Sunday, 8 November 2009

Pupillage and internet.

I’m going to use this space to reply to an anonymous comment to my recent post about an interview (the comment extracts are in italics below). I know what the Bar is still very old-fashioned, and in the pupillage game we have to play by their rules, but… We’re still allowed to have our own opinion on things, right?Deadmau5 uses internets to keep in touch with his fans. Cool.

“…I find all of these student type blogs pretty entertaining and informative. However, they do not scream "offer me a tenancy". In fact they are quite the opposite.

That is, in my opinion, for two reasons.

Firstly, no chambers wants to take on someone who is going to tell the whole world about what goes on at chambers; the Bar whispers enough as it is. Most, if not all, chambers live by their image. An image that most have worked incredibly hard at developing and sustaining. It is no myth that all chambers have squabbles, scandals and worse, but there is an unwritten, or in a lot of cases a written, rule that such goings on remain behind closed doors. It hurts everyone if the clients find out…”

Yes, but there other channels ‘to tell the whole world…’. Like, speaking to people. Just because someone has a blog, it doesn’t mean that they will post controversial content. If they do that, then too bad. I’ve been on the internet since the age of 10, had a website since 14, and I’ve been blogging for more than 4 years now. I don’t think I posted anything defamatory, offensive or inappropriate.

Besides, if they don’t want anyone finding out about their dodgy conduct, they should refrain from it.

“…Unless you write a blog like Charon QC's, I doubt most chambers would want to take someone on who tells the internet about the goings on in their lives.”

Well, that’s too bad… And sort of archaic. I love blogging and social networking (as well as anything to do with computers and information technology… will that count against me too?). It’s Web 2.0 - a socio-technological evolution, and I am embracing it, along with millions of other people.

“Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the very fact you would run a blog such as this, in light of the above, suggests in a chambers' eyes a poor lack of judgment. Why would someone want to be so open at the risk of their future career?”

My judgement tells me that my blog isn’t damaging to my career. I have a good CV, and I haven’t been involved in criminal activity. That’s all that should matter. Blog is a hobby for me, and trust me on this – what you see here is only 1% of what’s going on in my life. I have 41 subscribers and I get around 150 hits per day. I publish links to relevant articles, tips on interviews and applications, and comment on pupillage-related issues. The content is informative, rather than just a series of personal rants (I hope).

“If you are truly anonymous, hey who cares? These are invaluable blogs for students and aspiring barristers. However, I would strongly advise that you keep your true identity secret in future.”

You can never be totally anonymous. If you don’t want consequences, don’t write anything controversial. I’m writing about my journey to the Bar and I’m not ashamed of it.

Blogging should not affect your chances of becoming a barrister, or any job. It’s like saying, if you want to become a barrister, you can’t have a mobile phone. Or use email. Or have friends.

Some places remove personal data from the pupillage applications when selecting candidates for interviews. Others try to find controversial material on the internet. It’s unfair. You should be judged by your achievements and interview performance. Facebook and blogs are personal. It’s what you do after work. What’s next? Chambers hiring private investigators to spy on potential candidates?!

 

Some interesting articles:

To Blog or Not to Blog? (How Blogging and Social Networking Can Impact Your Job Search – by About.com)

How To Web 2.0ize Your Job Search (by profy.com)

Social Networking - Legal and Ethical Issues for Lawyers and Investigators (by PIbuzz.com)

Survey reveals substantial growth in online social networking by lawyers over the past year (by Reed Elsevier)

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Fancy Dress..?! At Work?!

We’re apparently having a ‘fancy dress’ day at work before Christmas, and all departments have to chose a theme. Our team ‘collectively’ decided on Star Wars… But… I haven’t seen any of the movies, so I haven’t got a clue. Maybe I should just book that day off as a holiday.

Or maybe I should go as Queen Amidala (whoever that is):

Queen Amidala

Sunday, 1 November 2009

Solicitors’ integrity vs. SRA tolerance.

When I decided on becoming a lawyer few years ago, I went round the local solicitor firms, trying to get some work experience. I never got past the receptionist in all but one firm. In that one firm the partner invited me into his office for a chat. Turned out, he graduated from my university, and said that I could work at his firm all summer (for free, obviously). I had a great summer. It was a criminal defence firm, so I got a real insight into the Criminal Justice system, from police station interviews to  Magistrates’ Courts and Crown Courts, which was great.

The other day I stumbled across some documents on the Solicitors Regulation Authority website. This solicitor guy from my work experience had two Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearings (if not more). Apparently, the firm was taking on some conveyancing work, but wasn’t very good at it.

[a list of various allegations, relating to conveyancing practice and book-keeping – removed]

According to the Law Society’s register, this guy is still a solicitor (with some conditions on his PC), and he works as a legal assistant for the local council. At the Bar, you see people disbarred for failing to pay CPD fines. The Solicitors Regulation Authority are obviously more tolerant than the Bar Standards Board.

After all that, he’s still in the legal industry, and still holds the solicitor title. In my opinion, he shouldn't be allowed to give legal advice to people.

