The Apprentice: Nottingham grad and ‘qualified barrister’ fired by Lord Sugar

By on

Elliot Van Emden drew criticism from lawyers over use of professional title

A University of Nottingham graduate who described himself as a “qualified barrister” has been fired from The Apprentice.

Elliot Van Emden has become the third candidate to be given the boot by Lord Sugar after his team was roundly trounced in a robotics task which aired yesterday evening.

The losing candidates this week, Team Vitality, decided to programme and pitch a prototype robot targeting the over 60s. However, a product name change halfway through the task and a marketing board complete with grammatical errors saw them make a measly profit of just £5,785.

Meanwhile, winners Team Graphene punted for an interactive droid that would appeal to young children, and pulled in a whopping £57,827.

Van Emden — who has completed a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and was called to the bar by Middle Temple in 2011 — found himself in the firing line when Team Vitality project manager Michaela Wain brought him into the boardroom to face Lord Sugar’s wrath.

And poor old Van Emden bore the brunt of it. “Elliot, you may be very articulate, you may be very skilled in being able to talk as a barrister, but I think sometimes people come into this process thinking that what they’ll do, is they’ll just sit back and let everybody else fall on their sword,” said Sugar. The crossbench peer continued:

“I think that your demeanour, your manner is just not up my alley. You’re not cut out to be my business partner.”

Van Emden’s departure from the show comes just weeks after he drew criticism from lawyers for describing himself as a “qualified barrister” who owned a “law firm”.

On Twitter, legal blogger Nearly Legal (aka housing lawyer Giles Peaker) claimed that the now ex-Apprentice star’s barrister claim was “naughty”. He also pointed out Bar Standards Board (BSB) rules regarding the use of the term.

On this point, Van Emden told Legal Cheek:

“My occupation on published content shows as either ‘lawyer’ or ‘owner of legal firm’ — both of which are not restricted terms. Finally, any services my firm offers are unreserved activities. At no point in my work do I hold myself out as a barrister. I hope this clarifies the position.”

A Companies House search reveals that Van Emden is registered with a company called Bridgewood Legal Limited, which appears to trade under the name QuickEvictions. Legal Cheek understands that this business assists landlords in removing problem tenants.

A BSB spokesperson told us:

“Unregistered barristers are entitled to refer to themselves as barristers, but our rules prevent them from using that title in connection with offering or providing legal services.”

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub






Get back in your box! Slave!

It’s not time for your nappy change yet!!!!



It’s waiting for Giles Peaker to strike that’s the best thing. He took this guy apart mitochondria by mitochondria. Hilarious.



Hi Giles



Loved how Sugar and his sidekicks kept referring admiringly to this guy’s “intelligence” and “eloquence” because he is a “barrister”.

He paid £20k to do the BPTC and then failed to get a pupillage. The system stinks, and recalls the purchase of officer commissions in the British Army (that ended in 1871).






Thanks for spoiling it.






My impression was not that “eloquent” and not that “intelligent”. Don’t really give a flying f what Claude thingy, Lorshger and that Wet Sham bint thought..




It’s perfectly within the rules. Non-discussion.



Quite. One does not go on The Apprentice to supply legal services.


Not Amused

This comment is not me.



This one is. Wanker.



This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.


Hear, hear! His stint on Sugar’s Apprentice is not connected with the supply of legal services.



i concur



It may not technically be holding out, but I’m not sure the rules were designed to cover going on national television and describing yourself as a barrister in front of five million people, the vast majority of whom don’t understand the vagaries of the term’s use.



Remember when he said “Lord Sugar will not fire Elliot Van Emden” hahahahahaha



Let’s be honest. He really is/was a quite awful cunt. I worry that this might take him far in the legal professions (though I really, fervently hope that it doesn’t). 🤢



Well he’s not a lawyer so I wouldn’t worry about it too much.



A not-quite-qualified lawyer who owns a law firm. Anyone else find this peculiar if not fishy?

The fact that he describes himself as an owner of a law firm and a barrister I think connects ‘legal services’ and ‘barrister’ more than those above argue.



I bought a £1 membership in The Co-operative Group.

Am I a law firm owner too?


Comments are closed.

Related Stories