News

Wannabe barrister turned down for pupillage 100 times fails in High Court bid for first six exemption

By on
197

Paul Ekperigin wanted to skip first half of training based on his work experience

Paul Ekperigin

The acute shortage of pupillage spaces was acknowledged by the High Court yesterday as it dismissed an attempt by a wannabe barrister to skip the “first six” stage of barrister training.

Paul Ekperigin, who was called to the bar in 2011 but hasn’t been able to get pupillage, appealed against the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) refusal to waive part of the training requirement. The regulator had insisted that working as a lawyer couldn’t replace the first six stage of qualification as a barrister.

Rejecting the appeal, Mr Justice Holman pointed out that “there is currently, and has for some time been, an acute shortage of pupillage places such that a far greater number of people are being called to the Bar than there are pupillages available for”.

Ekperigin told the court that he had made 100 pupillage applications between 2011 and 2016 and only got two interviews. The BSB had granted him a reduction in the required length of pupillage, from 12 months to eight months overall, but Ekperigin pressed for a total exemption from the first six stage. He argued that his work experience, as a lawyer employed by Harrow and Barnet councils, should entitle him to skip the first six months of pupillage altogether.

The work involved possession claims against tenants who hadn’t paid their rent, with Ekperigin handling between 40 and 60 cases at a time and regularly appearing in court. His boss, however, admitted that the organisation didn’t train pupil barristers and that Ekperigin worked independently with minimal supervision.

The 2019 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

By contrast, a pupil barrister is supposed to “shadow” their pupil master during their first six. Holman said:

“The metaphor of a ‘shadow’ is of a person attached to their pupil supervisor as closely as a shadow is attached to the body casting the shadow. The first six months of a pupillage is not about ‘independence’ or ‘limited supervision’, but, on the contrary, about constant close proximity, so that the pupil sees or hears everything done and said by the pupil supervisor, and is indeed able to discuss it with him or her.”

The judge also doubted that an employed lawyer could experience “the sort of osmosis that is expected to take place from close proximity to a practising barrister”.

An impressed Holman did say that Ekperigin, who represented himself, had been “clear and cogent” and “demonstrated a mastery of the documents”. He wished the unsuccessful appellant “good luck in the future and in his continued quest ultimately to emerge as a fully qualified practising barrister”.

Ekperigin, a graduate of the University of Abuja in Nigeria, has a master’s in petroleum law from the University of Dundee and studied the Bar Vocational Course (now Bar Professional Training Course) at City University, according to a LinkedIn profile. He was called to the bar by Middle Temple in 2011.

There are 400-450 pupillage spots available in England and Wales each year, whereas around 1,500 take the BPTC (and have five years to apply for pupillage after graduating). Fewer than 40% of BPTC graduates will ever get pupillage.

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

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

197 Comments

Anonymous

This is a joke.

There are plenty of candidates who have made far more than 100 applications (remember now you can yearly make 20 applications on the gateway alone) and far more work experience, who would not consider taking a High Court application because it would clearly fail. Mr Ekperigin’s experience is not unusual, but his lack of judgement bringing this claim show why he is not suited to this career.

(56)(41)

Anonymous

If he was turned down 100 times at interview I would have more sympathy…

(29)(5)

Anonymous

Plenty of barristers showing poor judgement everyday, from the ‘stunningly beautiful’ speaking out to The Guardian, the creeps people report to ‘Behind The Gown’ and even the ones comfort eating to reach 200+ lb.

When did poor judgement ever stop people practicing law?

(66)(8)

Anonymous

ahem *practising

(21)(7)

Anonymous

Spot on.

But poor judgement + daddy’s important in the law or gov = pupillage

However poor judgement + real legal experience = solicitor at best

(37)(13)
(12)(7)

Anonymous

There is nothing wrong with being litigious. The law should always be argued over. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t have legal jobs.

Litigation is my bread and butter.

(27)(8)

Anonymous

Arguing the law for the sake of it is not what our court system is for. Vexatious litigation is a waste of limited judicial resources.

