Tumblr sensation Your Barrister Boyfriend has published a list of the best-looking lawyers who became QCs in yesterday's new silks round.

The rankings, which follow the "hottest barristers in the Inns of Court" lists which went viral last year, feature nine of the proud new hotshots. They are: Wayne Jordash (DoughtyStreet), Stuart Alford (Serious Fraud Office), David Allison (South Square), Matthew Gearing (Allen & Overy), Stephen Vullo (2 Bedford Row), Patrick Goodall (Fountain Court), Constantine Partasides (Freshfields), Leslie Thomas (Garden Court) and Adam Tolley (Fountain Court).

Disappointingly for women lawyers, there was no place in the list for any of the 18 new female QCs. However, the solicitors branch of the profession will be encouraged by the presence of City arbitration duo Gearing and Partasides — the first time non-barristers have appeared on Your Barrister Boyfriend.

The real star of the list, however, is Doughty Street's Jordash (pictured above), who was featured in both the original '21 Hottest Barristers in London 2013' and today's list.

Your Barrister Boyfriend is run by the "Barrister Hottie Experts", an art historian and a journalist. When contacted by Legal Cheek this morning, they give an insight into the methodology behind the list:

"Solicitor-advocates: pish posh! If they're good enough to be a QC, and they're hot, they're good enough for our list. Our readers aren't pedants — they just want dashing hotties.

"As for the lack of women: there were plenty of beauties on the list, but the last thing a woman needs upon achieving silk is for her looks to be dissected and discussed. They've probably had enough of that throughout their lives. The men on the other hand..."

The Barrister Hottie Experts recently launched Your Doctor Boyfriend, a new list to rank attractive medics.

The 2014 QC Hottie Special [Your Barrister Boyfriend]

Gizoogle is a gangsta version of Google, through which a pimped-up version of the internet can be accessed. The lawyers who populate this realm do things differently...

SLAUGHTER AND MAY

GRAY'S INN

THE SUPREME COURT

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

BLACKSTONE CHAMBERS

THE LAWYER

OXFORD UNIVERSITY LAW SOCIETY

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER

DOUGHTY STREET CHAMBERS

THE LAW SOCIETY

Sample the joys of Gizoogle yourself here.

Millions of pounds worth of scholarships every year are offered by the Inns of Court and, increasingly, law schools. Getting a portion of the cash isn't as hard as students often imagine.

Last week some more law scholarships came into being, with the University of Law (ULaw) 'Alumni Scholarship' offering three law students the chance to get their course fees paid in full next year. Expect further giveaways as ULaw delves deeper into the £2million it has earmarked for good causes.

Of course, the Inns of Court have been doing this sort of thing for years on a grand scale, with a combined £5 million paid out to wannabe barristers each year. The money is apportioned pretty evenly between the Inns, explains Inner Temple outreach manager Anthony Dursi, although only two Inns (Inner and Middle Temple) interview all applicants.

Alex Pritchard-Jones and Stephen Lue (pictured below with Dursi, in order from left to right) both benefitted from chunky awards from Middle Temple to fund their studies, with current BPTC student Pritchard-Jones managing to stay debt free after bagging an additional scholarship from his law school, Kaplan.

"I got a Middle Temple scholarship which was not quite enough to cover the full fees so I deferred it and applied again for a Kaplan scholarship, which I got. I used that year to work and save money, and also to get a qualification as a police station rep so I can earn money doing that...It's quite precarious, but I'm not in debt at the moment," he says.

But as crucial as the money is, scholarships are about more than the financial. Lue emphasises how much his award boosted his self-esteem and helped him to keep applying for pupillages after a long string of rejections.

"If I hadn't had a major scholarship, an endorsement from Middle, I would not necessarily have gone on for four years applying for pupillage. It gives you confidence and something to put on your CV," he says.

This tale isn't atypical, explains Dursi, with 60-90% of students who secure an Inner Temple scholarship going on to bag a pupillage. He adds: "If you gain a scholarship you have a very good shot."

Where does this leave prospective solicitors, though? OK, so those who join large corporate firms often receive funding to cover their law school costs, but those who wish to pursue careers in legal aid get no such help.

