Weber Shandwick head of public affairs Alex Deane doesn't regret his time scraping a living at the criminal Bar, but amid a continuing assault on the profession it was time to take what he had learned and change careers

I know that, just as many solicitors now excel in higher courts, there are plenty of barristers who have paper-heavy practices. But for me, the Bar has always meant excellence in advocacy. This is what made me aspire to it.

I joined my Inn (Middle Temple) in 2000, while I was still at university. I hadn't read law, but three years of debating as an undergraduate meant that the opportunities for advocacy of the criminal Bar really appealed to me. I debated throughout the CPE (now the GDL) and the BVC (now the BPTC), representing the Inn at the World Championships twice — in South Africa (beautiful Stellenbosch in the winelands) and in Singapore (where most importantly I met my wife, and also won the competition, with my remarkably gifted partner, who’s still at the Bar).

The Inn was incredibly supportive, just as — in my view — all four Inns continue to be for all their students, even in toughish financial times. Thanks to the Inn, at this point on the timeline my run-up to the Bar is “so far, so good”. But as astute readers of Legal Cheek, you’ll have spotted the impending doom problem already, in the inclusion of the words “criminal Bar”.

I worked for the Conservative Party after the BVC, and started pupillage in October 2005. Even back then, people had often said to me that “crime doesn’t pay”, but, like many people before and since, I’d taken such words with a big pinch of self-confident salt. I suppose the big “if I knew then…” question for me is this: if I had known that governments of both stripes (or “all” I suppose, given the Coalition) were going to eviscerate the profession I wanted to join, would I still have gone to the Bar in the first place?

It’s pretty easy for time to salve raw wounds and for (let’s be generous) near-middle-aged people like me to retrospectively colour their route to where they are now as happy in all ways, to think that their path was all “good character-building experience” no matter how desperately unfair the system or how scant the reward for toil at the time. Even bearing all of that in mind, having thought about it a lot I genuinely think that my answer is “yes” — that I’m still glad to have been at the Bar — but that, despite that, sadly I could not in all good conscience recommend the criminal Bar to any young person now contemplating it. The rest of this piece will try to explain those two points.

Without repeating what I’ve said recently about action by barristers and solicitors in support of legal aid, in my view those working in the criminal law are doing a public service — one I was proud to undertake. My years at the criminal Bar certainly gave me exposure to a much broader cross-section of society than I or many other people might be likely to encounter, and it meant that I was taught a forensic approach to thinking and case-making that has served me well since.

But if you pay at a level below subsistence, then no matter how idealistic, people will eventually have to leave, or not join in the first place. Putting it generously, the government plays fast and loose with the truth about barristerial income, publishing an annual “top ten” list of people earning from legal aid, trying to win over the public by criticising “fat cats”. But what they do with that list is just like the knowing misuse of “deficit” and “debt”. They fail to explain that such earnings might have been accrued over several years, are before tax, are for a self-employed person without pension or holiday or sick pay, are pre-expenses like chambers rent, and so on etc. In fact, as many readers of this blog will know, the fact is that some barristers in criminal law are earning as little as £13,000 a year (and that’s after paying much more than that for the courses to qualify). There are more and more bankruptcies in the junior Bar and many are earning less than £25,000 a year; that’s before the expenses they incur and don’t get back.

A day in court for a criminal barrister for an appearance can often be the fixed rate of £84.50 — that’s before non-reimbursed travel expenses, which often amount to more than the cost of the fee, and often goes unpaid for months or even years. That is to say that the profession is being deliberately crushed. You can’t live on that, plainly — neither on the raw amount, nor on the amount left after your expenses (which may exceed it), nor in an environment with the uncertainty about when — or if — one will be paid. It is sadly true that many at the junior criminal Bar would literally be better off on benefits rather than working their 70+ hour weeks.

So, while in retrospect I can see that I personally gained a great deal from my time at the Bar, it’s impossible for me to recommend to anyone without a big private income (which I didn’t have) or a suicidal appetite for getting into debt (ditto) that they should now go to the criminal Bar. When I was there (I stopped in 2009*), the situation for the criminal Bar was already on a steep downward curve. Now, it’s got a lot worse.

And I’m afraid that, despite the admirable best efforts of the CBA, which I applaud, I fear that it’s going to get a lot worse still. Since 1997, fees for criminal cases have been cut by 40% — but the government is now proposing a further 30% cut. The Bar has been unbelievably patient and stoic about it: if that happened to any other public servants, I think that there would have been riots by now. If you read nothing else about this, take a look at the junior Bar in their own words for a sense of what that means in real life.

As I’ve said before, in my view, when the Bar is destroyed, access to justice will suffer. The state will be able to do what it likes far more, and people will be subject to the power of unrestrained prosecution like never before in the modern age (and many more guilty people will go unpunished thanks to inadequate prosecution). A strong independent Bar is a great barrier between the power of the state and the individual. But parking all of those principles (which I can now afford to wax lyrical about from the sidelines), the harm being done to the individuals in the current maelstrom is simply so severe that I couldn’t advise anyone to do it. Despite the steady flow of people into the job at the bottom still, if you’d like to test my position, ask any junior tenant working in crime what they’d say, too.

Of course, these aren’t just questions for people considering starting a career at the criminal Bar. They’re also live questions for those people I admire so much who are still there. To those still plugging away, I’d say this. If you can make it work, then I’m delighted for you. Our country needs advocates and thank goodness that it’s working out in your case. But if you’re getting deeper and deeper into debt, consider this. You have skills, and you have options.

Those options don’t mean severing yourself from the world of the law. My connections with the Bar continue. I'm still a door tenant with my fantastic chambers. I’m going to serve on the Inn’s new Membership Committee. I'm proud to be elected at a local level in the City of London, which in part was a result of my time at the Bar (my Ward contains the Temple). I taught debating for the Inn for ages. And so on.

The point is that if you want to leave, or if you have to, there is a life after the criminal Bar, and several routes within it offer many opportunities for case-making and advocacy in different forms — for which your experience suits you admirably.

*Here’s another issue, by the way. I left practice in 2009. I got a cheque a couple of weeks ago.

