£60,000 for a pupillage – and most of it's tax free
I have to admit the news that One Essex Court is to pay its pupils an award of £60,000 arouses a trace of envy in me – perhaps not entirely unrelated to the fact that my pupillage award was £10,000, and that now as a third six pupil somehow I'm earning even less than that.
August 11, 2009 at 04:45 AM
3 minute read
I have to admit the news that One Essex Court is to pay its pupils an award of £60,000 arouses a trace of envy in me – perhaps not entirely unrelated to the fact that my pupillage award was £10,000, and that now as a third six pupil somehow I'm earning even less than that.
Even with the huge debts that so many of us come to the Bar with, £60,000 is a massive amount. And £60,000 is just the basic payment. In addition to that, One Essex Court pupils will receive earnings from the second six of as much as £13,000. And let's not forget that pupillage awards paid in the first six months are tax-exempt – hence the common practice (among non-criminal sets) to offer a larger proportion of the award in the first six. One Essex Court will pay its pupils £40,000 in the first six (tax-free), with the remaining £20,000 paid in the second-six (subject to tax, alongside any additional earnings).
Clearly One Essex Court wants to attract the best and brightest candidates – which is fair enough, particularly as they must feel a pressure to compete with magic circle and US law firms for prospective recruits. But the top award for a training contract is £40,000 in the first year, so why offer so much more than that?
While I have no hard feelings against those students who manage to secure lucrative commercial pupillage deals, this dramatic salary hike comes with a couple of major downsides for the profession as a whole. Firstly, it increases the (admittedly already pretty wide) divide between the commercial Bar and barristers specialising in other areas, particularly the publicly funded ones, adding to the perception that commercial work requires the best brains while crime and common law work just needs barristers to act as mouthpieces in court.
Also, widely publicised £60,000 starting salaries aren't likely to do anything to improve the current problem of too many people signing up to do the Bar Vocational Course (BVC) without a realistic hope of obtaining a pupillage. BVC providers need to emphasise that these salaries are the very rare exception to the rule – a rule which, as I can testify, is that new entrants to the Bar often have to endure several years of financial hardship, if they're lucky enough to secure a pupillage at all.
Rebecca Vanstone is a third six pupil at 3 Temple Gardens
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 AllKMPG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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