ULaw scholarships chief Julian Kent is hopeful that law schools can step in to help to fill this gap over the next few years, through a combination of full and partial scholarships. Alongside the new alumni scholarships, ULaw also offers over 50 £5,000 postgraduate awards, while the other main law schools also offer a wide range of scholarships.

"We will continue to look at ways that we can support all students wishing to pursue careers in all areas of legal practice, which includes those keen to go down the legal aid route. It is in everyone's interest to put funding where we feel it's most needed," he says.

Kent adds that the Legal Education Foundation — the charitable entity formed in the wake of the College of Law's metamorphosis into ULaw — will also be looking to help in this area.

Getting their hands on scholarship money requires students to be informed and organised, with surprising numbers missing out because they are unaware of not just application deadlines, but the existence of scholarships altogether. The key deadlines for Inns of Court cash are, for GDL scholarships, the first Friday in May, and for BPTC scholarships, the first Friday in November. Law school scholarship deadlines vary, with the ULaw application deadline this year on 30 June.

Listen to Pritchard-Jones, Lue, Dursi and Kent's discussion in full with Legal Cheek editor Alex Aldridge in the podcast below.

Lord Denning fans will be sad to hear that the central London car park which featured in the famous Court of Appeal exclusion clause case is no more.

Legal blogger Amy Woolfson took these pictures of the demolition on Wednesday. The car park was located beneath the old International Press Centre on Shoe Lane in Holborn. If you look closely, you can spot the old 'Way Out' sign.

More information about the case and its location can be found on Woolfson's excellent blog, the London Law Map.

Follow @AmyWoolfson

Set's priority to find new homes for in-coming pupil and current first-sixer, but mini-pupillage applicants to be disappointed.

Renaissance Chambers has pledged to ensure that its two baby barristers endure minimal disruption to their fledgling careers after its members voted to dissolve the set.

The legal aid chambers has been left stricken after its 13 strong immigration team dramatically quit to join Mansfield Chambers, the outfit formed last year from the ashes of Tooks by big name silk Michael Mansfield QC. A further 12 barristers quit the set last year for other destinations.

With just 28 barristers remaining (all of whom specialise in family law), and the lease of Renaissance's premises in Gray's Inn up for renewal at the end of next month, it was decided to end the set in its current form.

Insiders say the decision to dissolve hasn't yet been definitively sealed, although they concede that it is "very likely", adding that "we may mutate" into what would effectively be Renaissance 2 — a specialist family set housed in a smaller building.

Currently Renaissance has one pupil, who will have completed her first six by the time of the dissolution next month. At which point she is expected to join Mansfield Chambers.

It is understood that there is a further pupil due to join Renaissance in autumn. A spokesperson from the set told Legal Cheek that it is "making endeavours to ensure that those to whom we have already committed are looked after."

The spokesperson added that Bar hopefuls who had submitted applications for mini-pupillages had been informed that no work experience would now be available.

Renaissance Chambers is the second well-known set to dissolve in recent months, with the aforementioned Tooks folding in September. Both chambers cited the legal aid cuts as the main reason behind their failure.

Formed in 1989 as Gray’s Inn Chambers, Renaissance — which specialises in family, immigration and human rights — took on its current name in 2001 following its merger with 1 Gray’s Inn Square. In addition to its 28 members, Renaissance has five clerks and a practice manager.

New series of Silk is the most unrealistic yet, despite guidance from top QC.

The nation's criminal lawyers sought solace from each other on Twitter last night as they struggled to come to terms with the bizarre portrayal of the legal system in returning BBC drama Silk.

I am following my twitter timeline instead of watching #silks. Saves me screaming at my TV screen when I see others doing it for me.

— Philip Morris (@PhilipJMorris) February 24, 2014

The opener to series three of the hit show featured, most memorably, a wild performance from star QC Martha Costello which began with her getting drunk at the Royal Courts of Justice and dancing to Joy Division, and ended with a nonsense closing speech. Naturally, she won the day — much to watching lawyers' frustration.

@borobarrister tell the jury in closing that the CoA got the last case you lost wrong, so they had better not let you f**k this one up

— Rebecca Herbert (@RebeccaHerber44) February 24, 2014

Who would admit to being the legal adviser to such junk? The answer was in the credits....

Philippa McAtasney QC of Furnival Chambers, what happened?