Alex Deane is a Square Mile Common Councilman and head of public affairs at Weber Shandwick.

Follow @ajcdeane

Top international litigation boutique Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has made an extraordinary offer to enable its lawyers to escape "dreary" February and March.

Under a new initiative called "QE work away week", the firm is pledging around £1,200 ($2,000) each to its lawyers — including its team of 30 London-based solicitors — to go anywhere in the world they choose for a week. Suggestions from Quinn Emanuel's management for potential destinations include an Indian beach cafe and a Colombian mountain hostel.

The catch? The lawyers have to work exactly like they were in the office as usual...

Quinn Emanuel's eccentric managing partner John Quinn explained the terms of the deal in an internal email disseminated on Thursday that has since been leaked to US legal blog Above the Law. (Note that Quinn insists on using only lower case letters in his emails).

"u can go anywhere you want. but we expect that you will be working together. maybe you will throw down a power strip in a beach cafe in india. maybe a hostel in a village in the mountains of columbia [sic]. freak street in kathmandu? its [sic] up to the group."

But — and it's a big "but" — lawyers must follow these rules.

Quinn continues:

"there must be 24/7 connectivity wherever you go. you must be available at all the hours you would be available if you were in your home office. you are expected to continue working and be available just as you would if you were home. if your work assignments are such that you really can’t do them remotely, then wait until next year. client confidentiality must be maintained at all costs. and we expect that you will be working, just as if you were in manhattan, paris or wherever, even if u are wearing a bathing suit. we need to know how to reach you at all times, instantly. partners may or may not go–it depends how cool the places are that you pick. travel should be arranged so that you are open for work monday morning thru end of day friday. in other words, do your traveling on weekends."

This morning Quinn Emanuel London managing partner Richard East confirmed to Legal Cheek that the initiative would apply to the firm's London lawyers. He commented:

"It's a great and novel idea. January and February are fairly miserable months with no bank holidays until Easter. Sometimes a change can be as good as a break. Of course, associates will have to be sensible (as they usually are) and plan around work commitments."

East added that no one has yet come forward to ask to participate in the scheme, but that he expects some of the firm's 19 London associates to do so. Those who take up the offer will be assigned to a group of 6-10 other associates from the firm's offices worldwide, and together be tasked with deciding where they want to go. Using the £1,200 funding from the firm, they will then travel in a group to the agreed destination and work there for a week.

The full internal email explaining "QE work away week" is below:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN — EMAIL FROM JOHN QUINN — QE WORK AWAY WEEK

From: John Quinn
Date: January 30, 2014 at 6:51:59 PM PST
To: Attorneys
Cc: Selene Dogan
Subject: new program

its january and its dreary in most places of the qe world, and next month it will be february, and then march, promising more of the same. hard working qe lawyers need a break for sure. so we are introducing a new program. we haven’t really come up with a cool name for it yet–maybe “qe work away week”? the idea is this:

the firm will give associates $2k to go work anywhere in the world they want to work for one week. all expenses above $2k are your responsibility. associates will be assigned to a group of 6-10 other associates who also sign up for the program. you can ask to go with a particular person, but there are no guarantees that they will be in your group. part of the objective is to get to know lawyers in different offices, so associates will generally not know the other people in their group.

once you are assigned to a group, it will be up to the group to decide where you want to go work for a week and when. u can go anywhere you want. but we expect that you will be working together. maybe you will throw down a power strip in a beach cafe in india. maybe a hostel in a village in the mountains of columbia. freak street in kathmandu? its up to the group.

there are rules: there must be 24/7 connectivity wherever you go. you must be available at all the hours you would be available if you were in your home office. you are expected to continue working and be available just as you would if you were home. if your work assignments are such that you really can’t do them remotely, then wait until next year. client confidentiality must be maintained at all costs. and we expect that you will be working, just as if you were in manhattan, paris or wherever, even if u are wearing a bathing suit. we need to know how to reach you at all times, instantly. partners may or may not go–it depends how cool the places are that you pick. travel should be arranged so that you are open for work monday morning thru end of day friday. in other words, do your traveling on weekends.

who is eligible: first years will have to wait. you must have worked at least 2000 hours last year. you must be a full time associate or of counsel in good standing.

if you want to participate in this latest qe adventure, please email selene dogan.

John B. Quinn
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-443-3000
Facsimile: 213-443-3100
E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
Web: www.quinnemanuel.com
Twitter: @jbqlaw

“When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own – not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine.”

– Marcus Aurelius

A glossary of key legal terms used in practice.

PART ONE: A-H

Advice

A written opinion in which counsel summaries the facts the solicitor already knows, then explains that the problem is very difficult, and there could be a number of different outcomes but he would not like to speculate on which one it’s likely to be.

AGM

A democratic forum by which members of chambers can heatedly debate the quality of chambers biscuits and the colour of chamber’s branded pencils; thereby allowing the CMC (see below) to take all important decisions.

Agreed Fee

A fee which the solicitor seeks to negotiate down after the event.

Aged Debt

Money you are owed but have not been paid and therefore are borrowing from the bank whilst paying tax on the debt and interest on the loan.

Boundary Dispute

A legal dispute in which all the lawyers concerned place orders for a new BMW shortly after being instructed.

The Bear Garden

Irregular noun. A place of stillness and solitude.

About as busy with bears (or indeed barristers) as any garden you care to think of.

Central London County Court

Twinned with the Bermuda Triangle. A place of myth and legend where hundreds of files vanish each year, without any trace.

Home of the popular catchphrase, “We haven’t got any judges (free to hear your case).”

CPR 3.1

A rule of procedure which enables the court to rule that black is actually white or is, in fact, not a colour at all.

Conference

A meeting where the barrister pretends to have read the papers, the solicitor pretends to be interested in what the barrister says and the client produces a story from the Daily Mail demanding to know why his case is not being treated in the same way.

Chambers

Like offices. Only scruffier. And with fewer people who actually do things.

Chambers Management Committee

Large group of chambers members carefully selected to agree with the decisions taken earlier by a much smaller group of members. Any decisions not so taken are adjourned to next time.

Consent Order

A document in which one party agrees to things they didn’t realise they had, until much later.

