Templates can be applied to internal announcements too...

There is more from Wigapedia here.

Follow @Wigapedia

Barrister-turned-solicitor Frances Brough is facing jail — again — for defrauding the Law Society out of more than £22,000 in bogus travel expenses.

Brough has only recently been released from prison after receiving a six-month sentence in October for attempting to bite police officers and spitting in her elderly parents' faces during a violent row over a will.

Two years prior to that she received a community order for apparently biting the arm of a neighbour, to which she is reported to have "hung on like a dog".

The 41 year-old had initially denied the nine counts of fraud against her, relating to claims made to the Law Society for rail travel, accommodation and care allowance costs totalling £22,847 between January 2009 and July 2011.

But having been due to stand trial, she admitted a single fraud charge reflecting the overall criminality and the individual counts were dropped.

Brough's sentencing has been delayed until March 28 to allow for a psychiatric report to be prepared. In the meantime, she has been remanded to Durham prison and, unsurprisingly, been suspended as Law Society Council representative for the North East of England.

The decision to prepare the psychiatric report comes, according to The Journal, after allegations from Brough's parent's that she harassed them again over the Christmas period, amounting to a suspected breach of a non-molestation order in place since the events in October.

At the hearing at Southwark Crown Court on Friday, Judge John Price reflected on Brough's tragic last few years: "You hear some sad cases, don’t you? I see the defendant organised the ball at Gray’s Inn a few years ago."

An Oxford University law student has got the better of UKIP member Godfrey Bloom after the gaffe-prone MEP seemed to try to mock him for his disability.

During a debate at the Oxford Union last week — a video of which was released yesterday (see above) — Bloom interrupted a speech by Merton College's David Browne to mockingly inquire, "Are you Richard III?" The question has been widely understood as a gibe at Browne's disability.

Unfazed, the law student hit back barristerially with a Thatcher quote, “I always cheer up immensely if someone attacks one personally, as it means they have run out of arguments". Loud applause ensued.

In the aftermath of the debate, Bloom cosied up to Browne for a drink and yesterday went so far as to write a piece for The Oxford Tab paying tribute to the "estimable David Browne who I suspect will make his mark in the law".

In the article, Bloom claimed he made the comment because of Browne’s physical resemblance to Richard III.

Of his encounter with Bloom, Browne is quoted as saying: “I didn’t think it was a very nice thing to say...I wasn’t happy with the remark...[But] It’s fair to say that we did get on well. We didn’t bring it up again. He’s a very interesting man to talk to.”

Bloom has previously caused outrage for saying that the UK should stop sending aid to "bongo bongo land" and calling a roomful of women "sluts".

Top London commercial barrister Sudhanshu Swaroop has tied the knot with a Bollywood celebrity. Swaroop, of leading set 20 Essex Street, married Raageshwari Loomba at a ceremony in Mumbai on Monday...

Loomba, 36, has appeared in a host of Bollywood films and has released several pop albums. She has also been an anchor on MTV and a reality TV contestant.

Swaroop, 40, has a similarly glittering CV, with degrees from both Cambridge and Oxford complimented by an appearance in The Lawyer 'Hot 100'. In addition, he has developed an eye-catching human rights sideline that has seen him act in a challenge to the US military commissions trying Guantanamo Bay detainees, appear in the seminal UK case on whether evidence alleged to have been obtained by torture is admissible to detain terrorist suspects, and participate in several human rights missions abroad.

Such work was one of the things that drew Loomba to Swaroop after the couple met in 2012:

"The fact that he cares for people and wants to make this world a better place makes me deeply happy," she told Bollywood Mantra, adding: "It was awe-inspiring to learn about his work in Afghanistan, Darfur, Syria and the UN."

There are photos of the wedding here.

Most law students would consider the prospect of being excluded by their university to be a nightmare. But Michael Segalov is aware that Sussex University's decision to suspend him last month for his part in a protest against privatisation on campus is a potential career opportunity.

Having won public sympathy for his plight, Segalov and the other members of the "Sussex Five" scored a major coup two weeks ago when superstar QC Geoffrey Robertson and a team of other Doughty Street barristers agreed to represent them in the disciplinary case that will decide whether or not they are expelled.

Scary stuff, but also a chance to get some pretty amazing legal work experience, as Segalov (pictured below) recognises...

