Quantcast
Channel: Legal Cheek » Barristers
Viewing all 684 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

A tie for Mondays

May 12, 2014, 1:01 am
$
0
0

"My dad, a lawyer, gave this to me," writes Imgur user 'Swedishish'. "He had it for years but told me he never had the courage to wear it in court."

tie

In close up:

tie-2
↧
Search

Barristers vent pupillage application sift pain on Twitter

May 12, 2014, 3:46 am
$
0
0

Social media-loving barristers are increasingly turning to Twitter to share the tedium of graduate recruitment — and even reveal pupillage application form bloopers.

confession-bear copy

Over the weekend, Kings' Chambers' Sarah Pritchard (aka Sarah Jane Gosnell) posted a series of "pupillage application sifting updates" that jokingly expressed her boredom with the process of hiring young talent.

Pritchard's colleague at Kings Chambers, Michael Rawlinson QC, responded with a quip about opening pupillage applications up to chance.

The exchange, which includes contributions from other barristers, annoyed one Legal Cheek reader, who wrote:

"Must be disappointing for students when they put so much effort into pupillage applications to see barristers moan about having to read them."

But such mild public grumbling is surely less controversial than the fleeting decision of one barrister (who shall remain nameless) to tweet — and then swiftly delete — these pupillage interview bloopers. They are quite funny, though.

blooper#1 blooper#2 Blooper#3 blooper#4#

In case you were wondering, the chambers of the barrister in question has no association with Michael Mansfield QC.

↧
↧

#OpCotton ‘reserved’: Case so far explained through 9 memorable tweets

May 13, 2014, 7:44 am
$
0
0

The judgment on the case that threatens to derail the government's legal aid cuts has been "reserved", with the judges hoping to rule within a "short space of time". Here is what has happened so far.

cam-gray

1. #OpCotton, an abbreviation for the “Operation Cotton” case, or, to give it its proper name, R v Crawley and others, has famously pitted the Prime Minister against his criminal barrister brother.

2. Alex Cameron QC of Three Raymond Buildings has been acting "bro bono" (according to a typo in the first instance judgment) for five defendants accused of a complex fraud. Last week he argued that the legal aid cuts made it impossible for the defendants to gather a proper defence team. No barristers would take on the case in full because the government has cut their fees in complex cases by 30%.

3. Cameron QC won, with Judge Leonard QC accepting his arguments and staying (aka terminating) the proceedings. The judge said that it would clog up the courts to adjourn the case, adding that there was no reason to think that the defendants would be able to find suitably qualified barristers to represent them in the future.

4. The decision left Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, who has been the driving force behind the cuts, under pressure.

5. Having decided to appeal the ruling, the government retreated to prepare its case.

6. That appeal began this morning at the Court of Appeal, with the legal profession seeking to hold its position and the government arguing that the case should have been adjourned rather than stayed.

7. After a tense day in court, journalists nervously awaited the outcome.

8. In legal aid lawyers' dreams this is what happened next...

9. But, in reality, this is what happened.

For the latest news on the ruling follow the #OpCotton hashtag.


↧

Viz imagines the future of the legal profession

May 14, 2014, 5:51 am
$
0
0

Is law destined to go the way of the discount carpet industry? Viz thinks so.

viz

Image via @Vizcomic


↧

Tory councillor who described herself as a ‘barrister’ despite never being called to the Bar is arrested

May 20, 2014, 1:02 am
$
0
0

Law graduate was originally cleared of wrongdoing for using ‘barrister’ title, but Legal Cheek‘s identification of serious Bar Council error in investigation leads to intervention by police.

keep-calm-barrister#

Conservative councillor Monika Juneja has been arrested and questioned on suspicion of pretending to be a barrister under Section 181 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Juneja enrolled as a student member of Gray’s Inn in 2001 before going on to apparently gain a “Competent” on the Bar Vocational Course (now the Bar Professional Training Course) without being called to the Bar. The Guildford Borough Councillor was completely exonerated from any wrong-doing by an investigation into her use of the ‘barrister’ title earlier this year.

But the validity of the investigation’s findings was brought into question in March after Legal Cheek spotted that it relied on a very serious mistake made by the Bar Council.

The Bar Council’s statement to the investigation claimed: “It is not an offence to simply call yourself a barrister in this country even if not called to the Bar of England and Wales” as long as it’s not in connection with the provision of legal services.