Cross-examination

Depending on the advocate involved this can mean many things:

(i) a forensic dissection of the witness’s evidence, or

(ii) asking questions crossly, or

(iii) proof positive that the advocate has not read the papers properly.

Deputy District Judge

Like a real judge, but with more coin-tossing.

Disclosure

A legal version of hide ‘n seek.

A process by which relevant documents are hidden within a morass of irrelevant documents.

Family Law

Like real law. Only with more crying and less actual law.

Fees Clerks

A counselling service for solicitors, to unburden their tales of woe and stories about how they are so poor their children have to eat mud for breakfast.

Fire Alarm

An alarm which goes off from time to time to re-assure nervous members that there definitely is no fire.

A means by which the fire committee check that members of chambers can make it out of the front door without getting lost on the way.

(A) Freebie

(Usually) telephone advice given by barristers to solicitors for no charge; who then charge their clients for listening to the advice, writing it down and posting it to them.

Hourly Rate

The rate you can get away with charging in any given case. As flexible as a politician’s pledges.

Part two of Wigapedia's legal dictionary will be published next week.

Follow @Wigapedia

The ‘City lawyer offering free accommodation for intimacy’ is by no means the only member of the legal profession to use Craigslist to advertise for a service. The personals section of the London site is full of solicitors and barristers.

The puzzle is why they feel compelled to mention their occupation. Does it make the fulfilment of unconventional requests like this one below (click to enlarge) more likely?

QC in the clear after cheeky gag.

After reading on Legal Cheek that employed barrister Steven Pidcock had been disciplined by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for mistreating his pupil, Leeds-based silk Simon Myerson QC posted the following comment.

As you can see, fellow Legal Cheek reader Pidcock wasn't impressed.

Happily for lovers of school-yard humour, Myerson reports this week that the BSB has decided that he has no case to answer.

When contacted by Legal Cheek this morning, a BSB spokesperson said: "We don't comment on individual cases unless a disciplinary tribunal has been scheduled."

The full exchange can be found in this thread of comments.

Image by Graffitidicks.tumblr.com

A pupil-supervisor who borrowed language from a mob film to express his extreme dislike of a colleague has had a £1,500 fine upheld.

In September last year employed barrister Richard Craven was disciplined by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) for engaging in conduct which was likely to bring the legal profession into disrepute. The precise nature of the conduct?

"Sending an email to two pupils and another lawyer quoting and/or repeating a comment about a female solicitor that 'we should open her up. I don't just mean a little stab in the leg, I mean do the cunt'".

The charming line is apparently an adaptation of something said in mobster film ‘Bonded By Blood’.

Happily for Craven, news of the incident at David Phillips & Partners was overlooked by the press at the time. But yesterday's appeal of the BSB's decision attracted attention on Twitter.

Barrister wrote of a partner at his firm, 'We should open her up. I don’t just mean a little stab in the leg, I mean do the c*nt’.

— CourtNewsUK (@CourtNewsUK) February 5, 2014

A follow-up court report describes Craven — whose £1,500 fine was upheld by the High Court yesterday — as "gangster-obsessed".

By the way, there's an interesting twist in the tail of this story. The name of the barrister with whom Craven used to share pupil supervision duties at David Phillips & Partners?

A certain Steven Pidcock, who left the firm in 2012 after being reprimanded for apparently calling his pupil, amongst other things, "fucking mental" and “Paul’s Magistrates Court bitch". It must have been fun being a baby barrister at David Phillips & Partners under that pair! Craven is believed to have also left David Phillips & Partners.

We reported on the latest instalment of the Pidcock saga earlier this morning.

Update 12pm: The BSB has issued this comment on yesterday's appeal:

"The Visitors to the Inns of Court yesterday handed down judgment in Richard Craven and the Bar Standards Board. We are pleased that the Visitors were unanimous in their decision that the charge brought against Mr Craven is proved and so dismissed his appeal. We further note the comments by Mr Justice Silber that “this was a clear case in which the appellant’s conduct was likely to bring the Bar into disrepute” and so confirmed the Bar Standards Board’s original view that Mr Craven’s behaviour was disrespectful and entirely unacceptable.”

While being a public law barrister can be thrilling and rewarding, it's often less glamorous than people imagine.

If I could go back in time, I'd tell my 22 year-old self that she should give up smoking — firstly, to avoid being told off by ushers for popping out for a quick one when the case is about to be called on, and secondly to avoid spending six months of every year feeling both tetchy and horrendously nervous outside court because she hasn’t had a cigarette for a week as part of her latest attempt to quit.

Next, I would ensure that she had done a thorough trolley bag test so that it would not split or spill her papers all over the wet train concourse at 6am. She would not just own one, but at least two trolley bags — destined to be stuffed to within an inch of their lives with more paper than it is possible to imagine.

My 22 year-old self would also possess a broader sense of the reality of the Bar. For example, she'd realise that life as a barrister is mainly a series of encounters with toasted cheese sandwiches at windswept train stations spent trying to calculate if you can get home before your childcare provider resigns at your lateness.

She would know, too, that no one apart from bald men look good in a wig. And that falling over your gown while wearing heels is an occupational hazard (and the fact that it was in front of the entire public law Bar when you are about six months into practice is a useful experience in humility).

What else do I wish I knew then that I know now? That it’s normal to have shaking hands when you first do your submissions, and that it never really stops; anxiety is a daily part of this job. And that it’s OK to cry at the end of the day after you have had to deal with people to whom life has not been kind and who are finding it difficult to cope.

But social welfare law has more than its share of rewarding moments too. Receiving a thank you card from a nine year-old after you'd got him into the school of his choice, in which he has painfully and obviously — after much effort — written his own name, is one of the best feelings in the world. Second only to being told that the boy who sat in his room for two years communicating with no one has passed his GCSEs and has made some friends. But having the privilege to share in these moments requires persistence, patience and determination.

You have to clear many hurdles first, such as coping when an entire courtroom erupts in laughter at your attempt to pronounce names in Welsh. My improved younger self would be capable of such pronunciation feats. And even if she made a rare mistake, she'd be comforted by her knowledge that everyone else is also putting on the act of self-confidence, and that inside they are all riven with self-doubt and worry too. So when she encountered those young men who tell you that they enjoy being rude to people, she'd know that they will not prosper, and that being kind and courteous is an essential part of the job.

