Let's Ban Jacqui Smith

First, an apology to Blog, who I have neglected for quite a while. I have been busy with work, which is proving to be very interesting. I feel that I have got very lucky.

It was nice to be quoted extensively by Simon Myerson, even if it was to demonstrate the folly of my position. I’m still not sure that I agree with his ‘distance travelled’ idea though. I was planning to write about some current legal issue or event, but having scoured the legal press it strikes me that there is not a great deal happening.

I have a complaint about the Pupillage Portal. It involves clearing and the lack of clear instructions. Perhaps I had failed to look sufficiently hard enough, but I could find nothing to tell me why there was a question in my clearing application asking why I had chosen X particular chambers, when there was no option to choose X particular chambers. I was also under the impression that clearing applications had to be submitted at the time of normal applications – not the case apparently! But it wasn’t made apparent enough for someone of my level of stupidity.

One issue which has just struck me is a story in The Times about the list of people banned from entering the UK, seemingly on the basis of their beliefs and their willingness to vocalise them. I find the existence of such a list disturbing. Quite clearly we do not want people who come to kill and take direct action. But to stop people from saying what they believe is appalling as far as I am concerned. I would far rather have one of these Muslim hate preachers be allowed to preach whatever they liked than not. That is the essence of democracy and free speech – you cannot choose what people can and cannot say. Far more dangerous than hate speech is intolerant legislation. It is time for Smith (and Labour) to go.

Speaking of Candid...

I came across this article in The Times by Alex Aldridge writing two years ago - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/student/article1677699.ece.

I don’t know who Alex Aldridge is but he appears to have got himself some sort of journalistic career on the side of his Barristerial aspirations as he still writes in Legal Village. I wonder if he has pupillage yet. Having read about his approach to applications in The Times, I suspect he hasn’t. If he is writing sincerely, and there isn’t much suggestion that he is not, how can he possibly expect to get anywhere when he comes up with gems such as:

“Glamming up post-English Literature degree dead-end jobs takes an age.”

“As does convincingly blending fact and fiction when charting extra-curricular achievements.”

“...the truth is I’d have applied for a pupillage at Pret-a-Manger if being a "Pret barista" for 12 months was recognised by the Bar Council. Unfortunately I fear such a response may be frowned upon – meaning tedious journeying through cyberspace in a quest to find some improbable titbit of information - recent classics include the heady attraction of one chambers’ award winning intranet system...”

He also seems to think that the question ‘why do you want to be a Barrister’ can be answered like this:

“A few lines about liking public speaking, a bit about how you want to make a contribution to society, perhaps something about wanting to work with people from a range of different backgrounds.”

Has he not read Simon Myerson’s template? Because that answer just isn’t right. If I was a Barrister with Alex’s application in front of me and I had read this article I would immediately throw the application in the bin. I think the killer line is the bit about blending fact and fiction. I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t lie on my application forms. I know people who do, which is bad enough, but to then admit to doing so in a national newspaper is just plain stupid. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s joking.

Moving On

On the advice of an anonymous member of a pupillage committee, I have removed the interview questions, and will from now on cease to be quite so forthcoming with details of my own experiences at interview. It is probably for the best, although I don’t mind sharing knowledge if people are prepared to email me: pupil.pedia@hotmail.co.uk.

I shall instead talk about more general things. I have now started my new job, and it is fascinating. I’m privy to a good deal of confidential information (not for blogging), and will have the opportunity to meet some high level people in a variety of organisations. There are many property and development issues, and I will be reviewing proposals and writing reports of varying degrees. On top of that I suspect I am in for a steep learning curve in terms of organisational ability. I have my own office, which I will shortly be sharing with someone else, and the environment is old and peaceful. All in all it’s pretty good, and should be good experience for life as a Barrister.

I now need to re-jig my OLPAS form to add in some of the experiences I have had so far. I’m quite happy with the form subject to a few changes here and there, and am really hoping that I can notch up another seven interviews in the next few months. If I can’t get pupillage after fourteen, I probably don’t deserve one. My guess is that now is the optimum time for me to get interviews. I have demonstrated my abilities on the BVC, I have fairly recent work experience, I have a job which is useful, and I took the BVC recently enough for Chambers not to expect me to have gained pupillage already. By next year, I think that Chambers will begin to have doubts about my capabilities, and every year following will obviously get worse. So, I am going to make a big push this time. I have already put more effort and time into applications and can offer more than last year. I do want the end of April to hurry up though, as I am fed up of thinking what may be and want it to be.