The rules governing use of the ‘barrister’ title are confusing, but the Bar Council’s statement is clearly incorrect. Section 181 of the Legal Services Act states: “It is an offence for a person who is not a barrister — (a) wilfully to pretend to be a barrister, or (b) with the intention of implying falsely that that person is a barrister to take or use any name, title or description.” The Bar Council has since issued an apology and pledged to review its procedures.

Despite basing much of its findings on the Bar Council’s erroneous advice, the investigation into Juneja was not re-opened. It is at this point that the police appear to have been made aware of the situation.

Earlier this month Surrey Police arrested Juneja at her home. A Surrey Police spokesman said:

“A 35 year-old woman from Guildford was arrested on 7 May on suspicion of committing the criminal offences of wilfully pretending to be a barrister, making and using false instruments, and misconduct in a public office.

“The woman has been interviewed and bailed until July 2 2014, and the investigation remains ongoing.”

Juneja, who has not been charged with an offence, has since told local radio station Eagle 96.4:

“I didn’t realise that they were coming, the police have obviously had complaints and have had to look into this. It was very scary, certainly at 8pm to be taken to the station.

“I live with my parents and my brother and they were really upset and confused as to what was happening. I’m very sorry that people have felt that they have been let down in any way.”

She has also suggested that her arrest is “politically and racially motivated” and is linked to her overseeing of plans to plans to build hundreds of new homes in Surrey that would potentially remove some villages’ green belt status.

The offence of pretending to be a barrister carries a maximum prison sentence of two years, although it is also punishable by a fine.

Previously: Confusing rules governing use of ‘barrister’ title produce their most absurd result yet

↧
↧

General public flee as T-shirt clad lawyers descend on London

May 20, 2014, 2:55 am
$
0
0
LLW-lead

Not only did yesterday’s London Legal Walk raise over £500,000 for legal advice charities, but it also produced a host of delightful visual moments.

And so it began.

Some lawyers wore T-shirts, others sported enormous yellow babygrows.

Who said the legal profession was afraid of breaking the rules?

A mirage?

Like many members of the public out for a stroll in London yesterday, this poor man looked terrified.

Did anyone spot George?

Premier League footballer-style legal walk T-shirts confuse tourists.

Carnival-like scenes in legal London as returning walkers share tales of pedestrian crossing near-misses.

Such was the jovial mood that the Lord Chief Justice was even posing for selfies.

Not to be outdone, the Attorney General clambered onto a table in the Chancery Lane Wetherspoons.

Well done to the walk’s organisers, the London Legal Support Trust, for putting on a great event.

↧

The encouraging bit of the disappointing #OpCotton judgment

May 21, 2014, 5:24 am
$
0
0

Today’s ruling by the Court of Appeal at least offered a crumb of comfort to criminal lawyers. Although not everyone is buying it.

Grayling-protest-crop2

The #OpCotton fraud trial will go ahead after the decision to stay it because no barristers will take it on under slashed legal aid rates was overturned. But at least paragraphs 56-58 of the high profile judgment offer some encouragement to criminal lawyers in their continuing battle with justice secretary Chris Grayling over rates.

56-57 58

Not that everyone is convinced by what president of the Queen’s Bench Division Sir Brian Leveson and his fellow judges had to say.

Today’s #OpCotton judgment in full

#OpCotton: Case so far explained through 9 memorable tweets

↧

Does the future of law have no place for women?

May 22, 2014, 3:03 am
$
0
0

Over 50% of new entrants to the legal profession may be women, but its higher echelons remain dominated by men — as a recent conference on the future of law demonstrated. Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) boss Diane Burleigh reports.

andthenisaid-women

When I started on all this, my year group at university, and then at evening classes for my part-time London external degree course, was about 30 people. About six were women. Already there was determination for change. My school friends and I had burned our bras years before; the world was our oyster. It never occurred to us that we couldn’t achieve whatever we set out to achieve. We knew that the next year, and the year after, and the one after that, would see more women coming into the professions, and so into the law.

So it proved to be. Yes, there was many a skirmish along the way. I do hope no woman is now quizzed, as I was on asking about partnership (which I got), if I was really serious or only working for the pin money? And the wonderful Eileen Pembridge, on discovering that lady Council members of the Law Society had to miss a considerable amount of a Council meeting if she needed to pee because the Ladies was situated at the far side of the Chancery Lane building, whereas the men could nip next door, used the Gents, causing such consternation that a new Ladies was quickly constructed near the debating chamber.

