheal Mansfield is defaulting on his mortgage, he should refinance
In order to enter the Bar, we have all had to complete rigorous academic training, and quite rightly so. However, this training does not come cheap, and to charge a fee at the level proposed for this event flies in the face of the very creditable recent progress made by the Bar in widening access and ensuring that a career as a barrister is open to all.
In my view the Bar is a meritocratic profession at heart. However, we at the Bar cannot escape the fact that the profession is seen in some quarters as not being sufficiently representative, and this criticism has been used as a stick at which to beat the Bar for some time. We at the Bar do ourselves no favours in this regard by attempting to charge £175 to students in an attempt to cash in on their sheer desperation to gain pupillage. As the number of pupillages dwindle, this kind of profiteering could very easily be seen as exploiting a vulnerable market.
Most of us have either completed an LLB or a degree in a different field - for arguments sake, let's assume we have incurred approximately £10-18,000 in completing our undergraduate degree. Those like me – who haven't opted for a LLB – go on to do a GDL which can cost within the region of £6-10,000. Some of us then contemplate acquiring an LLM, to 'distinguish' ourselves from our contemporaries; this costs £3-12,000. After spending £19-40,000, we then face the penultimate academic stage - The Bar Professional Training Course which costs a whopping £8-16,500.
That gives us a grand total of £27-56,500 – and bear in mind that this doesn't include the cost of living, accommodation, books etc. To reach this stage we have either accumulated a string of debts, worked ourselves to the bone, and/or have had parents who have sacrificed their life savings, remortgaged their home, and worked two jobs or overtime.
We then confront the dreaded and most daunting hurdle – seeking pupillage. We are repeatedly advised – now that we are equipped with the academic training – that we must obtain practical experience. This can consist anything from voluntary work at charities, NGOs, CABs, advice surgeries, and international stints to working as paralegal, advocate and so forth. Now, let’s all be honest, the money is not great. But for me and many more like me, we are not in this profession for the money; job satisfaction is the key and only motivation. Indeed, taking into account the legal aid cuts that are due to take place next month, the Bar is faced with a bleak and uncertain future for all.
My point is, I'm not saying it is impossible – nothing is impossible – but it certainly makes it difficult, to say the very least, to even reach this stage. I understand and agree that we are striving to enter a profession which requires hard work, determination, resilience, integrity, intellectual rigour and dedication; but the increasing financial constraints only serve to provide ammunition for those who would say that membership of the Bar is a privilege open only to the more affluent members of society today.
Now more importantly, as aspiring barristers, we look up to senior barristers to encourage and support us as to the realities and possible avenues of entering the Bar. We do not expect to pay an 'exorbitant' amount, namely £175, for an opportunity that should be if not free, then accessible to all. I would like to emphasise at this point, this is in no way whatsoever, a criticism on part of the many keynote speakers such as Michael Mansfield QC, Jo Sidhu QC and Andrew Hall QC who sacrificed their Saturday to provide free advice and support to individuals such as me. Indeed I am certain that if we all had the privilege of meeting such individuals, they would have been more than willing to provide such advice in the absence of any event. Neither is this a reflection upon the ethos of leading chambers such as Tooks and institutions such as the Criminal Bar Association. If anything it is the contrary, organisations, chambers and individuals such as those inspire barristers such as myself who are seeking pupillage, that there is a glimmer of hope – that the notion that the Bar is open to all is still prevalent today.
However, £175, really? Honestly, that is a 1/4 of my monthly salary, as for many more individuals ... Now I understand and agree that events of this nature can have a quasi-commercial character to them, they incur costs that need to be met, and where people give up their time free of charge to talk at them, that is a matter of their generosity and not something that should necessarily be taken for granted.
Nevertheless, how is £175 in any way justifiable as a reasonable cost for a ticket/ event providing advice on how to obtain pupillage? Let’s play devil’s advocate here and break this down logically: how much would holding an event like this actually cost? The likely estimation of costs would entail venue hire on a hourly rate of £60-100; light snacks and refreshments at £200 - 500; catering at £100-250; advertising at £100 - 250; and miscellaneous costs of £100- 250. Of course, keynote speakers spoke free, so that was one cost that did not need to be factored in. Now if I am missing something, by all means I am open and amenable to this, however surely this couldn't have cost more than £980 - 2050? To charge students £10-25 or even £30 is reasonable and justifiable: we all recognise that events such as these do require money and generate costs, but £175? Should one ponder, has a blatant bottom line approach been taken?