This non-smoking, Welsh-speaking superhuman would, of course, be keenly aware that the sternest of judges can soften in the face of a well-timed joke. But not too many. And obviously never at their expense. On a related note, she would know never to face a judge just before lunch with a difficult submission or proposition.

The final thing I'd tell her would be that a comprehensive school girl from Romford who didn’t even know a lawyer while growing up can become one of them, albeit with a distinct Estuary accent. And that she would be accepted despite her fondness for the early work of George Michael.

Fiona Scolding is a public law practitioner at Hardwicke Building, specialising in social welfare work across a broad spectrum for both individuals and institutions. She has a particular expertise in education law.

Follow @fionascolding

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

23 Essex Street pupil barrister Hannah Evans (pictured) was the star of Saturday's 'One Bar One Voice' event after revealing the reality of life on the Bar's bottom rung for "ordinary" people.

The full text of Evans' brilliant speech — in which the comprehensive school-educated barrister laid bare the financial hardships she faces — is below.

Life at the very junior end of the criminal Bar is tough. Make no mistake.

It's tough to get here. It's tough to stay here. It's tough in a way we (most of us, at least) expected: long hours, difficult clients, challenging briefs. But it's tough in another way too - financially. And that's something that perhaps isn't always fully appreciated by others:

• Sometimes more senior members of the profession don't always appreciate how difficult things can be financially. Many of them came to the Bar at a time when grants were available for higher education and Crown Court trials and junior briefs were plentiful.

• Those practising a branch of law that's not publicly funded don't always appreciate what things are like at the junior end of the criminal Bar. They are properly remunerated for their services (as they should be) and find it difficult to believe the sums we are paid for our work.

• As for the public, I've lost count of the number of times that people, on discovering that I'm a barrister, assume I'm earning a small fortune. It's very much the public perception that you must be: after all, you went to a good school no doubt, then a posh university, now you swan around court in your wig and gown and have fancy legal arguments with others like you that no-one else understands or cares about. You're milking the system. Out for what you can get. But we know that nothing could be further from the truth: their assumptions are wrong on so many levels.

• Even those trying to 'break into' the profession don't always comprehend what it will be like for them at the junior end of the criminal Bar- if they get here. They're almost certainly told how difficult it will be: "when it comes to money, things aren't what they used to be". I know I was told that by many when I was completing my mini-pupillages. But you assume at that stage that, while things may not be quite the way they used to be, you'll make a living. After all, the people warning you are managing to get by. You assume that you will too and you don't worry too much, not realising until you're at the Bar yourself just how tough things are.

When you are here, experiencing the difficulties for yourself, you tell yourself that you might be struggling to pay the bills now, racking up debt by the day, but it will be worthwhile. You're doing it for a reason. You're gaining the necessary experience, forging the right connections, and then those Crown Court briefs will start coming your way. You don't expect riches. Speaking for myself - and I'm sure every other junior barrister at the criminal Bar - I did not enter this profession for the money. But I did - I do - expect to be paid enough to make doing the job I love a viable career option.

Of course, with the cuts this government plan to impose that won't be the case at all. A career that is currently difficult to sustain will become nigh on impossible for people like me.

What do I mean by "people like me"? I came to the Bar from an "ordinary" background. I attended a comprehensive school on what was once the largest council estate in Europe. At the time I left, about 23% of pupils were leaving there with 5 GCSEs graded A*-C. By 2012 - the year I began my pupillage - this had fallen to 16.9%.

I got my 5 A*s-Cs (and a few more besides) and moved onto my A-levels, along with about 25 of my classmates. I did well at A-level and with the support of a handful of teachers and family members applied to Oxford. Unsurprisingly, when I was accepted, one teacher who quite openly told me that "Oxford isn't for people like [me]" was not one of those who lined up to congratulate me.

Funded by my student loan I went up to Oxford where I spent a wonderful 3 years studying law, assisted occasionally by various collections prizes and scholarships. Not so wonderfully, I left with a small mountain of debt - and this was before the £9,000-a-year fees were introduced...

After graduation, I moved immediately onto Bar School here in London. I was unsure for the first few months after being accepted whether I'd actually be able to attend. There was no way I could fund the cost of the BPTC (as it had then just been renamed), let alone living costs on top. Thankfully, I was awarded one of the many scholarships that this very Inn bestows each year and it was enough to fund my course. The Inn also provided my living accommodation during my year at Bar School. As for my living costs, they were covered by a bank loan, tipping me even further into debt.

I applied for pupillage during Bar School and - miraculously it seemed! - was offered a place at a London set. Of course, pupillage now being what it is, I had to take an obligatory year out before starting. The dream would have been to travel - see new places, try new and exciting things: the reality was very different. For largely financial reasons, I moved back home and lived with my mum. I tried hard to find a job that would have me for a few months, knowing that I'd be leaving to really start my career very shortly. Luckily, one materialised and kept me afloat until I returned to London.

And then: pupillage. Again, I was fortunate. I was accepted at a good set that by the standards of criminal pupillages provided a generous pupillage award. Quite honestly, as much as I so badly wanted that place when I applied, I would not have been able to apply had chambers not offered the award they did. Indeed, there were chambers I did not apply to because the pupillage award they offered was the bare minimum and I knew I couldn't afford to live on that.

The effect of this government's cuts will be that fewer and fewer chambers will be able to pay such generous awards to their pupils. That is, if they're able to take pupils on at all. This means less - if any - people like me in this job; less people without a private income or family to support them; less people from ordinary backgrounds.

Now I'm a third six. At the very beginning of my life at the Bar. What's the next chapter? What are my prospects for a successful career? It's something that nearly all people at my stage of their professional lives ask themselves I imagine. But for junior barristers - particularly those in my position - the question is more poignant.