If he was an ordinary human being, he would have been sent to jail for fraud or embezzlement. It’s a different law for some.

Sunday, 25 October 2009

Becoming a Barrister without pupillage part 2.

When I was doing my BVC, we had a lecture from a guy who was going to become a barrister without pupillage. I even did a post about it, which was a bit vague, because I wasn’t convinced about his methods.

Accidentally, I discovered that this guy, Marc Asquith, became a tenant of Young Street Chambers in July 2009, 10 years after his call to the Bar. Since the BVC, he worked for DWF LLP and became a head of their in-house advocacy department, or something.

Here’s a PowerPoint presentation for MMU entitled ‘How to become a barrister without doing pupillage’ (4.1mb) >>

(Barrister2B did a similar guide on becoming a solicitor first, which was published on Simon Myerson’s blog)

To summarise:

  • Marc Asquith completed his law degree in 1998, BVC in 1999, started working as a paralegal in 2000, cross-qualified as a solicitor in 2004, became a solicitor advocate in 2006, practicing barrister in 2008 and got tenancy in 2009. So it took him 10 years.

What you have to do:

  • Complete the BVC (or BPTC)
  • Find a paralegal job (for at least 2 years)
  • Get a Certificate of Good standing from your Inn of Court (free if you paid the Members’ Services Fee; otherwise I think it’s around £100)
  • Get a Certificate of Eligibility from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (£400)
  • Sit one QLTT exam (Solicitors Professional Conduct & Accounts, which includes questions on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, money laundering and the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules… for more info, see QLTT FAQ; the fees are listed on their website, and range from £286 to £1,027.75)
  • Get your 2 years of relevant legal work experience
  • The Bar Council can reduce the pupillage requirement under para 1102 of the Code of Conduct (it does, however, mention something about being called to the Bar before 1 January 2001…)
  • You can get a ‘reduction’ by doing the following:
    • Training with a lawyer in another jurisdiction – up to 6 months reduction
    • Working for the European Commission in Brussels or Luxembourg – up to 3 months reduction
    • Marshalling with a Judge of the High Court – up to 6 weeks reduction
    • Working for FRU – up to 4 weeks reduction
  • And the final stage is applying to the Bar Council for reduction of pupillage with supporting evidence.

Straight away, I can see some disadvantages. It can be a very long-term and costly process; finding a paralegal job can be a problem; and you still have to find a chambers willing to take you on.

What do you think?

Saturday, 17 October 2009

Interview Fail.

Deadmau5's wrist... the truth about life ;D

Just wanted to let you guys know that I had a first-round pupillage interview some days ago, and I received the standard fail rejection letter this morning.

I won’t go into much detail, because the chambers somehow knew about the blog… Still, I think that it was inappropriate to bring it into the discussion, as it wasn’t relevant at all (unless they wanted to throw me off, in which they failed; it’s a public blog and I have a large audience). I’m proud of my blog and I love blogging. In fact, I’ll probably start putting the url on my CV to save them searching for it.

Anyway. I’m a bit upset, because I really had my hopes up (again; when will I learn?!). The thought of working for the funeral services for much longer is really unpleasant. Had my progress review yesterday, and they gave me some stupid projects for next year that I don’t want to do… But it looks like until I find another jawb, I’ll have to take part in developing some software thingy that can potentially affect the whole business or whatever… And if it works, I probably won’t get any credit for it. Actually, now that I said it, it doesn’t sound that bad (apart from the lack of credit).

So yeah. The Deadmau5 concert was out of this world, really enjoyed it. The office leaving do for a colleague was lovely; shame about the disgusting food (we settled for an indian buffet in a cheap restaurant… BAD idea).

Pupil barristers are poor. Fact.

Some good articles from Thom Dyke in The Times (who just started his pupillage at Hardwicke Building):

“Challenging the stereotype of the overpaid junior barrister”

“One of the irritations of starting a career in the law is the almost universal assumption by family and friends that all lawyers are as rich as Croesus, and as such, you can most certainly afford to buy them a drink. This assumption was fuelled recently by the news that One Essex Court, the barristers' chambers, were to pay their pupils £60,000 in their first year. But is the stereotype of the highly paid junior barrister an accurate one?…”

“The high cost of taking a stand and suing your law school”

“The purpose of a law school is to teach its students the art of litigation. It should hardly come as a surprise when some decide to try out their skills on the institution that taught them. Nonetheless, with a competitive job market, do the risks of bringing a case outweigh the potential benefits of having your day in court?…”

 

P.s. This is totally unrelated to the above, but I recently complained to my energy supplier about their terrible conduct. So as well granting my demands, they are going to send me a bouquet of flowers… How nice is that?! Power to the people! grin

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Pupillage Interview Questions & Answers.

Further to the most visited post on my blog, here’s an updated list of resources to assist in pupillage interview preparation:

Interview Tips

 Commercial Awareness / Current Legal Issues

Now playing: Deadmau5 - Soma