"We are interacting with barristers on a regular basis, we're at the forefront of a legal campaign...I had to sit through the first disciplinary campaign, basically being a defendant using the law to fight for justice," he told Legal Cheek.

Segalov adds that in a very competitive legal job market evidence of his passion about law and civil liberties will hopefully help him to stand out.

"I'm not doing it for that reason, but I'm getting to the point where I have to consider my future," he says.

And for anyone suggesting that Segalov's run-in with the Sussex University hierarchy will mark him out as a potential troublemaker to potential legal employers, the wannabe public law barrister has a nice response:

"You can read in the papers that lawyers are taking strike actions in protection of legal aid to ensure people have access to justice. This idea that lawyers aren't interested in putting themselves on the line to some extent to ensure that justice is served is outdated if it ever was true," he continues.

Segalov himself is involved with the movement to protect legal aid, spearheading a group for law students protesting against the government's proposed cuts. Anyone interested in getting involved should email StudentsforLegalAid@outlook.com.

Listen to Legal Cheek reporter Thomas Connelly's interview with Segalov in full in the podcast below.

Follow @Stdnts4LegalAid

When she became a lawyer, Taryn Lee QC thought that she was taking a very different path to her publican parents. But now she's not so sure...

When I was 18 months old, my gas-fitter/plumber father and my secretary mother decided became the tenants of a rather large public house on Cleethorpes seafront for a well-known brewery.

From being a very young child I watched my parents literally work every hour possible in the pub while raising a young family of three girls — I was the youngest and my sisters would say by far the most spoilt!

When I first started Bursar Street Infants school I had to come home for my lunch and my mother used to cook my dinner in the microwave (incredibly futuristic at that time) while serving behind the bar. I would eat my lunch and watch the programme 'Crown Court'. Bizarrely, I can still recall and hum the theme tune to that programme.

More importantly though, it awakened my interest in all things legal. I was fascinated by these people in their very strange wigs and long flowing black gowns, who stood up in a very scary room (or at least to a four year-old it looked that way; it still does sometimes!) and told somebody else’s story.

By the time I was seven or eight years old, people would ask me what I wanted to do when I grew up and I would say I want to be a barrister. This was much to the amusement of my family, who had no idea where this had come from, never mind how I actually knew what one was.

I held onto that dream throughout my childhood and there were many times when I thought my dream might be thwarted, either through not being bright enough, or not being from the right background or just due to a simple lack of finances.

However, my parents always said that you can achieve anything if you are willing to put the hard work in and that great things don’t just happen; you have to strive for them. They never once told me to give up, but when I didn’t quite manage something they would just simply say, “If you tried your best then no one can ask anymore of you than that”. That phrase and those words have been so powerful throughout my life because I know that when I haven’t quite achieved something in the way I would have hoped, it was invariably because I hadn’t given it my best shot. I approach everything with that mantra and check against myself — have I done my best?

I had the notion that if I became a barrister I could speak up for others and help people in crisis (legal crisis, that is) and perhaps would have a nice life, in which I wouldn’t have to work every single hour like my parents had done throughout their lives.

How wrong I was! In many ways this profession is just like the one my parents entered into when I was such a small child. Working all hours, being friendly and supportive to those who were having difficulties and trying to dispense good advice, even when you have your own worries and pressure. The only difference between the advice I dispense and that which my parents dispensed to countless customers is that mine is legally based and theirs was just plain old wise, good common sense advice on life. And good advice it was too: “Always put your make-up on, especially when you feel low because it will make you feel better and anyway, nobody wants to see a miserable face!” That was my mum’s motto and I have always tried to follow it.

My parents enjoyed their time in the pubs even though it was incredibly hard work and involved anti-social hours. I thought I would avoid that in my own profession but I haven’t. It’s fair to say that my chosen career and the demands it makes on my time has been a source of huge frustration for my children at various points in their lives, when they simply cannot understand why I suddenly have to stay at home and work or miss family holidays (more than once) because a case has overrun. If you ask my children what they want to do when they get older their immediate response is “not a barrister!”

One of the things that I most love about the profession is the sheer commitment and dedication that each barrister shows to each individual client they represent. The strength of the justice system and the reason it is so universally admired and replicated around the world is, I believe, founded in the integrity and fearlessness with which we represent and defend our clients and the high esteem and well–earned respect with which we hold the judiciary who uphold the rule of law. To be a part of that justice system, even in the face of all of the challenges that are presented to us on an almost daily basis, is really something very special and unique. Even now, over 20 years into my chosen career, I still pinch myself because I can’t quite believe I am here.