As I've said, financially, life at the criminal Bar is difficult in the early years. Let me give you an example. A trial fee in the Magistrates' Court can be as little as £80. That £80 may represent a full day at court (9-5pm): in court for the trial; in conference with your client before, during and after court; in discussion with your opponent or the witness service or Probation... Out of that £80 comes your travel costs, unless you're fortunate enough to be reimbursed your travel by chambers or by your Instructing Solicitors. Then there's tax to deal with.

Sometimes, many junior barristers find that they are paying to work: they earn less than it costs them to get to court! With train prices the way they are, you don't have to travel very far before what you're being paid for your first appearance or your mention is subsumed by travel costs. I can think of no other word for that than "perverse". We are professional people doing a difficult job and we deserve adequate recompense. It is worth stressing again that I did not come into this job to make money. It's been clear for many years that the criminal Bar is not the route to riches. If money was my motivation I'd have gone to the City, or down another of the well-paying avenues open to me when I graduated. Indeed, I'd have gone as soon as I got on my feet and received my first fee and realised just how bad things were going to be! But I, and others like me, resist the lure of other lucrative careers because we are committed to seeing justice done. Not just a hackneyed phrase for us: it's what we work at day in, day out.

Our reward? Late rent payments, and an inability to pay bills or buy that new suit or book we so desperately need. These are facts of life for us at the junior end. And when you don't have parents that can offer financial support, or a husband or wife to help you out, or savings you can dip into when times are hard, you have one option: you take a long hard look in the mirror and ask, very honestly, if this is a life you can really sustain. I've lost count of the number of times I've had this conversation with myself. "How much longer can you do this?" The answer at the moment? "I'm not sure; it's tough; hang in there". The answer if this government gets its way? "Not much longer".

The most frustrating thing is that this soul-searching is not borne out of disillusion with the job itself. On the contrary, I love this job. Even with its long hours and difficult clients! But love of the job does not pay the bills. The simple reality is that I can barely survive earning what I currently do. I will not be able to survive if the governments 'reforms' are implemented.

Speaking of the government, a friend of mine said to me a few weeks ago that I should consider myself its poster girl. Rather taken aback I asked what on earth he meant. He said that I represented everything this government lauded: through hard work and determination, I had come from an ordinary background into this wonderful profession, once considered the preserve of the elite. I am just the sort of person they want to hold up, to encourage, he said. How odd, then, that they seem committed to doing everything they can to ensuring that people like me - their poster girl - never get to the Bar in the future, and that those of us who worked so hard to get here cannot stay.

Courtesy of the Bar Council.

A practising barrister who falsely claimed to have two undergraduate degrees from Harvard (and a rather-less-impressive LLM from Staffordshire University) has been disbarred.

Upon being called to the Bar in 2004, Sheffield-based Giles Norton gave false information about not only his degrees (in Chinese and IT from Harvard, and International Trade and Export from Staffordshire), but also failed to disclose previous criminal convictions for possessing CS gas and wilfully obstructing the police.

He went on to practise for nine years, with suspicions only aroused about his past early last year when Bar authorities received a tip off that information Norton had provided to Inner Temple may have been incorrect.

The BSB and the Bar Council have declined to provide information about where Norton completed his pupillage, but have confirmed that most recently he has been operating as a sole practitioner at Enigma Chambers.

At the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service hearing on Friday, Norton’s practising certificate was suspended with immediate effect.

BSB head of professional conduct Sara Down said: “Our duty as a regulator is, first and foremost, to protect the public. Mr Norton not only failed to disclose serious criminal convictions, but also fabricated his qualifications. In our view, there is no place at the Bar for such dishonesty and we believe the tribunal decision is the right one.”

Norton's case has echoes of that of Dennis O'Riordan, who was recently struck off after falsely claiming that he had degrees from Harvard and Oxford. O’Riordan was originally called to the Bar in 1993, and went on to become a partner at the London office of big US law firms Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft and Paul Hastings.

Image via Skreened.com

Wigapedia returns with the second part of his glossary of key legal terms used in practice (part one is here).

PART TWO: J-W

Joint Settlement Meeting

A meeting brought about by a joint agreement that both sides are too tight-fisted to instruct a proper mediator.

Jackson Reforms

A set of legal and practical proposals whereby claims are diverted from the litigation process in which they are presently engaged, to different professional negligence lawyers and different court claims. Apparently with the object of saving court time and reducing costs.

Mediation

A Mexican stand-off with biscuits.

Meeting

A fictitious place, much like Narnia.

As in “the solicitor concerned is in a meeting and can’t take your call about counsel’s fees right now”.

Opinion

Like an Advice (see part one) but with more sections from Lawtel cut and pasted in. Carries an additional 25% on the fee.

Payment on Account of Fees

A rarely seen creature, a bit like the Yeti.

Pupil

Person who is paid by chambers to make tea, smile a lot, look interested and pretend that the feedback they are getting is even nominally helpful. May carry books to court on occasion as well.

Photocopiers

Largely redundant items of electronic equipment which work every third Friday. Designed by photocopier engineers to keep them in a job for life.

Pleadings

A document in which the client's name is inserted via "find and replace" into a pre-existing document, the date and header altered and the same fee note as before generated.

Part 18 Questions

The written equivalent of a tripwire.

Part 18 Replies

“Kindly sod off” phrased in a number of circumlocutory ways.

QC

“When you’re up to your neck in doo-doo and sinking fast, you need the man with the biggest shovel” (Confucius)

Part 35 Question to Expert

Enquiring whether the expert has in fact ever managed to pass his A-levels, in as many different ways as possible.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

A phrase inserted in pleadings to show that the barrister went to a minor public school at the very least.

Re-Examination

Asking "Did you really mean to say that" in as many different ways as possible.

Reserved Judgment

A judgment principally written by someone who has not read the papers, not heard the submissions but knows more about this area of law than the actual judge you had in court.

Schedule of Loss

A grown-up version of the list children write to Santa of all the toys they want.

Telephone Hearing

A technological advance by which lawyers and the judge can play Angry Birds and pick their nose, whilst technically in court.

Trial Bundle

A collection of mainly irrelevant and poorly-photocopied pages, in a defective lever-arch file, the relevant parts of which are added as the trial progresses.

The White Book

A novel concept in publishing. The reader pays £400 annually to get the same content as last year, but with slightly different page numbers.

