The shadowy world of third six pupillages
News of the website 3rdsix.co.uk - which charges fees to prospective barristers applying for third six pupillages and is registered to a non-trading individual without a listed business address - certainly caused a few raised eyebrows at Legal Week. Three_Red_Dice_six.jpgIt seems bizarre that a profession which prides itself on its high standards of integrity has allowed a semi-anonymous figure to play a central role in entry to its junior ranks and make money out of its members.
May 11, 2009 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
News of the website 3rdsix.co.uk – which charges fees to prospective barristers applying for third six pupillages and is registered to a non-trading individual without a listed business address – certainly caused a few raised eyebrows at Legal Week.
It seems bizarre that a profession which prides itself on its high standards of integrity has allowed a semi-anonymous figure to play a central role in entry to its junior ranks and make money out of its members.
To put this in context for those not voiced in the quirky ways of the Bar, to qualify as a barrister students have to complete a 12-month pupillage at a barristers' chambers – sometimes split into two parts (known as a 'first six' and 'second six'). Applications for first and second six pupillages are tightly regulated by the barristers' professional body, the Bar Council. Having completed this stage, candidates become eligible to practise independently as tenants in chambers. However, tenancies can be hard to secure, so some candidates go on to do a 'third six' pupillage – effectively a second chance at entry into the profession – at a different chambers to the one at which they completed their first and second six.
Somewhat surprisingly, the third six pupillage application system is completely unregulated. The Bar Council justifies its position on this by reference to the fact that those undertaking third sixes have completed the 12-month pupillage requirement – and are therefore technically fully qualified. However, third six pupils say that, despite their full barrister status, they are treated to all intents and purposes as if they are still in training.
Whatever your thoughts on the Bar Council's stance on this issue, what's undeniable is that it has allowed a site like 3rdsix.co.uk to operate unchecked. The fact that the Bar Council also runs its own website to match third six pupils with chambers – for which it charges no fee – appears not to have hindered 3rdsix.co.uk, with the site claiming to have 367 registered pupillage seekers, suggesting that many believe that not signing up to it could damage their hopes.
Okay, the £14.99 3rdsix.co.uk charges pupillage seekers to register isn't exactly bankruptcy-inducing – but after running up large debts at Bar school, and often struggling on near subsistence-level wages during first and second six pupillages, barristers who have reached this stage surely deserve a little more protection from their professional body.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250