Yes, we’ve come such a long way. The Women Lawyers Forum was disbanded years ago — no need, we’re doing so well — and the numbers of women coming into the profession has soared, so that now well over 50% of all new lawyers are women (in the case of CILEx, over 80%). Hurrah!

Or so I thought, until a week or two to ago, when I was brought up short, and left wondering if, at the end of my career, I am leaving a whole new generation to fight the battles I thought had been won.

A couple of weeks ago I attended, indeed had the privilege of speaking at, a really fabulous conference. I make the point of saying how truly excellent it was, because what follows, while a criticism, should not distract from the value of the conference then, or put anyone off from attending the next one. The Modern Law Conference. Note its name. It brought together leading entrepreneurial lawyers to talk about the new legal landscape post-big bang of alternative business structures (ABS) licensing and how their firms are prospering, with investment bankers and venture capitalists telling us why law firms make for good investment, and what they are looking for in a good firm. So many lessons to learn about law firm management in the 21st century, a surprising amount relying on good old fashioned virtues of professionalism, customer service, and decent modern man and resource management.

But…

Looking at the programme, I became mildly concerned. 29 speakers…six women, 23 men. Ouch. Then there was the pop-up stand advertising the Modern Law Review: four portraits, four men staring back at me. Are there really no more modern women in the modern law?

I broached my concern with the organiser, who was both perplexed (at my noticing?) and then mortified. I do ask women, she said, but they don’t respond. *Sigh*. How often over the years have I heard that one! Sure, there will be the odd one who hates public speaking, just as some men do — but find me a successful woman and I’ll show you someone desperate to talk, to share, to promote her business, just like any man. Or, is it really that the state of women in the law (and also it would seem in finance and banking) is so perilous that there really are no women about?

I was also somewhat taken aback by a pop up stand advertisement for LEGALEX 2014 “The National Legal Exhibition and Conference”, supported by the Law Society and a host of others. A sea of male faces; 16 of them…no, on closer inspection, 15, and one woman. So I checked the web site. 61 speakers over two days…12 women among them. The A5 marketing leaflet has eight men on the front cover…four men on page three, oh, and another four men on page four. Even the photo shots of last year’s conference are primarily of men.

As far as their publicity and speaker line-up is concerned, the message from these two events — billed as showcasing the now and future of law and the legal professions — is that there is no place for women, definitely not in senior positions, or in positions to be movers and shakers, entrepreneurs and leaders.

Such tosh. And if women are having it bad, I know that colleagues from ethnic minority groups have it harder. With the exception of Justice Minister Shailesh Vara, not a single ethnic minority speaker at the Modern Law Conference. And of the 64 at LEGALEX, only six.

I’m depressed. How can there have been so little progress in all my years in this wonderful profession? Did I and my peers just get tired, or lazy? Have we allowed the new generations to think that it’s all sorted? Have we allowed ourselves to be dulled by the few (and at one time increasing) successes, or have we unwittingly pulled the ladder up behind us?

I’ve no idea what the answer is. Perhaps you do. Shall we talk?

Diane Burleigh is the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx). She will be retiring at the end of the year after 37 years working in the law. The advertisement to find a successor to her is here.

↧
Search

10 outrageous slurs on Chris Grayling’s appearance made during Question Time

May 23, 2014, 1:55 am
$
0
0

As Chris Grayling sailed through last night’s Question Time without being asked a single question about legal aid, Twitter found itself captivated by the justice secretary’s face. This is what it reminded people of…

ChrisGrayling

Grayling = a thumb

Grayling = a spider crab

Grayling = a Despicable Me minion

Grayling = an arse

Grayling = the chief of Stalin’s secret police

Grayling = a top Tory lovechild

Grayling = a marshmallow man

Grayling = an egg

Grayling = a towel

Grayling = a penis

Previously: 6 animals that look like Chris Grayling

↧
↧

‘I was angry and embarrassed’: Bar wannabe whose application form blooper was tweeted by a barrister hits back

May 23, 2014, 3:05 am
$
0
0

A prospective barrister explains how he felt when his mistake was highlighted first on Twitter and then on Legal Cheek.

computer-reaction3

I felt like beginning this article with a typo. After all, that’s the reason why I’m writing it. Probably while stressing about upcoming exams, I happened to miss one when I proofread one of my pupillage applications. Schoolboy error though it was, I would never have known exactly why I didn’t acquire pupillage that year. Instead, thanks to Legal Cheek picking up a barrister’s recent series of tweets, I have a good idea of why at least one application seems not to have made the cut.