Witness Statement

A document written by someone other than the person whose name appears at the top of it.

Part one of Wigapedia's legal dictionary for the up-and-coming professional is here.

Follow @Wigapedia

Following White & Case's recent removal from an oligarch dispute for a conflict of interest, WaitroseLaw reflects on a past few months packed with judicial spankings.

It has been a vintage few months for connoisseurs of judicial spankings. Not the sort usually administered in the back room of a discreet gentlemen's club by an understanding woman in a wipe-clean outfit, but the metaphorical kind; a judgment so stinging, so outraged, so cuttingly critical of the participants, that lawyers throughout the land expel a sigh of sated schadenfreude. 

Of course, no-one really cares about cases which criticise the actual parties — as any wise client knows, they're really just a side-show. Only a case where the lawyers themselves get hauled over the coals could elicit such unalloyed pleasure.

First up came the Tory MP suing the Murdoch empire for libel, in a case any sane observer could only want both parties to lose. In a rare victory for public opinion, it's possible that's what could actually happen. Andrew Mitchell MP's late-night falling out with Downing Street police led to his resignation, the subsequent prosecution of one officer and the always welcome sight of Keith Vaz speaking out against dishonesty in public life (some background about the estimable Mr Vaz). But its lasting legacy is destined to be as a case study striking the fear of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) into a generation of young lawyers.

Following the Jackson reforms, civil litigators are supposed to discuss and exchange costs budgets so that each party can estimate sensibly how much it might be in for if it loses (rather than just sending threatening letters saying "U PAY ME ALL THE MONEY"). Mitchell's lawyers sent theirs in six days late. In a terrifying example of the courts' newly strict approach to misdemeanours, the court ruled that even if he succeeded in his claim, the most he could recover from the other side by way of costs would be the court fee, rather than his estimated costs of upwards of £500,000. According to the Court of Appeal, "well-intentioned incompetence" won't fly as an excuse in the courts any more. (No word yet on whether this rule will be applied to the Lord Chancellor.)

But for legal geeks, the real stand-out moment of recent months was the pure poetry at paragraph 48 of this costs judgment. Ordinarily, the wranglings of the outrageously wealthy over an oil field in Kurdistan would be of interest only to the blondes who hang out in luxury hotel bars waiting for their very own Oligarch Charming. But it's worth a read if only for this finely-wrought excoriation of magic circle behemoth Clifford Chance (CC):

"I have been spared sight of much of the 5,000 pages of inter solicitor correspondence. It is apparent to me, however, from what I have seen that some of the correspondence from Clifford Chance has been voluminous and interminable, in some circumstances highly aggressive and in others unacceptable in content. These have included ill-founded allegations of criminal conduct in the form of insider dealing, misleading the market and misleading the public about the relationship between Gulf and Texas. Whilst interminable and heavy-handed correspondence is becoming a perverse feature in some commercial litigation, it is not in any way to be accepted as a norm and parties whose solicitors engage in it should not be surprised if, in a case such as this, they end up paying the costs on an indemnity scale."

The case sets an interesting precedent about the liability of third party funders, but CC's opponents will chiefly treasure it for the opportunity to quote that passage in correspondence whenever their letters get a bit annoying. The firm has so far declined to comment on the judgment.

Raising the unforeseen possibility that they might have something to contribute to society other than inflated London house prices, the uber-wealthy continued to add to the general gaiety last month. White & Case were debarred by the High Court from acting for Victor Pinchuk in his $2billion claim against Igor Kolomoisky and Mr Gennadiy Bogolyubov, after "Tighty Whiteys'" NY office had given initial advice on a planned IPO of a company owned by Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov. Although detailed "ethical screen" procedures were later put in place (nearly two years after the possibility of a conflict was first considered) and no breach of client confidentiality was found to have taken place, the judge handed the firm its marching orders. White & Case described itself as "disappointed" by the judgment (the gargantuan amounts of money involved no doubt being entirely irrelevant).

As long as clients with a taste for wars of attrition and deep pockets continue to swill around the Royal Courts of Justice like over-oaked cabernet in a spittoon, the temptation to push at professional boundaries will undoubtedly be there. And there can't be a single lawyer who hasn't missed a crucial deadline at some point. But while embarrassing public criticism may be ample punishment for some, for others only private correction will do the trick. Time to dust down that riding crop...

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

Final year Cambridge law students Zahra Mashhood and Loviisa Langdon consider the impact of recent moves by the legal profession to draw graduates from a wider pool.

Most firms and chambers have, for now, decided not to follow the 'CV Blind' schemes being pioneered by Clifford Chance and Outer Temple. But the very existence of such initiatives is illustrative of a huge shift in the philosophy of trainee lawyer recruitment.

On one hand, Cambridge University duo Loviisa Langdon and Zahra Mashhood (pictured above) reckon that this change is a good thing. Certainly, they agree that anything that counters the often inaccurate "gentlemen's club" perception of the Oxbridge-City law firm relationship is desirable.

But on the other hand, they're concerned about the practical realities of hiring on a "blind", or semi-blind, basis. Could certain parts of candidates' CVs — such as grades — end up being considered, while other bits — like the university someone studied at — be hidden from decision-makers? And might such a scenario place graduates of top unis at a disadvantage?

"A 2:1 at one university is not necessarily the same as a 2:1 at the other: that needs to be taken into account," says Langdon.

Being at a top uni like Cambridge is demanding, she continues, with the high work levels leaving less time to devote to the extra-curricular activities which so impress law firms and barristers' chambers.

Plus, contrary to popular belief, "it's not the case that everyone at Cambridge walks into a vac scheme or training contract", explains Mashhood, with Oxbridge students dogged by a perhaps unfair stereotype that they lack commercial awareness in comparison to their counterparts at universities in larger cities.

Looking ahead, Mashhood and Langdon wonder if students from ordinary backgrounds will be discouraged from applying to Oxbridge by a growing perception that it doesn't count particularly favourably with potential employers — and could even count against you.

Listen to Mashhood and Langdon's discussion in full in the podcast below.

This year's wannabe barristers are being taught last year's superseded Bar code of conduct, it has emerged.