Is Today's BVC Harder?

This article is in today’s Times –

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6094646.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

If it is true that the CPR is infinitely more complicated than its predecessor, is there a good case for arguing that the BVC as it is now is harder than the BVC from say twenty years ago? What’s required now is an intimate knowledge of the White Book, what was it like back then? Is a ‘pass’ today worth a ‘very competent’ from years ago? Or is it the case that the rest of the BVC has become easier, and what is an ‘Outstanding’ in advocacy today would only have been a ‘Very Competent’ yesterday?

Am I too candid?!

Legally Ginge pointed out on my most recent post (which has now gone) that I am perhaps being too candid in posting a list of interview questions from Chambers I have been interviewed by, and a list of Chambers to whom I am applying for this round of OLPAS. I have taken them down because Legally Ginge has scared me! Does anyone else think that those posts were going to far? I was slightly reluctant to put both up, but thought they were useful and/or vaguely interesting. I don't want hurt my chances by a Chambers taking offence at me revealing their interview questions or feeling that I'm going to reveal their secrets in some way...

Feedback

Today, I received ‘feedback’ from a Chambers which shall remain nameless. I had the interview a couple of months ago, and phoned them when I was rejected. They said feedback would be given after the interview process had been completed. I was surprised to find that they had in fact held true to their word and sent some. It was in the form of a letter, which told me the interview format, e.g. how many people would consider the application and so on. It then told me how many people had applied and how many had been invited to interview. Very helpful. It then came to what it presumably thought was the feedback. This amounted to telling me that whilst I had been very good in the interview, I had not reached the level of excellence which other candidates had reached. That was it. If that is feedback, I am a banana. And I am not a banana. I know that they had a set of criteria because I saw it in my interview. Why couldn’t they have just said, ‘you didn’t score very highly in...’ for example? Something actually useful. I will be writing to this Chambers and asking again for feedback. I suspect that I won’t receive any because I suspect that they haven’t got the record from the interview anymore. Useless.

There should be some feedback mechanism which is compulsory. How can anyone hope to improve if they don’t know where they’re going wrong. I always ask for feedback, and am routinely ignored. If I email, there is no reply. If I phone they tell me to wait until the process is over (two months away). It is no good.

Interim Careers

I have often wondered what is the best job to have in between BVC and pupillage (should I get one). I think it depends upon which area of practice into which someone wants to go, but there are plenty of examples of commercial lawyers having done death row or other criminal work before pupillage. I wonder whether a graduate management position would go down well with a criminal Chambers.

Personally, I want to practise Chancery, and in particular property. I have been stuck in deciding whether to go for a graduate management job in order to gain some practical understanding of contracts, tax, and so on, or a more idiosyncratic sort of job such as the one I have been offered today – that of personal assistant to the Chief Executive of a large historical estate – which will involve more specific property management issues, but less high powered commercial ones. I have sided with the latter. I have considered going into insurance, but it is my feeling that this is significantly more commercial law targeted, and the likelihood of obtaining a commercial pupillage as opposed to a more traditional Chancery one, is rather small. I know of course that both are very difficult.

I have been advised in the past that it would not be sensible to move away from law into a different career, and that I should be concentrating on getting paralegal work. I am not convinced about that advice. There are numerous examples of Barristers with previous careers, although I admit that most of these have not been called to the Bar, then left, then come back again. I think that showing an ability to do something else is good. And I also think that the experience of something else is also good. Further I think that if you can show that you are doing something else, and something slightly different, in order to benefit your future practice, then that would go down well. I have taken this job because I believe it shows a commitment to property and gaining an understanding from a client’s point of view some of the issues which I may eventually be looking at from a legal one. I feel that this would be better than a paralegal job - something which “everyone” does, and which puts you right at the bottom of the pile doing little more than administrative work.

There is of course the issue of narrowing down my scope too much. Although I don’t think there is any harm in having a strong interest in one area and pursuing it, as long as you can demonstrate an interest in other areas as well (which I can, I hope). All in all I think I have made the right choice, but it would be interesting to hear what other people think.