What do Thatcher, Blair, Asquith, Gandhi and Jinnah have in common? They all studied to qualify as barristers at the Inns of Court School of Law. The fact that Gandhi and Jinnah – the founders of India and Pakistan respectively – did so is emblematic of the fact that influential lawyers from many Commonwealth countries are linked to the UK by the common experience of having studied for the Bar in London.

This is a valuable 'invisible' asset for the UK. At home, the Bar is often criticised for its lack of diversity. This is a matter of legitimate concern, especially since the higher judiciary is still drawn predominantly from the practising Bar. Much of the problem arises because of the failures of secondary education to ensure that students from non-privileged backgrounds achieve their potential. Nonetheless, some of the best students from such backgrounds have, through energy and drive, made it to and prospered at the Bar, despite the disadvantages they may have encountered in the educational system along the way. Sadly, a couple of years ago the Bar Council proposed reforms to the process of qualification which, if they were to come to pass, might not only destroy the basis for the unique Commonwealth network of London-trained lawyers but also make it harder for students from non-privileged backgrounds to get to the Bar.

The proposal 'deferral of call' suggests that a student should not receive the title 'barrister' on completing the Bar Vocational Course (BVC), but only after completion of 12 months' pupillage. If this were to come to pass, overseas students would no longer be able to pass the BVC, get called as a barrister immediately by one of the Inns and have that title recognised in their home country. For 'home' students, deferral would increase the risk of attempting the BVC unless one had already secured a place in pupillage. Most people would only take the BVC if they already had pupillage offers while undergraduates and chambers would be making pupillage decisions based largely on A-level scores. Educational attainment at 18 would then determine one's chances of going to the Bar, a factor reinforced by the tendency of chambers to focus their 'outreach' activity on the elite universities.

All of this would exclude from consideration the student who, while not having the best A-levels, has nevertheless excelled at a non-elite university, won a place on the BVC and proved their mettle and may overcome the odds to win a pupillage. This would be a retrograde step in terms of diversity. It is true that the cost of qualification currently excludes many able students from non-privileged backgrounds but at least some get through by their performance at the post A-level stage. Thankfully, the proprosal is currently being reconsidered by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).

BVC applicants are under no illusions about how competitive it is to obtain pupillage. BVC graduates who do not become pupils generally achieve professional-level employment as lawyers in other fields. The ratio between those qualified for pupillage and the number of pupillages available is hardly excessive, especially for a profession such as the Bar, which prides itself on its competitive culture. The BSB needs to broaden diversity at the Bar. To do that it should do two things: relax its prescription of BVC cost factors which artificially force up the BVC fee; and question whether the practising Bar is doing enough to broaden the intake to the Bar. Deferral of call is not the answer. It will simply perpetuate the recruitment of more 'chaps like us'.