(21)(7)

++yrpqe

Why is this being down voted…read the CPR 1.1 you cretins

Archibald Pomp O'City

I’ve examined the tribunal judgement closely and conclude that based on the facts therein and the verdict, the claimant is a difficult person whom one would not want in one’s employ. A resentful wannabe, one who is forced to take a relatively menial role but views himself as destined for far greater things, a person with a chip the size of a log on his shoulder at all times. A person for whom line managing them is the hardest, most stressful and unrewarding part of their superior’s job.

I bet they celebrated with Dom Perignon when he left and more when this judgement was handed down.

(6)(2)

Anonymous

You obviously have no idea of how barristers practice. There is no “line management” at the Bar. Some chambers may have implemented new fangled thinking by idiots who have to justify their 180,000 salaries and titles of “Chambers Director” but in most well run chambers barristers are not “line managed”.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

I feel sorry for him.

I have always believed there is racism within the Bar, regardless of how many times this is denied or how much virtue-signalling QCs promote on Twitter about ‘diversity’. There are chambers in London with only one or two non-White faces. That’s not what most offices in London look like.

A personal denial of racism or even a judge’s decision would not be enough for me to believe that racism doesn’t influence recruitment choices.

(113)(75)

Oxford BCL

Every pupil is recruited based on merit. There is no discrimination against black applicants. Please don’t turn this into an issue about race.

(64)(97)

Anonymous

But there is discrimination against anyone who doesn’t conform to a very narrow stereotype.

(54)(9)

Anonymous

But there is in fact very real discrimination against those who do not fit a very narrow stereotype.

(26)(1)

Anonymous

This isn’t true and if you truly believe that you’re probably white.

Honestly, if the roles were reversed and white people had to apply for competitive jobs in Africa against Africans we would definitely do the same.

(9)(12)

Anonymous

You might advertise your qualification prominently, but clearly it didn’t teach you a great deal about nuanced thinking. The issue of race, class and gender at the Bar is hardly a black and white issue.

(13)(0)

Paddy Barrister

Said the ‘Oxford BCL’ modestly…

(6)(0)

loljkm8

Why do you assume that racism (subconscious or otherwise) is to blame here?

Is it not more pertinent to focus on the number of applications made versus the interviews obtained? Perhaps he just isn’t “hitting the mark” with: his applications, education, spelling, grammar etc. the list goes on.

I don’t see, at all, how the colour of this man’s skin has, or is in anyway going to, influence a chambers offering him and interview or pupillage. It’s far too easy to make the assumption that the Bar is inherently racist ergo Mr Ekperigin won’t obtain pupillage.

(27)(21)

oopsie loljkm8

*an

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Mixed race person here. I was advised by a barrister at a reception at my Inn to ‘play up’ my White/European ancestry on applications by hyphenating my surname.

I was told this would make me ‘stand out’ against other people with mainly African and Asian names.

Prejudice is real.

(89)(17)

Anonymous

Wow one anecdote. Systemic racism proven. Case closed.

(44)(51)

Anonymous

Er the commenter was replying to someone who denied the existence of racism at the bar. Of course not every barrister is racist, but some are.

Anonymous

Yes and one anonymous commenter’s post about when a bit of mild racism happened once is unimpeachable evidence. Thanks.

Hilly Foster

‘Mild racism’? Wow.

Anonymous

What’s the problem?

Anonymous

Yeah, your description of ‘mild racism’ misses the point of how awful this really is. At the time, I thought the barrister was being honest about racism behind closed doors at the Bar.

Dare you try out some ‘mild racism’ at the office today. Then argue that at least it wasn’t ‘medium’ or ‘multiple strength’ racism.

Anonymous

Please explain how systemic the racism/sexism is when a greater proportion of pupils nationwide are BAME than the population as a whole and over 50% are female?

Anonymous

Are you from a minority community? Read ‘Americanah’ by Chimamanda Adichie or ‘Small Island’ by Andrea Levy.

Minorities work their arses off just as much as anyone born in the UK. They push their kids to work hard at school because they would love for them to have access to opportunities that weren’t available in their home country.

Plenty of White people at the Bar who grew up without fathers and plenty that aren’t from England either.

It makes people angry and uncomfortable to talk about race. But the truth is that while many at the Bar are happy to talk about diversity, I don’t think they see Abdul, Chinonso or Habiba as equals they want to share an office space with or have them marry their kids.