On the evening of Monday 24 March seven contributors to the 'If I knew then what I know now' series will be gathering at Inner Temple to answer questions on how to make it to the top in law — or even just how to land a training contract or pupillage. The event is free to attend, but places are limited...

The speakers are: Mukul Chawla QC (criminal barrister and head of 9-12 Bell Yard), Dominic Griffiths (head of banking and finance, Mayer Brown), Madhavi Gosavi (projects and infrastructure partner, Norton Rose Fulbright), Stephen Gowland (president, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives), Chris Stoakes (director of legal projects, Hogan Lovells), Fiona Scolding (social welfare and human rights barrister, Hardwicke) and Nigel Savage (president, University of Law).

The Question Time-style discussion, which will be chaired by Legal Cheek podcast host Kevin Poulter, will start at 6:30pm, and be followed by drinks and nibbles — kindly provided by Inner Temple. You do not have to be a member of an Inn to come: all law students and junior lawyers are welcome.

GET YOUR TICKETS HERE:

Our sponsor for the evening is the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting.

Here are the speakers' 'If I knew then what I know now' posts:

Mukul Chawla QC (9-12 Bell Yard): ‘There are moments in court when you wish the ground would swallow you up’

Madhavi Gosavi (Norton Rose Fulbright): Corporate lawyers can be divided into ‘grinders, minders and finders’

Nigel Savage (University of Law): ‘Not everyone who drops sh*t on you is your enemy’

Fiona Scolding (Hardwicke): ‘Life is a series of encounters with toasted cheese sandwiches at windswept train stations’

'If I knew' contributions by Dominic Griffiths, Chris Stoakes and Stephen Gowland will be appearing in the weeks leading up to the event.

'If I knew then what I know now: at Inner Temple' follows last year's 'If I knew then what I know now: at the Google Campus' event, an account of which is here.

For a barrister who has been hard at work all day to re-don their full court garb in order to watch a programme about barristers suggests a deep passion for the job.

Hopefully the unnamed barrister above wasn't too disappointed with the underwhelming first episode of the third series of Silk, which aired last night amid cries of pain from many in the legal profession about how unrealistic it was.

Human rights barrister spotted with film star for second time, setting tongues wagging.

A photo has appeared on Instagram of Doughty Street rookie barrister Amal Alamuddin apparently accompanying George Clooney at a private screening of his latest film at the White House. President Obama was also in attendance at the gathering to celebrate the release of 'Monuments Men'.

The photo, which was posted from the account of US lawyer Chelsea Good, prompted the Mail Online to do some digging. It reports:

"The Oscar winner and the lawyer were said to be looking extremely close at the event, and although it's not known whether Miss Alamuddin met President Obama, Clooney is pictured standing by the Commander-in-Chief.

"Just hours after the small screening on Tuesday, February 18, Clooney and Miss Alamuddin were pictured standing intimately together at the Round Robin and Scotch Bar at the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C...An onlooker at the bar told MailOnline: 'They looked very much together, George had his arm around her and she appeared to be a girlfriend.'"

Alamuddin's name didn't appear on the official White House guest list for the event, which took place eight days ago, with the White House declining to confirm whether she attended or not. Official attendees included, in addition to Clooney and Obama, Clooney's parents, and Bill Murray and Matt Damon.

Last year photos emerged of Alamuddin, 35, and Clooney, 52, sharing a taxi after leaving a restaurant in London.

Alamuddin — who was proclaimed the "hottest" female barrister in London last year by hit Tumblr YourBarristerBoyfriend — was called to the Bar in 2010. She practises international law, human rights and criminal law, and is an adviser to UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan on Syria. Clooney has publicly denied dating Alamuddin, saying that they're working together on a "satellite programme over Syria".

The Ministry of Justice's long-awaited announcement about its consultation on reforms to criminal legal aid was released today, sending shockwaves through the profession. Here are five key points about a historic piece of bad news.

1. It was worse than expected.

Lawyers knew this would be bad, but they expected more than a few minor concessions. As it turned out the only real sugar coating of an extremely bitter pill was a fractional reduction in the amount being cut (as it turned out, a mere £215m is to be lopped off the legal aid budget, £5m less than had been threatened) and some waffle about "exploring the possibility of grants to aid practitioners to invest in digital technology as part of a digital criminal justice system."