If I knew back then what my life would be like now — not so different from my parents — would I still have chosen the Bar? The answer would be a resounding yes. And if I could think of one piece of advice that has stuck with me throughout my life it’s a Walt Disney quote that my parents used to like which my daughter has inscribed on her bangle: “All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them”.

Taryn Lee QC was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 1992 and took silk in 2012, the same year she became a bencher. She is joint head of chambers at 37 Park Square in Leeds and chair of the Bar Council’s Social Mobility Committee.

Follow @tarynjlee68

The full 'If I knew then what I know now' series is here.

Lawyer and blogger David Allen Green has had enough of tiresome legislation and meddlesome courts...

Government and parliament waste too much time passing legislation. Last year there were 31 public acts of parliament and nearly 3,000 statutory instruments. Whitehall and Westminster would be better employed doing other things.

And all this statutory output is subject to the tiresome jurisdiction of the courts — the High Court will quash delegated legislation and use “human rights” jurisprudence to interpret the word of parliament out of recognition. Something must be done.

So this Act is a modest proposal for our legislators and public officials. Once it is passed, no other legislation will ever be necessary and the meddlesome courts will be neutered. This would be a Good Thing.

Let’s start with Section 1:

“The Crown shall have the power to do anything, and nothing a Minister of the Crown does will be ultra vires.”

That should shut up the High Court for a while with their judicial review decisions.

But adding a second section to the Act will make sure that Ministers will act in the interests of all of us. So for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2 provides:

“The power given by Section 1 of this Act shall include the banning of things by any Minister of the Crown.”

But what things can be banned? Well, here’s Section 3:

“The things to be banned referred to in Section 2 of this Act shall be the things which a Minister of the Crown says are bad for us.”

Which in turn leads us to Section 4:

“What is bad for us for the purposes of Section 3 shall be determined by a Minister of the Crown with regard either to (a) headlines in the tabloid press of the day and/or (b) the headlines the Minister of the Crown would like to see in the tabloid press tomorrow.”

Section 5 will then provide:

“Any person

(a)  voicing opposition to a determination made under Section 4 of this Act; or

(b)  acting in breach of a ban made under Section 1 of this Act,

shall be deemed to not care about the children and/or to be soft on terrorism.”

The Act should also include the following power at Section 6 so that any emerging issues can be addressed:

“In the event something must be done, a Minister may at his or her discretion choose a thing to do, and the thing chosen shall be deemed as the something that must be done.”

This discretionary power, however, is subject to Section 7:

“The thing chosen under Section 6 shall not have any rational or proportionate relationship to any intended objective.”

Section 8 will provide:

“There shall be crackdowns, announced from time to time by press release. Any crackdown under this Section 8 shall not endure more than one day after the press release in which it is announced.”

Section 9 further provides:

“There shall always be new penalties. And these penalties shall always be deemed tougher than the previous penalties and so shall be called ‘tough new penalties’ until superseded by the next ‘tough new penalties’ when they become 'the old ineffective penalties'. However, any ‘tough new penalties’ under this Section 9 shall have no greater effect than ‘the old ineffective penalties', even if announced as part of a crackdown under Section 8.”

And Section 10 puts the Human Rights Act in its place:

“The Human Rights Act 1998, and especially section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with this Something Must Be Done Act 2014.”

Finally, Section 11 of the Act shall set out its extent and application:

“This Act extends beyond the rule of law.”

David Allen Green is a lawyer and journalist. He blogs at the Financial Times and Jack of Kent.

Follow @JackofKent
Image by Graeme Maclean via Wikimedia Commons on a Creative Commons license.

Nigella Lawson's journalist brother Dominic has mocked the "(impressive) rear end" of the barrister for his sister's former personal assistant in the recently-concluded Grillo trial.

Writing today in the Daily Mail, Dominic Lawson appears to have found the winning performance of 4 Breams Buildings barrister Karina Arden hard to accept, forcing him to resort to a personal insult.

Fellow chattering-class member India Knight subsequently added her enthusiastic approval to Lawson's nastiness.

I like how Dominic Lawson's Mail piece today makes sneaky ref to Grillo lawyer's giant arse.