When I saw the story on Legal Cheek, I noticed something familiar: a word-for-word quote of part of my application. It wasn’t the best way to start the week. Understandably, I felt embarrassed, even if everything was anonymous. But I was angry. I didn’t ever think that a pupillage committee member, someone who has gone through the process in the not so distant past, would ever be so crass as to lift a quote from an application form and hold it up to ridicule on Twitter.

Before the inevitable chorus of sour grapes comes from the comments, let me explain. In principle, I have no problem with laughing at what I wrote. The offending article is quite a funny blooper. And we all laugh at bloopers associated with this process, such as the story of the interviewee who gets asked who he would most like to be stuck in a lift with and replies “a lift engineer”. Good little piecemeal bloopers like that are funny because they’re usually harmless.

If only the barrister in question had tweeted a piecemeal part of the blooper, though. Instead, whole sentences from applications were reproduced. If I can identify my quote, who else can? Can other former candidates identify their quotes? What if they included an amended version of their blooper in their other applications? There’s a chance that their corrected sentence could be identified not only by the offending barrister but also by other pupillage committee members elsewhere. Instantly, some of the anonymity that should come with blind marking is lost. Instead of Applicant No173 they are now “that chap who had that typo of x when they meant y!” Seeing a screenshot of their application online probably isn’t going to be the most constructive feedback either, trust me on that. (Although, that being said, it’s more feedback than most get when they get the rejection email.)

I honestly can’t believe that this barrister thought it was appropriate and sensible to do what he did. The Bar is, of course, different from other professions but would you expect a medium-sized solicitors firm to tweet screenshots of bloopers from their applicants? You can imagine the horror not only from HR but from marketing too.

Chambers want people dedicated not only to the profession but also to them, their region and their practice areas. Why should a great applicant apply to a chambers if some members openly mock their applications? A chambers shouldn’t be relying on the fact pupillages are scarce and the number of potential applicants is high. A pupil is an investment to each member of chambers who contributes money to the pot and chambers should be looking for the best investment from the entire pool, not just those who are bothered to apply. It’s self-defeating to get a bad reputation amongst the future of your profession.

By the time this article goes out, though, another weekend will have passed in which barristers will have had to forgo the sunny weather and review applications. Being honest, I’d be grumpy about it too. I’d moan about it to my nearest and dearest. I’d tell my colleagues about that applicant who had a typo, how it made me laugh but how it counted against him or her. I’d never even think about putting it up on Twitter though.

Previously: Barristers vent pupillage application sift pain on Twitter

↧

11 things not to do in a pupillage interview

May 27, 2014, 3:22 am
$
0
0
Nooo#

You’ve made the cut. You’ve secured that pupillage interview. And as you wait sweaty-palmed to meet your inquisitors, you realise that the next 30 minutes will determine whether you’re taken on by a top set of chambers, or spend the next 12 months working part-time in a frozen chicken factory. @Wigapedia advises on what NOT to do next…

1. Pretend you know any law.

The-law#

You don’t. In fact, you know — in legal professional terms — less than the chambers cat (and we don’t even have a cat). You can (pretend to) be interested in the law and express a tentative opinion about it. But you’re not kidding anyone that you know much beyond Donoghue v Stevenson. Only half of us have heard of that case anyway, and the half that have can’t even remember if it’s the boy who was eaten in the boat, or the snail in the ginger beer case…

2. Act like you think a barrister should act.

Silk-pic1-#

Because in fact you’re acting like an actor thinks a barrister should act. Mainly like a complete arse. Many barristers are complete arses. But they don’t want some spotty uni-leaver reminding them of their arse-like qualities. (That’s what the solicitors do.)