Horrific does not even begin to describe this

— CrimeLine.info® (@CrimeLineLaw) February 27, 2014

2. The Bar is genuinely shocked by the news

"Today, our worst fears have been confirmed," said Bar Council chair Nicholas Lavender QC in an unusually emotional statement issued in the wake of the Ministry of Justice's midday announcement, in which he lamented "another round of cuts, after three years of cuts, cuts and more cuts".

In isolation, today's reduction of barristers' fees (under the Advocates Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS)) by an average of 6% doesn't seem world-changing. But when considered in the context of the dramatic fee cuts that have taken place over the last few years — fee rates paid to Crown Court advocates have fallen by 21% on average since 2007, which is a 37% fall in real terms when inflation is allowed for — it's understandable why criminal barristers are so angry. The government says that the reduction in fees will be less for rookie barristers, with a 2% reduction being quoted. But with those at the junior Bar already earning a pittance, it seems bizarre to inflict any further cuts on them.

3. Even the solicitors who have shown sympathy to reforming legal aid are freaking out.

Franklin Sinclair, the senior partner of Tuckers, one of the country's larger legal aid law firms, has previously spoken out in support of reforming the current system. But after hearing today's announcement — which included a cut of 17.5% cut in solicitors' fees for all cases (which will be made in two stages of 8.75% cuts) — he tweeted that this was "a sad day and carnage will follow".

"@SJ_weekly: Criminal legal aid fee cut a ‘total disaster’. http://t.co/KMnLENuE4T". A sad day and carnage will follow.Awful for all firms

— Franklin Sinclair (@FMStuckers) February 27, 2014

In an interview with the Solicitors Journal, Sinclair added that this was "total disaster for everybody", and predicted that a "large number of firms will be in big trouble and won't survive."

4. The era of Eddie Stobart and Tesco is almost upon us.

The reduction of solicitor "duty contracts" from a current figure of 1,700 to, as confirmed today, a mere 525 is set to force a wave of consolidation among legal aid law firms. As if that wasn't dramatic enough a change to deal with, these firms will have to compete with controversial new legal market entrants keen to experiment with low-cost "Tesco Law" business models.

@TheCriminalBar Annex C 'We will not limit the types of organisation that may bid for either contract' Stobarts and tescolaw coming soon!

— Richard (@c0unse1) February 27, 2014

5. The government's actions today mean that next Friday's legal aid lawyer strike is going to be intense.

For many lawyers, this may be the moment when they decide enough is enough.

I am not prepared to work for the new AGFS rates announced today. RT if you are with me.

— Ian West (@ianswest) February 27, 2014

The government's full response to the legal aid consultation can be read here.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) warning that barristers who strike will lose work elicits memorable letter from 9-12 Bell Yard head Mukul Chawla QC.

On Friday afternoon the political editor of the Guardian, Patrick Wintour, tweeted news of a CPS threat to barristers who strike this week.

CPS has written to chambers saying they have 24 hours to promise its barristers will ignore March 7 legal aid strike or lose future work.

— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) February 28, 2014

Wintour elaborated on his tweet in a follow-up article, which provided details of a letter written by the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, Baljit Ubhey, to heads of chambers on Thursday instructing them that barristers may lose work if they participate in the legal aid protest this Friday 7 March.

Ubhey's letter — which can be read in full here — asked the chambers bosses to confirm in writing by the end of the day on Friday last week that barristers in their sets who are listed to prosecute cases on 7 March will do so.

It continues, not-a-little menacingly:

"If barristers decide not to honour their professional commitments in respect of CPS instructions then their own actions could cause a detrimental impact on the positive relationship that we have hitherto enjoyed."

Yesterday head of 9-12 Bell Yard Mukul Chawla QC (pictured) made public his response to the CPS, stating that he was in "no position to dictate what individual members [of his chambers] should or should not do", and writing of a level of anger at the Bar "that I have never before experienced in my 31 years of prosecuting and defending in criminal cases".

Chawla's response — re-published in full below — also lays bare the stark reality of life as a criminal barrister and the depressing future that lies ahead for the criminal Bar:

"You must know that the continued cuts to Legal Aid have already had a devastating effect on members of the criminal Bar. The Ministry of Justice’s own figures, properly viewed, showed that the average taxable income for members of the publicly funded criminal Bar is in the order of some £27,000 to £37,000. There is, of course, no paid holiday entitlement, no pension provision or any other benefits which employees in government or other service enjoy. Now that the Ministry has seen fit to make further cuts in the teeth of virtually unanimous representations to the contrary, including the extraordinarily dignified yet scathing representations of Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court, it is wholly unsurprising that the criminal Bar, has said 'enough is enough'.

