Pupillage: Even more elusive than a British Wimbledon champion
During the heady months of early summer, when the majority of the population are planning holidays, bemoaning the heat and getting worked up about tennis, wannabe barristers are in search of something that can seem even more elusive than a British Wimbledon champion - a pupillage.
July 06, 2009 at 05:14 AM
4 minute read
But if you can handle the inevitable knock backs, you've got a chance, says Field Court Chambers barrister Ayeesha Bhutta.
During the heady months of early summer, when the majority of the population are planning holidays, bemoaning the heat and getting worked up about tennis, wannabe barristers are in search of something that can seem even more elusive than a British Wimbledon champion – a pupillage.
My pupillage hunt lasted only one summer. Many people's last longer, forcing them to spend time in a seemingly never ending round of CVs and first and second round interviews.
The purpose of a CV / application is to get you an interview. Many chambers use the online, centralised www.pupillage.com system, others use their own forms, others prefer old fashioned CVs and covering letters.
Which ever system is used, the number of applications will far exceed the number of pupillages on offer. Of the applications received, a few will be the top percent of their year and clearly deserve an interview. Similarly, there will be a bottom few who are misguided in their choice of a career at the Bar and can be dumped without a qualm.
The rest of us fall somewhere in the middle. The trick – I discovered after the event – is not to give your target chambers any reason to reject you. So no typos. No unexplained gaps. No obvious mismatch with the set's predominant area of practice. No glaring misconceptions as to what barristers do.
I must admit that I often fell at this first hurdle. My numerous applications yielded only a handful of interviews.
Most sets conduct at least two rounds of interviews. My first round interviews were often short (10-15 minutes) and based on generic questions clearly asked to all candidates ('Why do you want to be a barrister?', 'Why this set?', 'Why should we take you?'). Some become veterans of this process. I met in the waiting area for my first interview a chap who was on his 15th. He regarded my state of interview virginity with some incredulity.
First round interviews contain elephant traps for the unwary and inexperienced. I was asked what the five essential qualities of a barrister were and could only think of four on the spot (afterwards it was pointed out that I should have said 'brevity' as my fifth requirement). I got lost in the Temple on the hottest day of the year, wearing a heavy suit, and arrived with minutes to spare, flustered and overheated (the interview itself went downhill from there). These stories are minor compared with my peers' tales of being asked which animal/fictional character/object they would be, or for views on obscure and esoteric areas of the law.
Second round interviews are more formal – and involve written exercises, advocacy tests and research. They are intimidating affairs.
My second round interview at the chambers I eventually did pupillage at was before a panel of about eight barristers and the senior clerk. They sat on one side on an enormous boardroom table. I was on the other. A friend of mine had an interview at a local hotel. Would be pupils were called in before a small panel to do an advocacy exercise before learning if they were through to the next round. In her description the whole experience bore a strong resemblance to the early rounds of the X-factor.
As will probably be obvious, unless you are the legal genius of 2009, getting a pupillage involves a frustrating amount of luck at all stages. Obviously there are things you can do to increase your chances (prepare, get a good CV together, research your chosen chambers), but with so many, often very good, candidates competing against you, failures are inevitable. It seems traditional in articles like this to try and put people off applying for pupillage, but the fact is there are pupillages out there and it is possible to get one.
Ayeesha Bhutta is a barrister at Field Court Chambers.
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
© 2025 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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
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