3. Mention that your dad’s a judge, or your mum is a solicitor.

Nepotism##

We’ll all resent the fact you’ve been given an unfair leg up this far — even if you haven’t — and we’ll be damned if we’re going to help you get another one. We got here the hard way. We used to live in a ditch and had to eat mud for breakfast…(cue violins)

4. Wear that tie/scarf/brooch which you think shows you have a great personality.

Not-Guilty-tie

It doesn’t. It shows you have terrible taste in accessories. That tie with comic figurines on it? Or the brooch that looks like you’re being attacked by an enraged gecko? They’re just likely to distract us from your answers. And believe me, we don’t need much distracting. Oh look, a bee….

5. Get the name of chambers wrong.

Even a little bit. Saying ‘Hardwicke Building’ (when it’s actually ‘Hardwicke’) or Temple Garden Barristers (instead of Temple Garden Chambers) acts like nails on a blackboard to the interviewers.

If you’re too young to know what a blackboard is — it’s a board, that’s black and on which nails scraped down it, sound intensely irritating. (Later renamed a ‘chalkboard’ — see above — for anyone who was unable to cope with objects being assigned a colour.)

6. Try to remember and say back the names of the interviewers.

so-true-meme#

We don’t think it’s engaging, or cute, or impressive. It sounds like you’re pitching an advertising concept in Mad Men. And you’re not sharply-enough dressed to do that. And have you looked around the room? We mainly look like refugees from a TK Maxx warehouse explosion.

7. List your hobbies as “reading”, “walking” or “going to the cinema”.

Unless you consider normal day-to-day activities such as “blinking” and “breathing” are also hobbies, these things are not hobbies for most sentient and/or mobile individuals.

Hobbies are racing swans or building models out of scrap metal or land yachting. Oh, and while we’re on the subject; things like “visiting mausoleums” or “attending séances” are not hobbies either, they are just downright weird.

8. Stare at us blankly when asked obvious questions.

conspiracy-keanu1

Most barristers’ chambers have interview panels made up of those who couldn’t think of a good enough excuse to avoid being on the panel. They are mainly not even semi-trained in interview techniques, and so tend to ask questions of almost comic inevitability. “What attracted you to our chambers?” or “What makes you think you’d be a good barrister” or “What would you like your practice to look like in five years’ time” are not exactly left-field, are they?

So if you’re not prepared with a zinger of an answer for these types of questions, the trickier ones — such as “What would you do if the judge stormed out of court shouting he was bored stupid by your submissions” — are really going to stump you, aren’t they?

9. Regale us with tales of your prowess as treasurer of the university bungee-jumping society.

You know how much Jeremy Clarkson cares for cyclists? Well, we care a lot less than that about your position of quasi-leadership in any university club. President of the Union? That’s mildly interesting. CEO of your own legal services company? Now we’re listening.

10. When asked why you want to be a barrister, use phrases like “fighting for justice” and/or “fighting for the underdog”.

Captain-Justice2

We’re recruiting barristers for our chambers. If we wanted a Marvel superhero, we’d have asked you to come in a leotard and a cape. And we’d expect you arrive by flying in through the window. It’s perfectly acceptable to say you’d like lots of money and fancy parading round in a wig. At least it’s honest.

11. And finally…you know that bit where we ask you if you’ve any questions? The correct answer to that question is almost universally…

No#

Unless of course it’s an interesting question we’ve not heard 200 times already. Which it won’t be. That’s actually our signal that the interview is over and it’s time to exit. “So make like a tree, and leave.” © Biff Tannen

↧

To be yourself or to be someone else?

May 29, 2014, 12:57 am
$
0
0

High profile Dechert partner Miriam Gonzalez urges wannabes to “fake it” to reach the top, contradicting age-old “just be yourself!” maxim. But then what?

cat-lion

There is an eye-catching quote in an interview with City lawyer (and wife of the deputy PM) Miriam Gonzalez that was published this morning. Speaking to Chambers Student, Gonzalez says:

“You need to learn how to fake self-confidence. I’ve been talking to girls in state schools and I always say to them, ‘look, it’s fantastic that you’re asking me where I got my self-confidence from, because it shows that you assume I have self-confidence. But I learnt to be self-confident by faking it. And when you fake it enough — with hard work and by rehearsing — at some point that fake self-confidence becomes real self-confidence.”