"From your perspective, you will already know that the effect of the cuts is that the best and the brightest will simply leave the criminal Bar, trials will become longer and longer as less qualified and able people seek to conduct difficult and sensitive cases and many will simply become unmanageable. The costs of such cases will therefore increase exponentially and, far from producing savings, the cost to the public purse will spiral out of control. If the best and the brightest will not come to practise at the criminal Bar (a fact that the Attorney General expressly conceded at the Bar Conference in November 2013) who will be capable of being the skilled prosecutors of tomorrow?"

5KBW, which is co-headed by South Eastern Circuit leader Sarah Forshaw QC, has also made public its response to the CPS. It states: "In this set...there is unanimity of opposition to these changes." The letter can be read here.

Mukul Chawla QC's response to the CPS in full.

Chawla CPS Letter

Employment barrister discovers that TripAdvisor is rather more brutal than Chambers and Partners.

Reviewers on TripAdvisor have torn into Littleton Chambers barrister Shirley Bothroyd after their experiences at the hotel which she recently took over proved not quite what they had expected.

Likening Bothroyd (pictured) to Basil Fawlty, one particularly savage review — which can be read in full below — claims that the barrister's exuberant behaviour ruined his Valentine's Day experience at the Bay Hotel in Teignmouth. Other reviewers claimed Bothroyd, 55, was drunk and verbally abusive.

The scathing reports are a far cry from the pages of softly-softly legal industry guide Chambers and Partners, where Bothroyd is described as “an expert on injunctions, acting in numerous High Court cases, as well as a wide range of other employment disputes”.

It should be noted, however, that overall the hotel — which Bothroyd recently bought as a project for when she retires — does pretty well, with an average TripAdvisor positive rating of 73% (25 of the 91 reviews described it as "excellent"', 40 as "very good", 14 as "average", eight as "poor" and four as "terrible").

TripAdvisor reviewer "Michael W" takes down "Basil Fawlty"-esque Shirley Bothroyd — in full:

News the reviews has been picked up by the Mail Online and The Telegraph, with Bothroyd telling the former:

"I take is as a compliment to be compared to Basil Fawlty — he had a great sense of humour, just like me, and it seemed a fun place to stay."

She added that the "partner" mentioned in the review above is in fact her son:

"Of course I had a few drinks — I was excited to see him and we had a great time. I can be a bit raucous, but I was not drunk."

Bothroyd also suggested that the review "could be the work of a disgruntled former member of staff being malicious". In January, two former members of staff at the hotel were arrested and bailed pending a police investigations into alleged fraud and identity after a complaint made by Bothroyd.

Since appearing on YouTube on 2 March 2007, a Donoghue v Stevenson-inspired parody of The Police's 'Message in a Bottle' has delighted tens of thousands. But, having been buried under reams of inferior videos over the last seven years, this is probably the first many law students will have heard of 'Snail in a Bottle'. Enjoy.

Do you know where the creators of 'Snail in a Bottle' are now? If so, leave a comment or email tips@legalcheek.com.

Snail in a Bottle: lyrics

Just a ginger beer, made by good old Stevo

Another simple case, well, that's what I believed, oh

But Donoghue brought a case to bear

Arguing he owed her a duty of care, oh!

He breached my neighbour principle

He breached my neighbour principle

He breached my neighbour principle

No one should ever get a

No one should ever get a

No one should ever get a

Snail in a bottle, yeah!

Snail in a bottle, yeah!

Ages have passed since I judged that case

It really defined my time on the bench

Sometimes I think that, for example

There'd be no case if the Plaintiff had been French!

Reasonably foreseeable

Reasonably foreseeable

No one should ever get a

No one should ever get a

No one should ever get a...

Negligence these days is the King of the Torts

Hundred billion cases clogging up the courts

Seems insurance now is way too dear

Hundred billion legal fees, thanks to ginger beer!