(5)(2)

Anonymous

I don’t know if this decision was racist (I suspect that it would have gone the same way if the appellant were white). But I agree racism survives at the bar and on the bench. It’s not everywhere but it does exist.

(39)(3)

Anonymous

Total closet racism and class prejudice at the Bar, at my chambers the only tenants from ethnic minorities (Asian) all went to major public schools and Oxbridge.

(18)(7)

Anonymous

> alleged ‘racism’ in chambers
> ethnic minorities in chambers

(5)(2)

Anonymous

Yes. I always thought the people at 4NS came off as absolutely horrible in that judgement.

Wouldn’t want to know any of them.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Pretty representative of a lot of chambers of Lincoln’s Inn …

(1)(0)

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

Wow awful! imagine being in her shoes

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Oh racism definitely exists at the bar. Nowhere in the world is safe from it. However, I doubt that’s why he keeps getting rejected. If 100 applications only leads to two interviews, you probably just don’t cut it.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

Quite. There is more at stake here than career aspiration: the administration of justice. Anyone might fancy being a barrister but the profession needs to ensure that those who enter it are fit for purpose. Otherwise, those who need recourse to legal advice and representation would be prejudiced.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Yeah because the polished people at, for example, A&O have never been hauled before parliamentary select committees for endangering “justice”. An Essex Court Oxbridge educated silk and a city law firm has never been castigated by the Court for running proceedings (BCCI) which ought never to have been brought causing great expense to the public coffers in defending it.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Where’s your source that it’s ‘questionable’?

Did you assume that based on it’s geographical location?

(7)(2)

Seriously?

Yes, African institutions are not Oxbridge, nor the Russell Group.

Have you ever visited a so-called African ‘university’?…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Big up the Abuja massive.

(24)(2)

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

Big up Yes Nija excellence!! NB the article calling him a “Wannabe”, in itself says everything! He is an experienced and sucessful lawyer just like many in legal practice but not fortunate enough to complete pupilage. There are many barristers who sadly do not get half of the practical experience he has obtained. Some still go on to qualify and yes get dripped some work or none at all from Chambers and then leave when reality sets in. Clients pay for expertise but Privilage and nepotism TRUMP ability and experience – Sadly that is the way of the world not only at the bar but it is HIGHLY prevalent there due to competition AND yes discrimination.

(16)(12)

Anon

I know plenty that have gone straight to pupillage after the BPTC with a handful of FRU cases, no BCL or second language and never having been in employment before.

Would I trust them with my case? Heck no, but it’s never the client’s decision is it?

It’s always been strange to me how the CEO’s of multinational corporations employ staff from all over the world, but when their corporation is in litigation almost every member of counsel in court is White/English.

(20)(3)

Anonymous

Er

This is England and “white” is the majority heritage ethnic group…?

Maybe catch a train and visit somewhere outside of London someday

(13)(5)

Anonymous

RASCISM. Saying ethnic minorities shouldn’t be lawyers. Comment reported.

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

We know that we are in a majority Caucasian country BUT this is about fairness in selection for positions and fainess assesment of experience in the applications of waivers.

In-house pleb

Having worked in-house, if you take a look around most FTSE 250 companies, and big private companies, you will notice that there are no ethnics above a certain level. Seriously, these companies are no different even if they have interests overseas. They may claim diversity, and have a lot of black/asian people in HR teams, marketing, business development or technical roles. They may even have a Kenyan heading the Kenyan operations and a Pakistani heading the office in Lahore. But where decisions are made in London HQ, the decision makers are almost always white, and many are happy to keep it that way. Instead they will bore the crap out of you about the gender pay gap for posh white women.

(14)(2)

Anonymous

I’m surprised that no one has pointed out the irony of Alex calling someone else a wannabe barrister. Half the writers on this site are BVC grads who couldn’t get pupillage

(18)(0)

Anonymous

Just had a comment deleted which mentioned two award-winning novels detailing how Nigerians and Jamaicans have historically faced prejudice, hostility and discrimination whilst seeking to enter teaching, law and medicine. It is troubling that books are now ‘wrongthink’.