— India Knight (@indiaknight) December 23, 2013

Stay classy, #TeamNigella.

WaitroseLaw returns with the final instalment of her festive fable (you can read the whole fable in one place here)

PART FOUR

The Spirit led Scrooge silently through a tangle of streets that he did not recognise. Scrooge soon lost any idea of where they might have been. At last, the Spirit paused at a forbidding building on a bleak, windswept street. Outside it, groups of disreputable-looking characters stood in clusters, smoking cigarettes.

"What is this place?" asked Scrooge, his voice unsteady. The Spirit made no answer, but inclined her head towards a sign reading 'Inner London Crown Court'. Recalling the ill-omened retendering of the catering function at that accursed place, Scrooge suppressed an involuntary shudder, but followed the Spirit inside.

The Spirit led him to a dilapidated courtroom. It was altogether ordinary; a dusty, rather small room, where Justice ran its course amid polyester suits and the faint smell of Dettol. Yet where Scrooge had expected to see be-wigged barristers and their note-scribbling instructing solicitors, there were only computer screens. He glanced questioningly at the Spirit, who pointed instead to the dock.

Scrooge followed the Spirit's gaze and felt a thrill of horror freeze him to the spot. For it was he himself who stood there; stooping, greyed, though still miraculously smooth of forehead. He had no time to contemplate the wreck of his looks, however, for the courtroom was suddenly full of people. Clerks in headsets shuffled in and sat before the computer screens, greeting each other and laughing. A suited man sat in the judge's seat and brought the room to order.

"Auction number 3200176/Scrooge is about to begin. Ladies and gentlemen, you have ten minutes to submit your bids to represent the convict — oops, sorry, accused — on charges of expenses fraud."

Immediately, the room filled with voices and the bleeping of screens. Scrooge could not stop himself from shouting, "It was all entirely within the rules! This is a travesty!", but nobody paid any heed to his protestations.

"50 quid!"

"I've got 40 over here!"

"There's a plumber in Swindon who'll do it for 30 and sort out the heating in here for free!"

The man in the judge's seat chuckled. "Deregulation really has been a marvel, hasn't it? A chap last week managed five guilty pleas and fixed the vending machines, all in one afternoon."

After a few more minutes of hubbub, the room become quiet once more as the man in the judge's seat spoke again.

"Sold, to bidder no.008445, webuyanycase.com, for £5.99 plus 10% off the next one. Mr Scrooge, you will have five minutes to confer with your legal advisor before the trial of this matter begins." An usher handed the elderly Scrooge a mobile phone, which he held unsteadily to his ear. After a few minutes, the judge asked him how he wanted to plead, and he said, a little uncertainly, "Guilty".

"Where's my lawyer? Why aren't they here yet?" Scrooge asked the Spirit, but she simply shook her head and beckoned him to follow her once more. They went down to the cells, where Scrooge saw his older self weeping on a narrow bed as a prison officer took a note of his belongings.

"Spirit, are these things that will be, or that may be?" Scrooge asked the Spirit, terrified. But the remorseless Spirit made no answer. The court building flickered and faded around them and Scrooge found himself in an anonymous-looking office, full of tiny, cheap-looking desks. All were unoccupied, save one. To his horror, Scrooge recognised Tiny Tim, now much older and thinner; rheumy-eyed and grey-whiskered. He opened his desk drawer, took out a whiskey bottle, and took a long, resigned gulp from it, before returning to his pile of papers.

Scrooge felt tears prick his eyes. "Spirit!" he cried, reaching for the Ghost's arm. "Let this not be so! I swear, I shall heed what I have seen this night! I am not the man I was. Only let me be spared!"

Yet even as he reached to touch the Spirit, he perceived that it was shrinking and changing before his eyes, until it was no more than his own bedpost. Why, and it was his own bed, in his own lodgings; no cheerless prison cell! Scrooge heard the ringing of bells and sounds of cheer from the street below, and realised that it was Christmas Day and that he had been given that most precious of gifts, the chance to make amends.

From that day onward, no man celebrated Christmas as heartily, nor did more to uphold the cause of justice, than Mr Scrooge. Poor Cratchit got a raise, much to the delight of his wife, and was able to buy a real organic turkey for his next Christmas dinner. And, best of all, Tiny Tim was able to stay at the criminal Bar, thanks to a surprise decision to reverse legal aid rate cuts and a well-timed stay at the Priory.