Now faking self-confidence is one thing, and faking one’s very being is another, as Gonzalez’s husband well knows (indeed, poor Nick Clegg is an excellent example of how pretending to be something you’re not in order to bag a job can come back to haunt you). But feigning uber-assuredness still seems a risky strategy. After all, you don’t only have to pull it off at interview, but, if you get the job, keep up the act every day. Sean Jones QC summed up the problem succinctly earlier this week on Twitter.

Still, it’s nice to hear someone divert from the usual clichés. Gonzalez also has outspoken things to say about the lack of women in the higher echelons of the law, speaking of her impatience with the “excuse” trotted out by big law firms to justify their domination by men at the top. The mother of three explains:

“It’s clear that law firms are not doing enough. If you look at most firms, there’s a big intake of women at trainee level, and then it peaks, and then it starts to drop, and then it drops a lot if you look at the equity partner ranks.

“Some people say ‘well, it’s different for lawyers because the years when you need to make a big career jump are the same years when women may be wanting to take maternity leave. But that applies to a lot of professions, from medicine to physics. So that can’t be an excuse.”

Gonzalez’s comments are made especially interesting by the fact that her firm, Dechert, is one of the worst gender diversity offenders, with women making up a mere 10% of its London-based partners. The average across the City is about 20%, with only five firms in a recent survey of over 100 big law firms employing a lower proportion of women partners than Dechert.

The full interview with Gonzalez is here.

↧

Could old-fashioned mentoring be the new ‘CV Blind’?

May 29, 2014, 6:04 am
$
0
0

Having explored ‘CV Blind’ and sampled a diversity network lunch, Legal Cheek editor Alex Aldridge gets a taste of the often-overlooked area of legal mentoring.

boost-up

Amid the publicity generated by headline-grabbing ‘CV Blind’ schemes and diversity networks, it’s easy to forget the virtues of good old-fashioned mentoring.

Yet the passing of wisdom from lawyer-mentors to law student-mentees remains a mainstay of the promotion of diversity in the legal profession. And at a time when the legal media diversity narrative is concentrated on other initiatives, there are some good opportunities out there.

The best places to look are the law schools, the Inns of Court and — from the summer — the Bar Council, which is shortly to launch a wannabe lawyer limb of its Bar Mentoring Service. The scale of mentoring programmes is impressive, with the University of Law (ULaw), for example, boasting 620 lawyer mentors on its books across the country. The Inns, meanwhile, offer all of their student members mentoring opportunities, with Inner Temple alone matching up 200-300 students with mentors each year.

Hodge Jones & Allen trainee solicitor Rebecca Aron (pictured below) is one of ULaw’s professional mentors. The essence of what she does is not dissimilar to the function met by Clifford Chance’s ‘CV Blind’ graduate recruiters or the diversity network Aspiring Solicitors: i.e. she helps students from non-traditional backgrounds gain a sense of the way law firms work, and points them in the direction of the channels into training contracts that glossy graduate recruitment brochures don’t mention.

Aron reckons that “she would never have got a training contract without my mentor” — hence her decision to become a mentor herself. She tries to convey “what life in practice as a solicitor is like”, “why specific training contract interview questions are asked” and how regulatory changes, such as the Jackson reforms, actually affect her.

The Inns of Courts’ mentoring schemes function in much the same way, helping to show wannabe barristers how the Bar really operates in a manner that goes beyond a mini-pupillage. For those who are not a member of an Inn, the Bar Council’s new prospective lawyer mentoring scheme will be open to all-comers, although initially it will be limited to students who have taken part in its work experience programme, Bar Placement Week. Bar Council social mobility policy officer Oliver Williams (pictured below) says that one of the main aims of the scheme is to help hopefuls “develop soft skills such as confidence, communication skills and the knowledge of how to navigate application form and interview processes”.

mentoring#

Listen to Legal Cheek editor Alex Aldridge chat with Aron and Williams in the podcast below.

↧
↧

Telegraph journalist seeks to explain lack of social mobility at the Bar

June 2, 2014, 2:36 am
$
0
0

This extract from Flora Watkins’ piece on state schools versus private schools is illuminating of a certain mindset that continues to exist within the legal profession…

soc-mob
The reference to “poise” is particularly depressing.

I will send my children private if I can’t get them into a grammar [The Telegraph]

↧

Legal aid fee rates haircut — it’s the only one barristers will get

June 3, 2014, 4:45 am
$
0
0

Women junior barristers will soon be grateful that legal protocol still requires them to wear a spot of old horse hair on their bonces when appearing in the high court — because they certainly won’t be able to afford a session at Toni & Guy’s after the government’s legal aid rate cuts take effect.