A QC has slammed the providers of the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) after discovering that they are teaching an outdated code of conduct to this year's students.

Writing on his blog, Pupillage And How To Get It, Simon Myerson QC suggested that law schools "should be ashamed of themselves" for basing their 2014 ethics module on last year's significantly different rules.

The Leeds-based silk became aware of the situation after spending a weekend with Middle Temple students in York. He added: "The BSB should have realised the difficulty and sorted it. Not much point regulating the profession unless you give a stuff about its students."

The new revised Bar Code of Conduct (contained within the new Bar Handbook) came into force on 6 January this year, having been approved by the Legal Services Board (LSB) in July 2013.

We contacted the BSB to put Myerson's criticisms to them. Head of education and training Simon Thornton-Wood told us:

“In setting out the 2014 BPTC course, providers asked that the syllabus be agreed early in 2013. The development, review and approval process for course materials in a programme of this scale requires very careful advance planning. It was not until the Legal Services Board approved the new Handbook in July 2013 that there was any real certainty it would be coming into force this year.

"We’ve worked closely with both providers and students to make sure that, by the end of their BPTC, students know about the new Handbook – and the key changes it introduces – which will be fully reflected in next year’s syllabus and exams. That said, it is important to point out that the core principles of the professional ethics to which we expect barristers to adhere remain unchanged from previous years.”

This response is unlikely to pacify Myerson, who is calling on chambers to "cut some slack" to the BPTC class of 2014 by ensuring "that the first 6 months includes the ethics training for which they have already paid but have received no value whatever." He has also suggested that "the entities making money out of students could provide a percentage of it to offer more pupillages for the beleaguered publicly funded Bar."

During a journey from academia to management retiring University of Law president Nigel Savage has accumulated a few basic rules. This is his personal reflection.

Having made the decision to retire as president of the University of Law, I now face the challenge of carving out a new career at the age of 64, so it’s a good time to reflect on “if I knew then what I know now...”

There have been two parts to my professional career: the consultancy, research and writing, including my PhD way back in 1980, and then my management career. It was the success in the former activities that brought the opportunity to enter senior management in 1989, but the skill sets were largely entirely different. So I started my first day as dean of a university law school in 1989, responsible for the careers of some 50 individuals and a large chunk of taxpayers’ money, without any training or preparation. Academia is much like professional practice — you achieve success in fee-earning, which doesn’t necessarily make you a competent leader and manager.

Over the years I have accumulated a few basic rules, largely tried out on my colleagues. The only management book I ever read was Alex Ferguson’s first book and from that I learnt a good deal, including the overwhelming principle of defending the team/the business and your commitment to it. If we are all working hard as a team, don’t worry about some of the popular perceptions (or misconceptions) too much.

A few more things I've learnt...

Always stay on good terms with ex-employees or candidates who have taken the trouble to apply for appointments. It’s always preferable for staff to leave with a debt of gratitude than a yearning for revenge. Look how many of Ferguson's great players became advocates for the club and went on to be managers in the Premier Division. Besides, you never know when people are going to “bob up” as clients.

Be confident enough to surround yourself with people who can do your job for you. Constant challenge is good for leadership. A boss who helps their team achieve its goals rather than being its biggest problem is more likely to succeed. Be honest with each other and acknowledge your respective strengths; identify your defenders, your midfield and goal-scorers and make sure they are in the correct roles.

Don’t be afraid to attract and retain prima donnas. They need constant attention and support, but if managed and motivated they score goals and make the difference between success and mediocrity. A classic current case in point is Kevin Pietersen — a real game changer — but with an England captain and management who are incapable of managing him and getting the best out of him, and hence have settled for mediocrity.

Articulate a shared vision, and how different you are, and make sure it is sufficiently and soundly embedded. When I left Nottingham Law School in 1996 my parting words were that few vice chancellors can resist dismantling a successful subsidiary and that’s precisely what happened. If the subsidiary company had been more embedded, that might not have occurred so easily.

Always demand an evidence base (a good training for lawyers as well as in management!) for decisions and assumptions. BUT having done that reflect on your instincts — the killer ones which may give you first move, not the gut instincts with which you were born.

At the start of the day identify what’s the most difficult task/meeting you have. Then confront it as early as possible.

Finally, take heed of the following tale, I can’t remember who related it to me many years ago but it does ring true:

A little bird was flying south for the winter and was almost frozen and eventually fell to the ground. Whilst it was lying there a cow came along and dropped some dung on it. As the frozen bird lay there it began to recover from the heat of the dung and thaw out and soon found sufficient contentment to sing for joy thus attracting a passing cat, which promptly dug the bird out of the dung and ate it.

Lesson from the above:

Not everyone who drops shit on you is your enemy.

Not everyone who gets you out of the shit is your friend.

When you are in the shit, keep your mouth shut!

Professor Nigel Savage is the president of the University of Law. He will retire from his full-time post in April, after 18 years leading the institution.

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

The Negative Lawgasm: An Obscenity Lawyer Valentine’s Sex Special

I remember my first Lawgasm with absolute acuity. It came, appropriately enough for an obscenity lawyer, in a criminal law lecture. For those readers unaware of the Lawgasm phenomenon, I can only describe it as that moment of epiphany where you finally comprehend how an individual component of the law functions in practice. Consequently, I can confirm for the record that I have yet to experience a land law-related Lawgasm. This impasse may endure into perpetuity.

Nonetheless, by adapting an old joke it is possible to identify and therefore classify the four unique heads of Lawgasm: The Positive: “oh, yes”; The Negative: “oh, no”; The Religious: “oh, God” and the faked: “oh, [insert your name here]”. It is the second of these heads, The Negative Lawgasm, that I intend to dwell upon here. In many regards this is the most troubling of the four heads of Lawgasm (even more so than the Faked Lawgasm, wherein the subject merely feigns comprehension), as the Negative Lawgasm contains the dawning realisiation that the law is, quite simply, wrong.

I endured my first Negative Lawgasm as an undergraduate reading the former House of Lords’ judgment in R v Brown. I shuddered at Lord Templeman’s statement that: “Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised”. Why was there such a disjunct between the more positive “heterosexual” R v Wilson and the arcane, “homophobic” sub-text of R v Brown?