A NOTE TO THE READER

As the observant reader may have realised from the happy ending and sudden change of heart on the part of Lord Chancellor Scrooge, this piece and the characters in it are entirely fictional. In fact, the future of legal aid remains very much in the balance. If you'd like to know more about it, have a look at Justice Alliance, the Criminal Bar Association or any number of equally good sources. Also, Merry Christmas!

The full Publicly Funded Christmas Carol is here.

WaitroseLaw is a lawyer with luscious organic selection, impeccable ethics and dinner party skills. She is not affiliated with or authorised by Waitrose.

Follow @WaitroseLaw

A rookie barrister has become embroiled in a very public war of words with King's College London after it terminated his honorary senior lecturer position over concern about a business he runs charging students for help appealing their exam results.

Daniel Sokol, who was called to the Bar in 2011 after several years working as a university lecturer, has been operating Alpha Academic Appeals alongside his fledgling legal career as a pupil at One Crown Office Row and now as a tenant at 12 King's Bench Walk.

But the company, which charges students £500-£1,000 for help in exam appeals, has attracted criticism for encouraging a litigious culture and making a profit from students.

Concerned about being perceived to be associated with Alpha Academic Appeals, King's College wrote to Sokol in November to inform him that his honorary senior lectureship in medical ethics and law was to be terminated.

Today Sokol, 35, has hit back with a stinging missive in Times Higher Education in which he quips that those who read King's letter to him "might have been forgiven for thinking that I had set up a brothel for students, with an endless supply of class A drugs."

In the article — which can be read here — Sokol goes on to argue that it is unfair to prevent students obtaining legal representation and that it is healthy to have lawyers involved in the exam appeals process.

"Lawyers should weed out the hopeless cases, not add to them. They should in practice assist, not obstruct, the decision-makers in making fair decisions...There is a good reason why students who believe they have been unfairly treated turn to lawyers. They know that, by and large, they will get better representation," writes the 12 KBW clinical negligence junior.

A spokesperson for King’s said that the institution was concerned about “the activities of law firms seeking to target students in the area of complaints and appeals” when free representation is available through the student union's 'Academic Advice Service'.

She added: “We have made clear to Dr Sokol our concerns about the perceived association between the College and his appeals business, which the College does not endorse. We have explained to him that in light of that, we no longer believe that a relationship with Dr Sokol is beneficial to the College in general or the School of Medicine in particular."

It's safe to assume that few lawyers have successfully charmed members of the opposite sex by lecturing them in excruciatingly boring detail about their job.

Yet this is the precise scenario which the European Commission has attempted to bring to life in a memorable new comic strip...

'Competition in Europe: It's your deal' sees an official in the Commission's Directorate General for Competition (DG Comp) — where posts are typically filled by young lawyers, often on secondment from City law firms — wow an attractive cartoonist who he meets at an airport with tales of legal life.

The pair's exchange begins during the queue to check in to a flight to Brussels. After a cursory chat about the world of comics, the conversation rapidly turns to competition law, an area which the cartoonist finds herself absolutely captivated by.

Delighted by the enthusiasm shown by the cartoonist, the lawyer unleashes upon her wide-ranging reflections about his job, which he illustrates with a price-fixing case study. Finally, as the pair board their flight, the by-now-competition-law-mad cartoonist pledges to pen a comic strip about the lawyer's job.

Be warned, the result is nine pages long — but, if you have time, it's an amusing read.

This year some public sector workers will receive pay rises. Criminal barristers and solicitors, meanwhile, have been told to expect pay cuts of 17.5% for less serious cases and 30% for very high cost cases (VHCCs).

For those at the junior end of the profession, who are already scraping by on little more than the minimum wage, the government's proposed reduction in legal aid income could mean game over — unless they have access to private funds to sustain them.

At which point the criminal Bar would become a "rich man's job" and legal aid law firms would have to dramatically increase in size — and take advantage of economies of scale — in order to survive, these Bristol-based lawyers explain in a video they made last week.

The chart above was compiled for Legal Cheek by Blackfriars Chambers criminal barrister Jon Mack. There is more from Mack about this morning's strike — which we'll be covering throughout the day — on his excellent blog.

This is how the first strike in the Bar's history looked

It began, rainily...

But the crowds still arrived en masse (and the rain stopped!)