They are ‘Small Island’ by Andrea Levy and ‘Americanah’ by Chimamanda Adichie. The former is also the subject of a new play at the National Theatre.

These novels are fantastic at seeing the struggle from the perspective of minorities and not the “But I’m not racist, I gave money to Yemen!” brigade.

(30)(5)

Anonymous

I reported the very racist comments you were replying to. Probably they just deleted the entire thread.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

It’s troubling to see that those racist remarks are what the Bar REALLY thinks behind closed doors.

All the denials and whining, but the racism and prejudice still exists.

(24)(6)

Lawyer X

I wouldn’t assume that people commenting here are members of the Bar!

(14)(2)

Anonymous

How is the Bar racist when a greater proportion of pupils are from BAME+ backgrounds than the pupils room of E&W as a whole?

Someone please hexplain?

Anonymous

Let’s face it.

THE UK IS RACIST.

WE NEED SOCIALISM.

WE NEED HIGH TAXES ON CITY GREED.

VOTE CORBYN

FOR THE MANY, NOT THE FEW!!!!!

(13)(30)

Anonymous

Flawed premise. E-

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Has this judge done a first six?

Experiences vary. My first six was mostly just fetching coffee and trying to blend into the wallpaper.

Second six is very important. I don’t see any need for a six month first six – maybe 3 months just to find your way around court room

(10)(9)

Hilly Foster

Yes Holman J has done a first six.

(9)(2)

Anonymous

Prove it.

(1)(4)

Anonymous

I don’t understand why the first six can’t be with an employer though. Plenty of people do pupillages at the employed Bar now (although we aren’t supposed to call it that as we are One Bar – another big myth!). This ought to have been brought to the Court’s attention. I think once you actually get a pupillage you might even be able to get three months knocked off it for previous experience but that’s on a case-by-case basis.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

It can. So can a 2nd Six. His employer does not want to do it.

Anonymous

Employer is unable to offer it.

Anonymous

Oh dear – someone does not understand sarcasm

(0)(0)

Anonymous

I think the judge based his decision on what a first six is supposed to be. You can’t tell whether it will be good or bad so there’s little choice but to work with the theoretical.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

What if your supervisor is shit? You then spend 6 months trying not to pick up bad habits. This is especially the case at the criminal bar

(16)(0)

Criminal Pupil

I start my mornings praying for my supervisor; “forgive him father for he knows not what he does!” I’d be better off being supervised by Chris Grayling!

(14)(2)

Anonymous

Are you really a pupil? That banter was shit

(7)(8)

Archibald Pomp O'City

I’d say the banter was “authentic” rather than “shit”. Not in a good way but authentic nonetheless.

(1)(0)

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

Bingo …this is the point

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Errrrrr, on that definition of “shadowing” your pupil supervisor…

Someone better contact the GLD… If you do a GLD pupillage you are really lucky if you see your pupil supervisor more than 2 times during your first six.

Yours sincerely,

Former GLD pupil

(15)(0)

Anonymous

Most in-house pupillage don’t involve any real shadowing – GLD, local authority, solicitors firm.

This chap works at Harrow council?

I know Lambeth council offer pupillage. I do wonder how much difference there is between what a first six does at Lambeth and what this guy does at Harrow

(11)(0)

Anonymous

I was a Government Legal Service (“GLS”) pupil supervisor for 6 years. I cant speak for the GLD but my Department took 2 pupils most years – the GLS takes about 25 pupils each intake – and my pupils shadowed me at least as much as in the typical common law set. They prepared cases under my supervision, attended at court to observe me conducting cases and attended daily meetings with clients, Counsel and senior government lawyers.

(4)(1)

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

Bingo …this is the point

(0)(1)

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

Wow awful! imagine being in her shoes

(0)(0)

Anonymous

13% of the Uk population are from an ethnic minority. 15% of practising barristers are from an ethnic minority. He hasn’t gor pupillage for same reason 70% of white students do not get pupillage. There are 3 times the number of people applying for pupillage than there are pupillages. It seems a rather pointless application though. Had he succeeded he would have been no further forward as he doesn’t have a second six.

(30)(2)

Anonymous

Legal cheek deleted a comment pointing out that the statistics don’t support the popular narrative that BME applicants are discriminated against.