It's not far-fetched or fanciful

It's not far-fetched or fanciful

No one should ever get a

No one should ever get a

No one should ever get a

Snail in a bottle, yeah!

Snail in a bottle, yeah!

I founded modern negligence!

I founded modern negligence!

I founded modern negligence!

I founded modern negligence!

New pupil barrister on BBC legal drama Silk fails to impress on debut.

Viewers of last night's episode of BBC legal drama Silk were introduced to Shoe Lane Chambers' new pupil, Amy Lang. Having been likened in the pre-series blurb to a younger version of star character Martha Costello QC, expectations were high. So it was a surprise to hear Lang's first question:

"What's a warrant?"

The wannabe barristers commenting on the action under the #Silk hashtag were not amused...

Apparently you can get a criminal pupillage without knowing what a warrant is. I wish. #Silk

— Nicholas RL (@Nicholas_RL) March 3, 2014

Lang — who is played by 21 year-old actor Jessica Henwick — raised her performance slightly in a subsequent Magistrates Court hearing, where, after a dressing down from the judge, she managed to secure an adjournment for her drug dependent client on shoplifting charges.

Expect to see a feistier side of Lang next week when she gets into a bust-up with senior clerk Billy Lamb.

Last night's episode of Silk is on iPlayer, with a review on the UK Criminal Law Blog.

A split has opened up between those who want to protest in full court garb, and those who don't.

The organisers of Friday's strike want the lawyers attending to wear their wigs and gowns.

CBA, LCCSA, CLSA & Justice Alliance encourage as many people as possible to wear wigs & gowns on Friday. Timings and details coming soon!

— The CBA (@TheCriminalBar) March 4, 2014

But last night three top criminal silks came out against the dress code, with Mukul Chawla QC labelling it an "awful idea", John Cooper QC calling it a "terrible image" and Francis FitzGibbon QC branding it "daft". This is the tweet by Chawla that began the debate:

CONTROVERSIAL TWEET ALERT 2!! For what it's worth, I think wearing wigs and gowns on the streets on Day of Action of Friday is awful idea.

— Mukul Chawla QC (@MChawlaQC) March 4, 2014

The main argument in favour of wig-wearing is that it will lead to more publicity, with photos of lawyers in court dress more likely to feature prominently in media coverage of the protests.

Those against suggest that wigs and gowns introduce a barrier between lawyers and the public at a point in time when that's not desirable, while enabling the press to play on popular stereotypes of the legal profession as aloof and old fashioned.

It's an interesting debate, but happily appears unlikely to derail the aim of the day of action.

Whether barristers are robed or not this Friday the message is clear. We will fight to prevent our Criminal Justice System being destroyed.

— Ian Unsworth QC (@IanUnsworth_QC) March 4, 2014

Meet Chris Grayling, a Kent-based maths tutor and writer who has endured a tough time from the nation's lawyers of late.

Not only does Chris share the Justice Secretary's name, but they also have a hairstyle in common.

As a result, poor Chris often finds himself @-ed in tweets intended for his politician namesake.

To his great credit, Chris responds with impeccable politeness.

Even when being urged to give himself up to a baying mob, Chris is all charm.

The good news is that Chris finds the whole thing quite amusing.

Indeed, these days he sometimes pops up for a chat with his new lawyer pals unprompted.

Be nice to him tomorrow.

Follow @chrisgrayling

The David Cameron-on-the-phone meme that has been sweeping the internet today has arrived at the legal profession (starring the PM's brother, Three Raymond Buildings' Alex Cameron QC).

Here is Cameron's original cringeworthy tweet that spawned the meme.

I've been speaking to @BarackObama about the situation in Ukraine. We are united in condemnation of Russia's actions. pic.twitter.com/7Rk2k8iOIK

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) March 5, 2014

There is more information about tomorrow's legal aid strike here.

23 Essex Street junior Vicky Gainza finds the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) threat to withhold work from striking barristers scary — but not as scary as the alternative of doing nothing to prevent the government's legal aid cuts.

26 year-old barrister Vicky Gainza (pictured above) could have followed her mates from university into a lucrative job at a big-paying magic circle law firm. Instead, she opted to follow her heart and join the criminal Bar.