ToniGuy

Comparison figures from the South Eastern Circuit show just how painful the Ministry of Justice cuts are going to be for the junior bar – even those working on supposedly ‘very high cost cases’.

According to the figures, under the cuts, a led junior barrister in a very high cost trial — involving white-collar dodgy behaviour, for example — will be paid £42.70 an hour for preparation time. Meanwhile, a basic cut and blow dry at T&G — albeit with a senior stylist wielding the scissors and hairdryer — will set that barrister back 57 knicker.

styling

Other comparisons with ‘real life’ jobs also don’t provide much comfort for young barristers under the MoJ’s penny-pinching regime. The figures show that while a junior alone on a complicated fraud case would bag £49 an hour for prep, pest control specialists in Oldham would submit a fee note of £76.20 for an hour’s worth of de-ratting a local business.

Average garage mechanics are coming in at about £80 per hour, so if a junior barrister can actually afford to run a motor, hard luck if it breaks down.

But really putting barristers in the shade are those doyens of super billing — plumbers. The South Eastern Circuit figures show that London’s renowned Pimlico Plumbers charges £90-£200 for every hour spent under the sink.

That will make even QCs wince in light of the government’s proposals. Silks are understood to bag £63.70 for an hour’s prep under the new rates, so they’ll have to touch up a few juniors for a contribution if the chamber’s lavatory is blocked.

The South East Circuit points out that barristers must pay overheads from the new hourly rates, covering office space, travel and clerking (and let’s face it, the latter don’t come cheap). The circuit also helpfully draws attention to average hourly rates for litigation partners at City law firms, which on a special offer day stand at slightly above the £400 mark.

The comparative figures will stoke the on-going row over whether the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council should have cut their recent deal with the government and called off criminal barrister strike days and other opposition to the cuts. Whispers around the criminal bar suggest the deal was not welcomed at many chambers and that at least unofficial strikes could return.

wig

In the meantime, the government’s ploy of palming off all legally-aided defendants in VHCC trials to the nascent and relatively unheard of Public Defender Service is rumoured not to be going as smoothly as Justice Secretary Chris Grayling would have hoped.

Suggestions swirl around criminal law sets that the PDS is beset with personnel issues involving long-term sick leave and a general lack of morale. A terrific use of public funds, is the cry heard across the criminal bar.

↧
Search

Blog pupillage advice: avoid cleavage — get the right biscuits

June 4, 2014, 6:11 am
$
0
0

Blogging as an art form might not yet be out of short trousers, but there is a growing tradition of anonymous writers hoping to shock by piercing the veil of mysterious environments. Well, environments don’t come much more mysterious and murky than the sect known as the bar of England and Wales — the latest peek behind the curtain comes from blogger Secret Barrister.

lead

Readers aren’t offered many identifying details of the writer — the blog’s ‘about’ section says simply that she is not one of two fictional characters from the BBC programme ‘Silk’.

But we do know the writer is a woman: ‘You may think that so long as I wore a suit with no sign of the unholy trinity (cleavage, leg above the knee, colour) that I would pass muster,’ writes our heroine, ‘But you, my learned friend, would be most sadly mistaken.’

Secretbarriter

Secret barrister — is now called and practising at the bar — not have a happy time as a pupil. Indeed, where does one start with the litany of horrors she faced daily at the hands of a clearly sadistic pupil mistress?

To celebrate surviving her first week in chambers, SB splurges on expensive biscuits, only to be curtly informed by the wicked witch that she subscribes to a gluten free diet, consigning the tasty morsels to a drawer to be given to her undoubtedly equally horrible children.

Daily rounds of humiliation from the pupil mistress — who, it is suggested, is having an affair in chambers — drives our girl to bouts of weeping. She is routinely scolded for her lack of legal knowledge and an infuriating inability to file papers correctly.

However, a potential knight in freshly powdered wig is on the horizon in the shape of a charming and friendly junior tenant. How will it all end …?

In addition to this soap opera, SB provides some practical and entertaining ‘pupillage survival kit’ tips. But perhaps the best advice for those considering a career at the bar — especially the criminal bar — in the light of the Legal Services Act 2007 and legal aid rate cuts is: don’t.


