The GDL covers core legal subjects only, and the LPC a handful more. Most practice areas don’t align directly with a single subject(s). It seems to be the thinking that the university stage covers enough of a foundation for people to then go on and learn the practice area with some knowledge of the approximate legals behind it.

A trainee in family might not have studied family law, but they have a working knowledge of dispute resolution, Wills, trusts, contracts, all of which are relevant to family.

Plus – even where such specialist options are offered, students can usually pick only 3 or 4, and most students at that stage won’t have knowledge of what seats they will be doing as part of their training contract, and so won’t know which to pick anyway. It really should therefore not come as a surprise that those starting in new practice areas have never studied that specific subject before..

You’re wrong. Getting a ‘run of the mill’ (whatever that means) pupillage is not easier than getting a chancery or commercial pupillage in the sense that what is required for the interview and application stage is the same. There is a ghetto-isation of the common law Bar which is not fair.

You could argue that trying to get pupillage in a specialism where advocacy is essential is actually more difficult as there is nowhere to hide and you’re either good at it or not. You can’t hide behind drafting.

It is true that those who do commercial/chancery often come from the top schools in the country, but most chambers won’t give you a look in if you’re not academically capable regardless of specialism.

I did a criminal pupillage, worked 7 days a week, was paid £50 for hours of work and £150 for a full day trial…travelled up and down the country every week, paying for tickets that my fee wouldn’t cover, and dealt with cases with no papers, instructions or conference with client, having to prep the case as I was in court doing the case…

Having clients shouting at you, going through withdrawal from drugs in front of you, getting violent towards you…

Criminal pupillage is no easy feat, I don’t know why so many people have that belief. My commercial/civil/family colleagues have a far easier time during pupillage and after qualifying than I and so did my solicitor trainee friends.

I agree with the original poster, it is far more difficult trying to become a barrister vs trying to become a solicitor. So much so that after trying to get pupillage for the 3rd or 5th year in a row, people apply for training contracts and get them in their first try. I know a few people who switched professions and now have thriving careers, meanwhile their criminal barrister-counterparts can’t afford anything and have to go into court on Saturdays – and are called ‘baby barristers’ (or junior junior barristers).

It is just as difficult to land a criminal pupillage as a commercial one in terms of what is required from you during the application and interview stage. Everyone wants to do commercial, but no one gets in unless you’re Oxbridge, top Russell Group AND you have a first and if not a first, a 2.1 with good extenuating circumstances.

I did 3 rounds of interviews all based on my advocacy ability and my answers to off-the-cuff questions thrown at me by a panel of 5 to 9 people (different numbers at different stages). There was nowhere to hide and whether you did well was proven by substance.

People tend to see crime as the ghetto of the specialisms, but it is academically challenging and complex in certain areas (granted perhaps, not the same complexity commercial lawyers face, but still complex). Most of my colleagues in chambers went to private schools, did very well academically and then chose to specialise in crime, so crime simply it is not the place to go if you can’t get into commercial per say, it attracts very talented people.

It takes a special kind of person to be able to handle the criminal justice system day-in, day-out, and most wouldn’t be able to handle it.

Don’t know why this has so many thumbs down. There is a very clear trajectory and movement toward completely de-professionalising the Solicitor profession. Even taking last 10 years alone, we’ve been going from a graduate profession + quite rigorous assessment and training toward an open – ended ‘Go and round up people with a net in the car park” system where as I understand it basically everyone is in principle entitled to or able to qualify with next to no legal let alone academic training. We already had the lowest bars to entry of most developed country in terms of training time (its much more normal for it to not only be a graduate profession, but a post-graduate one like the USA and most of EU). It always surprises me for example that many Family barristers who did the GDL will be doing specialist family work having never, ever done any study of family law. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but lowering it even further seems to serve no one, seeks to fill a demand that doesn’t exist, and will eventually significantly devalue the profession – especially in litigation and dispute resolution,

Nah it’s gone woke now

All joking aside AI , I agree . The school dinners were ghastly so we had to spend hours beforehand in the pub and then have to beg for permission to visit the WC. I was lucky to have had 2 wonderful generous and busy Family Law Pupil Master / Mistress in my 12 months so I learned a lot (and about law too) and was paid for the work I did even though they didn’t have to in 1988 . I used to tease my Solicitor trainee flat mates -“I’ll be in Court before you and qualify before you .” In those days the Bar Exams were far easier to pass than the memory test book -worm Law Society exams . My former flat mates are doing very well as Senior Commercial Partners (good luck as they are great guys) and I followed my heart and went into Criminal Practice but fortunately now retired and hope that the younger generation have the opportunity to make a living from whichever path in law they feel passionate about . I was lucky .

I think you’ve missed her point. It’s because she’s GC now and GC’s are the one who sign-off on SQE at a firm.

I enjoy your commentary, brother.

You are out of your tree if you think my previous comment stated anything other than the proposition that those with the strongest academic pedigree were the ones who opted for the Bar.

I would imagine it is the same story in other law departments at good universities across the country.

And, no, going to a good university (including Oxford or Cambridge) does not necessarilya mean that one had a privileged upbringing – a point which is almost too obvious to state.

Earn more (but have to pay chambers fees, indemnity insurance etc out of pocket), work less (in theory, but in practice the people working at top commercial sets work more because they’re self employed and it’s simply the kind of person they are). It’s a false comparison.

It’s not the life you think it is. To even stand a reasonable chance at a top set you need further education, ideally the BCL, and many have other practical experience (such as lecturing).

It is just irrelevant for the purposes of her post.

But I think this analysis ignores the fact that once your in, the bar is much less triangular than firms are. Chambers are generally fairly evenly distributed across ages from 25 – 60ish. Once you’re a member at a set no one’s really going to try kick you out unless you’re really shit or you get handsy at Chambers Xmas party.

Firms have a big need for lots of trainees/NQ/ junior associates, and (by numbers) much less need for partners. (my understanding is) people not on partner track at city firms end up getting pushed out.

Saying the the bar is more competitive on entry, ignores the fact that sols have to fight harder to stay in the business once they’re in.

Commercial junior barristers earn more, work less, qualify faster, do more interesting work, and have far more control over how they work than Kirkland NQs. Soz…

Clearly has too much time to post that nonsense up. You make a very valid point. The SRA has not jurispruduction over her.

Paragraph 1: obviously the proposition is that it is harder to become a barrister all other things being equal i.e. for the same person. It would be easier for superman to jump to the top of a building than for myself to jump to the top of a chair, but that’s not because the chair’s easier.

Paragraph two: both have competitive processes — does not mean they are equally as competitive as each other

Pls fix

Isn’t that still the case?