Crowds massing and clouds clearing at Southwark Crown Court. #walkout4justice #fight4legalaid

— The CBA (@TheCriminalBar) January 6, 2014

With robing rooms empty nationwide...

...courts ground to a standstill...

And the barrister's strike has now brought Snaresbrook to a complete standstill. All trials adjourned until 2pm.

— CourtNewsUK (@CourtNewsUK) January 6, 2014

...as barristers sought other means to practice their advocacy.

There were some excellent bewigged team photos.

Birmingham Crown Court

Southwark Crown Court

The Old Bailey

And then it was back to chambers, with lawyers leaving behind, according to police, a scene of "chaos and confusion".

Justice secretary Chris Grayling is due to make a final decision on the Ministry of Justice's proposals to cut publicly funded fee rates in the coming months.

Images by: @3templegardens, @WilberDaForce, @TheCriminalBar, ‏@TConnelly123, ‏@CatherineS_Rose, ‏@StIvesCriminal, @TheCriminalBar, @frances_skynews, @DexterDiasQC, @KelvinJRobbins, @3templegardens.

If demonstrating your desperation through a strike doesn't change the mind of your foes, simply go to Lemmetweetthatforyou.com and insert a pro-lawyer tweet on their behalf...

It works for the MoJ too.

Make your own here.

Defendants (and their lawyers) appearing at Teeside Crown Court next week may be interested to read this post by a prospective juror, which appeared on the Newton Aycliffe Neighbourhood Police Facebook page.

Here are some more of Ged Hammond's reflections on jury service, as posted on his Facebook page.

According to the Northern Echo, which spotted the worrying messages yesterday, Hammond says that he has since been excused from jury service.

However, due to its policy of not commenting on individual jurors, the Ministry of Justice was unable to confirm this.

A spokesperson from the Attorney General’s office, which deals with potential contempt of court from jurors, said: “This matter will now be investigated further so that the Attorney General can consider what, if any, action is required to be taken.”

Meanwhile, earlier this week Hammond was at it again, this time musing on legal aid.

Wannabe barristers who are due to submit their Bar Professional Training Course (BTPC) applications tomorrow should take a look at the Bar Standards Board's (BSB) reports of the monitoring visits it pays to course providers. We've been tweeting some of the most eyebrow-raising findings during the day, and have embedded them below...

25% of BPTC students at City Law School had a 2:2.

Surprising that in 2012 25% of #BPTC students at City Law School had a 2:2... https://t.co/kfP2iLNzVu pic.twitter.com/Uj8ZrMk6Lq

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

A third of full-time students on the Manchester Met BPTC had a 2:2.

Also lots of 2:2s on Manc Met #BPTC - 1/3 of full time & 1/2 of part time students had 2:2 https://t.co/BYvMUdhuYv pic.twitter.com/gjly0cdVGe

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

The 2:2 ratio was potentially even higher at the University of Law's Birmingham branch.

Only 60% of fulltime Birmingham Uni of Law #BPTC students had 1st/2:1. So 40% 2:2s? https://t.co/wZ2nMaF8Sf pic.twitter.com/eCNDESZvJs

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

No figures were available for the BPP course, but 2:2s also appear to be an issue, alongside the frequently-voiced concern about some non-EU students' poor English language skills.

Concerns about 2:2s & students' poor English on the BPP #BPTC https://t.co/QKEZMBaBid pic.twitter.com/qw9BpQPeNP

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

There were more English language issues at Nottingham Law School.

More English language issues among #BPTC students, this time at Nottingham Law School #BPTC https://t.co/RzOlSRQJcX pic.twitter.com/HTTfDHjBLx

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

Three quarters of the students on last year's BPTC at the University of West of England (UWE) were from outside the EU.

75% non-EU students on the UWE #BPTC last year https://t.co/qjGKfWBRY7 pic.twitter.com/14ouiKzj0g

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

Pupillage success rates appear to be depressingly low among Cardiff Law School BPTCers.

2 (out of 60!) students on Cardiff #BPTC had obtained pupillage at time of monitoring visit https://t.co/p3NU48tkFs pic.twitter.com/gVIwrUeZUz

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

Northumbria BPTC students seem to have had more luck, but it's the non-EU students dominating in the pupillage-bagging stakes.