I experienced my next Negative Lawgasm in court, 15 years ago, as a junior criminal clerk. I had taken to conveying my legal documents to court in a record bag; which proclaimed the name of one of my favourite record labels: Rough Trade. After a perceived slight due to my relative inexperience (violating the presiding judge’s eyeline during the sentencing an offender), I was ordered to stand up in open court and suffer a humiliating dressing-down. I discovered later via counsel that the judge in question had taken against me due to the erroneous assumption that my record label bag was an “open” proclamation of my sexual orientation.

My latest Negative Lawgasm arose during Simon Walsh’s Porn Trial, 18 months ago, where he was ultimately acquitted of being in possession of “extreme” pornography. Whilst the jury were out the judge in question made a comment suggesting that there was a difference between the homosexual and heterosexual age of consent (the law had been altered 12 years previously to make both ages of consent equal). After seeing my facial expression the judge in question swiftly resiled from that statement.

Yet, having recently questioned whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) suffers from institutional homophobia, I would be brave to suggest that the judiciary suffers from the same affliction. Nevertheless it seems that at a time of anti-equality and persecution by numerous regimes across the globe, the day of Saint Valentine is an appropriate one for a Religious Lawgasm and to reflect on the true nature of love.

Myles Jackman is the Law Society Junior Lawyer of the Year and a consultant solicitor-advocate at Hodge Jones and Allen.

Follow @ObscenityLawyer

Inns of Court legal drama is back.

The BBC has quietly placed a trailer for the new series of Silk on YouTube in anticipation of the show's return next Monday.

Hype has been building around the third series of Silk for months, with actors Rupert Penry Jones (who plays barrister Clive Reader) and Neil Stuke (senior clerk Billy Lamb) piquing fans' interests by tweeting photos of the filming.

The big news in the latest series is that Reader has become a QC — information we first reported last year after a barrister spotted this Shoe Lane Chambers ladder as he was walking through the Inns of Court one Sunday afternoon.

One of the key story-lines in the new series will apparently see star barrister Martha Costello (played by Maxine Peake) defend the son of the head of Shoe Lane Chambers for killing a police officer. The first episode will air on Monday 24 February at 9pm.

A rare good news story for the criminal branch of the legal profession.

The pupil barrister star of last week's #OneBarOneVoice event is a pupil no more.

On Thursday London criminal set 23 Essex Street announced that Hannah Evans has been made a tenant. The news comes after Evans' speech about the reality of life at the Bar for third six pupils and other rookies became a hit on Facebook and Twitter.

Chambers is delighted to announce that Hannah Evans @hannah120589 has accepted an offer of tenancy after a successful 3rd six pupillage

— 23 Essex Street (@23essexstreet) February 13, 2014

Whether talented young barristers like Evans will be able to remain at the criminal Bar in the longer term if the government's legal aid reforms go through is another matter.

As Evans herself said at one point during her speech:

"How much longer can you do this?" The answer at the moment? "I'm not sure; it's tough; hang in there". The answer if this government gets its way? "Not much longer".

To keep up to date on the latest news regarding the March 7 legal aid strike follow the Criminal Bar Association on Twitter.

Follow @TheCriminalBar

This photo of a mystery Crown Court waiting room appeared on Reddit a few days ago.

In the ensuing wave of comments, it was revealed that Doncaster Crown Court is apparently even more high-tech, boasting a PlayStation 2.

Meanwhile, spotted a few months back in the Stafford Crown Court robing room...

Solicitor-advocate numbers up sharply too, but new appointments are mainly white male barristers.

The Bar has taken a step towards remedying its extreme lack of diversity at senior level by appointing four times as many ethnic minorities to QC as last year.

13% of the barristers awarded silk today are from ethnic minorities — meaning this year's QC appointments round broadly reflects the equivalent figure for the general population (according to the 2011 census, 14% of the UK population is from ethnic minorities). But with 94% of the total of approximately 1,300 QCs of white ethnicity there remains a long way to go to reflect society.

More women have also been made QC this year. But they still only make up a disappointing 18% of new silks (up from 14% last year). Census data places the percentage of women in the general population significantly higher. Over all, around 88% of silks are men.

Solicitor-advocates are similarly underrepresented at silk level, with a mere 13 named as QC since 2006 — partly, in fairness to the Independent Queen’s Counsel Selection Panel, because so few apply (only two made applications in each of the last couple of years). So it's encouraging to see five new solicitor-advocates (all City arbitration specialists) on this year's QC list. With only seven having applied this year, it would seem to be well worth solicitors having a punt at silk (if they're prepared to risk the £2,340 application fee).

Other notable statistics from this year's round include the appointment of eight applicants with disabilities (none were appointed last year), two employed advocates (none were appointed last year) and 11 applicants aged over 50. The youngest successful applicant is 37, the oldest is 68.

A total of 225 lawyers applied for silk this year, with 100 having their wishes granted, meaning the success rate was 44%. Those who missed out can console themselves with the fact that they won't have to part with the eye-catching £4,200 fee payable upon taking up the QC title.

In lighter QC-appointment news, a barrister who appeared in Your Barrister Boyfriend's "hottie list" has built on his attractiveness gong to claim a place in the silks' list, while popular anonymous tweeter BARRISTER HULK also appears to have bagged a place.

Good to see a @BarristerHottie (http://t.co/iSbydONZHE) & a @BARRISTERHULK among the new QCs pic.twitter.com/AJ79excS3k

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) February 19, 2014

A bin at Cardiff Crown Court has felt the full force of barristers' dislike for the much-maligned Public Defender Service (PDS).

The side of the bin was also decorated.

Negative feelings towards the PDS are running high after it was claimed that the Ministry of Justice is planning to bulk it up “as a way of breaking the dispute with advocates over fees”.

Founded in 2001 as a pilot, the PDS has offices in Cheltenham, Darlington, Pontypridd and Swansea, having closed four other offices in 2007. Research conducted that year found the PDS to be one and a half to two times as expensive as private practice. Last month criminal barrister and Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile labelled it a "total waste of public money".

Images by ‏@lucy66237306.

Follow @lucy66237306