Bad move, you may think, but Gainza — who graduated top in her college from Cambridge University in 2009 — doesn't regret her choice because she still "cares passionately" about what she does. Accordingly, despite struggling to get by on earnings of around £20,000 last year, she is going nowhere...for now, she told me when we caught up for a chat over coffee in King's Cross.

"I will stick around for as long as I can afford to pay my rent and my travel," she says. "I care passionately about what I do, and that is the reason why, when many of my very talented classmates from university have gone on to careers in magic circle law firms, I chose to come to the criminal Bar."

However, when pushed Gainza acknowledges that there may "come a time when I need to start thinking about another a viable career option," adding: "If I'm forced out it will be the Bar's loss."

Few would surely disagree with her, including — one imagines — the CPS, which last week issued a warning to barristers that they may lose work if they strike. The threat, made by Chief Crown Prosecutor for London Baljit Ubhey, unnerved Gainza, but not to the extent that she considered abandoning her participation in the day of action.

"At this stage we're more worried about what would happen if we didn't take a stand...so yes, it is a concern but actually I think the good relationships our chambers and other chambers have with the CPS will survive any perceived letting them down on Friday."

Other barristers are making the same calculation as they prepare for tomorrow in a climate of unprecedented anger. Despite the government's legal aid cut announcement, the determination of formidable characters like Gainza suggest that this one is far from over.

Listen to my conversation in full with Gainza in the podcast below.

We asked protesters at today's London demonstration against the legal aid cuts for their seven-second messages to Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.

Actor Maxine Peake (aka Martha Costello QC in BBC legal drama Silk)

"Hands off the justice system Grayling, and stop bullying the poor and dispossessed."

Hilary Lennox and Ariane Adam, barristers at 1 Mitre Court Buildings

"Give us a chance to represent those who most need it."

PJ Kirby QC, barrister at Hardwicke

"I'm a commercial silk, but the attack on the criminal Bar is an attack on the whole Bar and an attack on justice."

Neelim Sultan, barrister at 1 Mitre Court Buildings

"We are the last independent profession left standing. No more attacks on the independent Bar."

Ryan Turner, law student at King's College London

"Chris Grayling, you are the reason I can no longer practise criminal or family legal aid."

Alison Lambert, barrister at 2 Pump Court

"This fight isn't just about lawyers and saving lawyers' fees, this fight is about saving the criminal justice system."

Daniel Blaney, solicitor at ITN Solicitors

"Scrap Trident, and invest in public services including legal aid, which is vital."

Edward Fenner, barrister at FMW Law

"Chris Grayling, stop the cuts, stop destroying the criminal justice system."

Tessa Buchanan, barrister at Garden court Chambers

"Chris Grayling, you're destroying a world class legal system."

Gemma Burns, barrister at 33 Bedford Row

"You won't win."

For updates on the day of action, follow Legal Cheek on Twitter and Facebook.

Lord Neuberger wants to see leading sets hire fewer public school types.

Rare is the junior barrister at a top London chambers without an Oxbridge first — as Fountain Court's member profiles illustrate.

But is such uniformity of educational excellence necessary?

The president of the UK Supreme Court isn't so sure, arguing in his 2014 Rainbow Lecture on Diversity that "sometimes we have too rigid and traditional a view of the qualities required for a particular job".

In the lecture, which was given at the House of Commons yesterday, Neuberger went on to echo frequently-voiced concerns about the dominance of the upper classes at the elite end of the legal profession.

His solution? For top chambers to ditch their informal practice of hiring only graduates with first class degrees — if the applicant went to a state school. Neuberger's precise words were:

"One thing which such chambers (or law firms) might consider is the possibility of requiring applicants to state whether they had been to a state school (or even whether they had received free lunches) and, if they had, not rejecting them if they have a second class degree."

The Supreme Court chief added that the idea was suggested to him by a comprehensive school-educated junior solicitor at a magic circle firm who is on secondment at the Supreme Court. However, Neuberger shied away from giving the proposal his full backing, explaining:

"I have neither the experience nor the evidence to justify positively recommending such a suggestion. It is simply an example of a possible way of encouraging and assisting those from a less fortunate background to enter the legal profession."

At other points in the lecture Neuberger spoke of the legal profession's problems with gender and ethnic diversity, while also predicting that an increasingly conservative social mood could impact negatively on frank discussion of these issues in the future.

The 2014 Rainbow Lecture on Diversity can be read in full here.