Now let’s go on to deliberate an approximate estimation of how many pupils, who indeed had the initial funds requested, to attend what was an "invaluable opportunity and event" as exclaimed by a fellow friend. We all know it’s that time of year again, and we are all anxiously preparing our applications for pupillage. So let’s estimate that 150- 200 individuals attended, that would generate £26,250 - 35,000 in return. That in turn yields a staggering estimated profit of £24,200 - 32,950. Wow - was a scholarship "originally" advertised as a surprise award to holders of the golden tickets?
Yes the cost of this event was "originally" £175, then reduced to £80, to a further £42.50 and eventually made free of charge, with a full refund to all who were vulnerable enough to pay. But this event could have easily been sponsored and supported by all - this is indicated by City Law Solicitors, Tooks and various keynote speakers involvement. Indeed, I have also collaborated in holding such an event in the past, and was pleasantly surprised at the amount of institutions, barristers, solicitors and Inns of Court who were willing to freely commit and support such event without any persuasion. So why was this event "originally", and one places emphasis on "originally", advertised for £175 when all these opportunities were readily available, or perhaps even confirmed from the very outset? Hmmmm.
Lastly, although it is conceded that this event was advertised as being priced at £42.50, and then eventually free, individuals such as myself were prevented from the opportunity of such an invaluable experience. Why? Because we did not have the initial funds to attend and/or by the time that we were aware that it was free, it was sadly too late. As previously stated, taking into account financial constraints, do we now need to spend £175 for advice on how to obtain pupillage? What must we do next, sell our kidneys to be afforded such opportunities?
One musters the courage to question the unanswerable, the following three-fold questions:
1. IF the benefit of a scholarship was "originally" advertised as part of this event, justifying the original sum of £175 then why wasn't and hasn't this "originally" been promoted by keynote speakers, organisations and students?
2. If sponsorship was secured at the very outset of this event then why were tickets still priced at £175?
3. Why weren't obvious sponsors who indeed committed to such an event approached from the very outset?
Being an individual who possesses an indomitable amount of passion and determination, I would like to conclude on this note: notwithstanding all the pressures and financial constraints, I and, I am sure, others like me, will not be dissuaded from pursuing a career at the Bar, and will continue to fearlessly fight for the honour, to proudly someday, call ourselves barristers.
By
An aspiring Barrister
Disclaimer: It is vehemently submitted that this commentary does not intend to discredit or disparage keynote speakers, institutions, chambers, organisations and others.
It's now free
The initial price of the event, and understandable controversy surrounding it, was extremely unfortunate, as the event itself was fantastic. I only decided to go once I found out that it was free, and it was much more useful and enjoyable than I thought it would be. I was worried that it would be along the 'make sure you get some work experience' vein, but the morning of 'tips' was actually very informative, with each barrister giving an insight into the selection process of their chambers. Lots of advice was given which I hadn't already thought about. Perhaps as a BPTC student applying for pupillage you might already know these things, but I'm doing the GDL and am not applying this year, so as an introduction it was brilliant for me. The afternoon comprised of a talk from Imran Khan about why we should all be solicitor-advocates instead (which was brilliant, obviously), and suitably-inspiring speeches from Michael Turner QC and Michael Mansfield QC. Basically, the event was great. If they do more (for free) I would encourage everyone to go.
This event is definitely the most beneficial pupillage event I have been to. I am also a GDL student and am in the process of applying both for pupillage and mini-pupillage, in which this event has strongly helped. The day consisted of speeches from a panel of reputable barristers who outlined in a clear and understandable format, the structured criterion in which to form the foundation of your application. I feel one of the most beneficial aspects of the event, was the chance for students to interact on a one to one basis with the barristers, who were more than willing to support and advice on a personal level. I am genuinely so glad that I went to this event and will keep up to date in case any similar events happen in the future. From another fellow student, I encourage you all to do the same!