↧

12 famous cases in emoticons

June 6, 2014, 1:06 am
$
0
0

There is a Twitter account which is telling the story of English cases through the medium of emoticons. Here are 12 classics…

emoji

R v Brown (legendary sadomasochistic sex case)

screenshot2
Donoghue v Stevenson (something about snails and ginger beer)

screenshot3
United Brands Co v Commission of European Union (the ‘banana case’)

screenshot4
Partridge v Crittenden (adverts are invitations to treat)

screenshot5
R v Velumyl (the intention to permanently deprive)

screenshot7
R v Lipman (voluntary intoxication not being a defence to manslaughter)

screenshot8
Revill v Newbery (the old man in the shed and the defence of ex turpi causa)

screenshot9
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (fragile foxes protected by law of nuisance from neighbour’s malice)

hollywood-copy
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board (the vasectomy that never was)

screenshot10
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (Lord Denning Court of Appeal exclusion clause classic)

shoe-lane copy
R v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd (No.1) (constitutionally momentous Spanish fisherman case)

Factortame copy
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (unforgettable contract dispute generated by flu prevention gadget)

smoke-ball copy

↧
↧

Aussie lawyer struck off for trying to cheat on ethics exam

June 11, 2014, 1:24 am
$
0
0

Bid to smuggle notes down trousers foiled by CCTV

leadjoey

If a lawyer is going to trip up over an ethics exam, he might as well take a hit for a mad moment of unethical behaviour.

Australian lawyer Hendrick Jan van Es has recently been struck off the roll, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, for attempting to smuggle unauthorised notes into a local bar ethics exam.

The invigilator initially confronted van Es, suggesting he was lugging what was described as an “unusually large” bundle of notes into the exam room. The newspaper report says the lawyer refused to reveal the notes to the invigilator and was told to leave the exam room.

It is then that Big Brother gets a look in on this story. Outside the exam room, van Es is reportedly seen on CCTV separating the notes and shoving some down his trousers before re-entering the exam room.

The bar authorities refused to allow him to sit the exam, instead summoning van Es to a meeting of the New South Wales Bar Association several days later. At that hearing, the lawyer originally denied attempting to smuggle notes into the exam room.

But then the smoking gun CCTV footage was unveiled and he said something equivalent to ‘it’s a fair cop, guv’. Indeed, to be fair, the newspaper quotes a contrite van Es as saying in a letter to the bar association’s top dog: “I am ashamed of my actions.”

↧

QC who is shortlisted for ‘Barrister of the year’ is on awards judging panel

June 12, 2014, 1:19 am
$
0
0

Landmark Chambers’ Nathalie Lieven QC is up for an award in the same awards ceremony that she is judging. But The Lawyer magazine denies there is a conflict of interest.

Winninglead

Here are the top QCs who have been shortlisted for this year’s ‘Barrister of the Year’ at The Lawyer Awards later this month.

Nathalie1

And here is the judging panel, which is charged with helping come up with the shortlists and picking the winners.

awards-judges#
Yep, Landmark Chambers’ Nathalie Lieven QC makes an appearance in both.

The Lawyer editor Catrin Griffiths insists that there is no conflict of interest, telling Legal Cheek:

“We have so many awards they get split up between the judges. The barristers never judge the barrister category — or the chambers of the year category either.”

It will be interesting to see how Lieven gets on when the winners are announced at the event at London’s Grosvenor House Hotel on 25 June.

↧

Doughty Street human rights barrister tweets tips from pupillage interview frontline

June 12, 2014, 4:57 am
$
0
0

Charity campaign manager-turned-human rights lawyer Steve Broach — who was called to the Bar in 2008 — shares wisdom gleaned from this year’s pupil selection process at glamour set Doughty Street.

Humanrightslead

Over to Broach…

You’ve got to be clever AND nice.

If you haven’t got a first you need an LLM.

Concern yourself with the rights of specific groups of humans.

Avoid anything that could be seen as flakey.

Fakes will be found out.

For human rights lawyers, 30 is the new 20.

Life goes on despite the cuts.

Oh, and once you bag the job, you need to get up early. Note the time Broach posted his tweets.


Previously: 11 things not to do in a pupillage interview

Update — 16:42 — bonus tip:

↧
Viewing all 684 articles
Browse latest View live
Search