(9)(2)

Anonymous

But when one looks at black barristers there is terrible under representation. But the “AME” of BAME distort the figures.

(21)(0)

Anonymous

There are TOO MANY pupillages not to few. The lower end of the bar is over supplied, especially one the criminal side. I do hope this does not mean Chambers are going to be expected to increase pupillages to house hopeless charity cases.

(7)(12)

Anonymous

…said the failing barrister who should never have had pupillage.

Let everyone who passes the exams practise. If the exams are too easy, make them harder. This is the twenty-first century. There is no place for people who think that barriers to entry should be maintained to protect their own incompetence.

(6)(12)

Anonymous

You say that now, but two things would happen.

Firstly, the number of BPTC graduates would increase drastically. Why do the LPC and fight for a training contract when you can just finish the BPTC and jump straight into practice?

Secondly (and following on from the first point), BPTC graduates would all end up unemployed and starving. There is not enough work going around to justify an at least 3x increase in numbers at junior bar. People will have to fight tooth and nail for every client, and most junior barristers would not earn enough to make a living.

Thirdly, the quality of junior barristers would fall dramatically. Anyone can pay £20k and pass the BPTC. Plenty of BPTC graduates are delusional no-hopers who can barely read and write. Solicitors will avoid them like the plague, and will instruct the juniors who qualified the traditional way through pupillage as a basic quality control measure.

So in summary, it is an absolutely terrible idea.

(13)(2)

Anonymous

Somewhat similar to the way in barristers are trained in both jurisdictions in Ireland-if you pass your Bar exams you can devil.

However, it makes it extremely tough at the beginning. Too many devils and junior barristers chasing little bits of work = huge fall off in the numbers of practising juniors each year. Probably stabilises around year 10 in practice.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

I totally agree with you.
I graduated from a Russell Uni, then qualified as a solicitor in England and Wales – after ten years of ol blighty I went home to Canada where I requalified as a lawyer. I do both solicitor and barrister work. I used to think advocacy and barrister work was intimidating, but it isn’t. It’s not rocket science, devote enough time to the rules of court and anyone can do a decent job.

The real issue is finding clients that are willing and able to pay you for doing the work. You need to network and market yourself, plus choose your clients wisely, you have to think of your practice as a business. The majority of lawyers I’ve encountered lack business sense.

Anonymous

Nice assumption, and by “nice” I mean “hopelessly wrong”. I’m doing very nicely thank you. I don’t want my Chambers clogged up worth crap pupils and crap tenants to appease the “everyone deserves a prize” snowflake crowd. We are not talking “barriers to entry” in the economic sense. We are talking the basic quality standards expected of a practising barrister. Getting a law degree and passing whatever vocational course is in place this month is a piece of cake. Those badges do not mean you have what it takes to deserve a place in a Chambers.

(13)(4)

Anonymous

They don’t need to be in your chambers – don’t be so egocentric.

They should be able to practise from wherever they choose.

If you were really confident you wouldn’t try to stop others having a chance to show clients that they can offer a better service than you. As others have noted above, this approach is common in other jurisdictions. Make the examinations and assessments as hard as you like; all the better. It would be for regulators to remove those who were really below par.

(4)(5)

Anonymous

Just because you have what it takes to pass a written examination or a practical advocacy exercise in a controlled setting, does not mean you have what it takes to practice.

Anonymous

No offence, mate, but your punctuation (comma used wrongly) and spelling (the verb form is “practise” not “practice”) suck.

You have just demonstrated the problem with the current system splendidly.

I’m always suspicious of lawyers who can’t spell and punctuate because it’s something normal intelligent people pick up naturally.

Why exactly should you be a barrister and not one of these youngsters who just want a chance to show what they can do?

Anonymous

His comma was used correctly; and you should have used a comma between “normal” and “intelligent”.

Anonymous

Are you high?

(1)(0)

Anonymouse

MR JUSTICE HOLMAN: Mr Ekperigin, that is the outcome. I will not keep repeating my sympathy for you. Is there anything else that you now wish to raise or say?

MR EKPERIGIN: If I did have something to say, it will be seeking permission to appeal.

MR JUSTICE HOLMAN: Well, you cannot, because the statute says it is final, I am afraid.