Northumbria #BPTC: high % of non-EU students, OK home student pupillage success rate (27%) https://t.co/6Ox9tQE2Gb pic.twitter.com/YfAWDl7AUW

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

It's no surprise that the only BPTC which requires students to sit an aptitude test to gain entry to the course has by far the highest pupillage success rate. If only the BSB would force others to follow Kaplan Law School's lead...

The Kaplan #BPTC (which has an entry test) has by far the best pupillage ratio https://t.co/SFUoO5IOC3 pic.twitter.com/jpseN6FFap

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) January 8, 2014

The BPTC monitoring visits in full for 2011-2013 can be found here.

An appeal of the dismissal of a professional negligence claim against several London divorce lawyers contains an eye-catching paragraph...in which it is revealed that the claimant sued because, amongst other things, the lawyers failed to advise her that divorce would mean the end of her marriage...

The full transcript of the Court of Appeal case, which upheld the previous decision of Liverpool County Court, is here, courtesy of Bailii.

As spotted by @nearlylegal.

Follow @nearlylegal

In the most recent pupillage application round Weir House Chambers advertised for "up to two pupillages to commence in early 2014". The closing date for applications was Friday 6 December, with interviews to be held tomorrow (11 January).

Then, earlier this week applicants received this message...

We contacted Weir House chief Gerard McDermott QC and he told us:

"I am not sure that I can add anything to the message that you refer to. Though you will appreciate that we are delaying recruitment rather than 'withdrawing ...pupillage'.

"I hope that those that know me and James Bell would acknowledge that we are very aware of the difficulties facing new entrants to the Bar and want to help where we can."

Weir House Chambers isn't a legal aid set — it specialises in the comparatively lucrative areas of personal injury and clinical negligence — and so shouldn't be bracketed with the likes of Charter Chambers, Guildhall Chambers and the now-defunct Tooks, which were all forced to cancel their 2014 pupillages. But it is pretty tiny, comprising just McDermott, fellow barrister James Bell and two "legal assistants". So perhaps Weir House shouldn't be held up to the graduate recruitment standards expected of more established outfits.

But this still sucks for students. OK, delay taking on pupils if absolutely necessary. But why make those who have spent valuable time and energy on their applications re-apply?

Update 13:52 — This post originally stated that Charter Chambers, Guildhall Chambers and the now-defunct Tooks Chambers cancelled their 2014 pupillages "for financial reasons". This phrase has been removed after a complaint from Charter Chambers, which states that "This is too blunt an expression and was not and never has been the reason we gave for our decision."

Ever wondered what the lawyer-hating commenters on high quality forums such as the Mail Online look like in action?

The troll "Slipknot P Harrington" provides an insight in the video below, where he rants about the "over-paid posh grizzly little solicitors and barristers" who took part in last week's strike.

Convinced that said lawyers earn £100K-200K a year, Harrington — sporting a V for Vendetta-style mask — insists that legal aid is "nothing more than corporate welfare designed to keep these grubby little parasites in well-paid jobs and of course to keep them voting Tory".

Watch the rant below.

Earlier this week a leaked email revealed that law students were the worst performers at an Oxford University college. Given the more challenging nature of a law degree relative to most arts degrees, perhaps this should come as no surprise. But it does beg the question whether studying law in the high-pressure surroundings of Oxford or Cambridge is such a great idea.

We asked this week's podcast guest, recent Oxford University law graduate Maleha Khan (pictured below with Legal Cheek's Kevin Poulter), for her thoughts on the matter...

Like the majority of law students in her year at Oxford's Wadham College — only three out of nine have become lawyers — Khan has decided against pursuing a legal career for the time being.

"You are made very aware of your abilities and limitations at Oxford," she says, adding that the experience knocked her confidence in some ways, despite it being "a really good start".

Her words echo the sentiment expressed by journalist Malcolm Gladwell in his recent book David and Goliath, where he argues that being a little fish in a big and intimidating Ivy League pond is far from ideal grounding. Instead, Gladwell recommends that all but the very best students opt for universities outside the elite tier.

Or, for wannabe lawyers, perhaps the trick is to study a less-demanding subject at a top university and then convert to law at a later stage. This route, says Khan, has worked for some of the Oxford classics students she knows, a higher proportion of whom have gone on to become lawyers than her law student friends.

Listen to Khan's discussion with Kevin Poulter and Legal Cheek editor Alex Aldridge in the podcast below.

This podcast is also available on iTunes.