Oh dear.

(23)(0)

Dr Truth QC

This is just like one of those goons who keeps appealing their degree/ unit mark. Remedy your shortcomings first – once you are in you can look to address the flaws in the system itself.

Two interviews out of a hundred applications almost certainly means your application as a whole is shit compared to your peers – many of whom have the same or better qualifications, experience and skills.

Whether they are purple or orange never comes into it

(14)(8)

Anonymous

There is already an oversupply of pupillages for the market. I do hope this sort of nonsense does not mean the powers that be try to force Chambers to offer more places, especially since these are to be funded to appease the social mobility moaners. The bottom line is that there are too many places to study for the Bar. I remember when I was that at stage at least 30% of the students really should have been taken aside and asked “why are you wasting your time and money?”

(8)(4)

Anonymous

Nope. The market is just fine. The problem is with incumbent barristers who don’t want to accept that the “closed shop” mentality is no longer sustainable.

(5)(10)

Anonymous

Nope, it is about supply and demand. There is oversupply of pupils and lack of demand for work.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Nope. There is plenty of work for those who are really good. The Bar has to start functioning like all other markets for professional services. It is not here just to provide a comfortable middle-class living for a protected minority. Good barristers have no need to fear competition.

(9)(3)

Anonymous

They don’t.

Anonymous

Thats right. Everyone knows that the level of available work has been going up by 50% a year every year. The problem is with students who don’t understand supply and demand. There are about 15,000 barristers. About a third of them do not practice full time. Of the 10,000 or so that do about 3,000 are below 5 years call. Just because you allow 1,500 people onto the course each year, this does not increase the demand for junior barristers by 50% each year. Makes no odds to me if you sit in chambers with no work. But its pointless to waste time training you, just so to watch you go bankrupt.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

With respect, it is you who don’t understand supply and demand (although I suspect this is wilful blindness).

What happens when you increase supply, and and demand stays the same, is that competition increases. The result in price sensitive markets is that price goes down. In less price sensitive markets, competition will increase on other dimensions, e.g. quality or service level. The consumer benefits.

It is far from obvious that more barristers means that all the starter barristers will have no work. In fact, the starter barristers will compete for work with established practitioners. Those established practitioners who are very good will have nothing to fear, as the experience differential will protect them. But the lacklustre practitioners will be readily out-competed by intelligent young contenders.

Unfortunately, the Bar as a whole has taken a decision to protect its lacklustre practitioners at the expense of the promising young lawyers who in a competitive market would be able to enter the profession, and at the expense of the general public who consume the services that the Bar has to offer.

This is a tragic mistake for all involved, and does not in fact serve the Bar itself very well, or even those lacklustre practitioners who under normal competition would exit the profession rather than hang on in there for dear life.

(3)(3)

Anonymous

So what’s the problem. Apply to chambers with the list of your instructing solicitors who are all going to send you work and you’ll be snapped up.

You do not even seem to understand that as the Bar is a referal profession you need solicitors instructing you not clients or you will have no work. What determins the level of work is a) How much exists and b) How much solicitors brief out. The volume of criminal work has gone down by a third. Family work is pretty much non-existant due to the removal of legal aid and PI has crashed. Chancery and commerical work remains steady. I’m sure the big banks will be queing up to instruct you in your bedroom.

Most barristers already leave the profession within the first 5 years as they do not have enough work to support themselves.

Anonymous

What your analysis does not take into account is the way chambers are run internally by the clerks and management committees which will always act to protect the practices of their chosen barristers. It will be a very very long time before any of that changes, no matter what the regulator or course providers do.

Solicitor

You still don’t get it. Solicitors are the gatekeepers for work going to barristers. There is only one reason they brief out work: money. Most legal work is dross that anyone could do. Firms employ lawyers to do the 98% of legal work they can cover internally. The partners make a profit on this as the pay the lawyers less than they bill.

But there is a certain amount of overflow dross work that it wouldn’t be worth employing another lawyer to do and so you brief it to baby barristers. If your overflow dross work is £30k a year it isn’t worth employing another lawyer to do it as the salary, NI and WPP costs of employing that lawyer are more than they bill. So you unload that non-profitable work on the junior bar. That is the only work briefed to the junior bar.

The other type of work is the small number of big cases you have where whllst they pay a lot of money, you only have a few of them every year so it wouldn’t be worth employing a silk or making one a partner to do a few big cases and so you brief a senior barrister.

I can get an actual junior barrister in a chambers to cover the dross work I need covering for £50 a day. So if the BSB authosied you to practice from your bedroom without completing pupillage are you going to undercut chambers and work for £9k a year instead of £10k. And I should use you instead of a proper barrister with insurance and supervison that I can engage for a £10k (tax deducable) cost to my firm because?

Anonymous

You obviously practice at the very lower end of the legal market. I’m talking about chambers where junior barristers between 5-10 years call can easily make 250-500k a year.

Anonymous

Yawn. Andother poster on LC who claims to make £1m plus a year as a junior barrister. You are the reason so many students pay £19k to Bar School in the hope they may be like your your fantisy.

The problem is that junior barristers do not make 250k a year. You don’t live in Crompteon Beavis and you don’t make £1m a year as a barrster, you live with yout Mum.

But I am interested, which set are you claiming to be a member of where the Juniors make 4 million a year?

Anonymous

I think you imagine there is only one person making the point that there needs to be more competition, whereas in fact there appear to be several.

Having said that, I agree with the poster who said: “You obviously practice at the very lower end of the legal market. I’m talking about chambers where junior barristers between 5-10 years call can easily make 250-500k a year.”

Your firm wouldn’t use me, since my hourly rate (as a junior) is around GBP 450, so I’m not doing your “dross work” for GBP 50 per day.

I personally support more competition because I think it is immoral to prevent young British men and women from pursuing their chosen profession simply on the basis of pupillage interviews. I am also shocked and disturbed by the number of barristers who speak with contempt for those who did not obtain pupillage. I perceive this as a variant of victim-blaming. All of us barristers (and solicitors to a lesser degree) need to appreciate that we are in a privileged position as we have a license to do what others (equally competent) are not licensed to do.

Anonymous

So whats the problem? You have all these cients desperate to send you a £1m in work. Set up as a Solicitor Advocate. They’ll all send you work and you’ll make a fortune without the need to complete pupillage. Nobody is stopping you from doing so. The reason you won;t do that is that yo have no clients and want a pupilage so that the clerks can give you wotk.

Anonymous

Je suis Francais

(0)(0)

Anonymous

What’s that then?

Is it anything like Français?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

(1)(0)

Anonymous

If he keeps going at this rate he’ll get a vexatious litigation order.

(2)(0)
(3)(0)

Anonymous

I’ve had a slow day at work today so I read the judgment. The guy sounds like an absolute nightmare. He was demanding a meeting with HR several times a month to ask for flexi-working, or for the council to bend over backwards to help him qualify as a barrister (despite the fact that it had nothing to do with them and they did not have a pupil supervisor). Every decision made by the council would be appealed to the end. This kind of behaviour would only be tolerated in the public sector.

(12)(0)

Anonymous

Always “me, me, me”. Can you imagine trying to run a council and always having to drop everything to deal with this guy’s demands?

(6)(1)

Archibald Pomp O'City

I read the tribunal judgement too. He sounds like somebody with absolutely no flair, no charisma, nothing that will propel him ahead of the crowd, one of those people with nothing more than dogged determination and the ability to wring every drop of juice (unsuccessfully) out of a complaints procedure or corporate policy.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

If at first you don’t succeed then try, try and try again.

If after 100 times you don’t succeed, get the bloody message.

(14)(2)

Cambridge LLM

It’s to do with the fact he studied in Nigeria at a less academic university compared to the Russell Group. If he studied at Oxbridge/Durham/LSE/UCL would have been a different story. He shouldn’t complaining…

(9)(5)

Cambridge LLM

*be

(3)(1)

Anonymous

Are you familiar with the academic standards in Nigeria or just making an assumption?

(5)(2)

Archibald Pomp O'City

It sounds like an assumption. Are you stating the OP is incorrect?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Have LC removed the Hine Solicitors coke article altogether??

(2)(0)

Number1Lawyer😎🤓

Objective reporting LOL!!

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.