London calling still worth following: why the capital is the place to be for pupillage
It may be expensive, but the capital is the place to be for pupillage, says Field Court barrister Ayeesha Bhutta...
August 10, 2010 at 12:25 PM
5 minute read
It may be expensive, but the capital is the place to be for pupillage, says Field Court barrister Ayeesha Bhutta
Given the nature of this debate, I suppose I should start by declaring my regional allegiances. I was born in St Albans, grew up in Oxford, studied in York and Nottingham and have lived in London for the past five years. So, while I'm most definitely in the 'soft southerner' camp, I do at least understand that the world doesn't end at the Watford Gap.
As far as tenancy prospects go, I'll freely admit that the (anecdotal) evidence suggests sets outside London have only one pupil and that as long as they don't do anything spectacularly stupid tenancy is guaranteed.
However, there are far fewer pupillages available in regional cities. According the Bar Directory, Birmingham, Britain's second largest city, has 13 chambers. London has over 300. Put simply, you are more likely to get a pupillage in London since there are so many more of them.
There are other difficulties. To get one of these pupillages you will need to prove a solid connection to the city/area in question to show you want to live and work there. The obvious reason (I want a pupillage!) will not be enough.
Being the only pupil, as is the norm at many sets outside London, may guarantee you a tenancy. But having a fellow pupil can have other advantages. It means there is someone to sound off to and someone to ask questions when you are stuck. Pupillage can be difficult and, however friendly the set, lonely. My fellow pupil helped me survive the pupillage year.
Anyway, is it so hard to get a tenancy? Bar Council statistics suggest not – with the majority of pupils going on to tenancy. The struggle is to get a pupillage. Even if you are not taken on at the end of your training year, the odds are that you will find a tenancy elsewhere.
Finance
The pupillage award doesn't go far in London. However, frankly, £10,000 a year does not go far anywhere. The argument about the financing of pupillage and training for the Bar is one that will rage for some time.
In any event, many sets pay more than this (my chambers pays £22,500). And sets ease the hardships of pupillages in a variety of ways. From my experience, the tradition of buying pupils lunch, coffee and drinks is as prevalent in London as it is outside the capital. A number of sets in London will also stump up for a travelcard for pupils to ease the costs of getting to court. My pupil mistress routinely bought my travel tickets when I accompanied her to court. In addition, all four Inns of Court offer hardship funds and some subsidised accommodation in central London.
Practice
Right, so you've survived the process of getting a pupillage and living on next to nothing for 12 months. The argument goes that practice at a set on a non-London circuit offers a much better lifestyle. It's friendly, local and tight knit. Everybody knows everybody else.
Well, this sense of community has its drawbacks. Anyone who has walked into a robing room in a town with a close-knit local Bar and seen everyone chatting away like old friends only to fall silent upon the entrance of 'London counsel', would dispute the 'friendliness' of the regional Bar. A close-knit community can be supportive, but it can also be insular and, to an outsider, an impenetrable clique.
In addition, courts outside London can operate as their own independent fiefdoms. In one Midlands court I was told by a judge that, had I been a local barrister, the bundle immaculately prepared by my solicitors in accordance with the national rules would have been thrown at me upon entering the court room. The reason? This court had decided to disregard the national rules and devise its own rules – ignored under threat of bodily injury.
Contrary to what the regional Bar would have you believe, there are advantages to being based in the legal centre of the UK. The High Court, court of appeal and Supreme Court are here, as are the vast majority of chambers and large solicitors' firms.
Due to this concentration of work, it may be easier to specialise in London and to do so at an earlier stage. I knew early on that I wanted to do family law. London offered me the chance to do pupillage at a specialist family set, a third six practising only family law and enough work to specialise as a family practitioner once I became a tenant. Some people may not relish early specialism, but it does give the opportunity for greater depth of knowledge in a given area.
Even within a specialist area, London offers diversity in cases, clients and courts. My practice extends from Southend to Milton Keynes. I appear in courts all over Greater and Central London. Of course, all courts and judges have their idiosyncrasies. The advantage of a geographically wide practice is that these can be diluted. Yes, Judge X at Y county court may be difficult and grumpy, but he or she will be one among many and will be off-set by the pleasant, easy judges in other courts.
Finally, you have the advantage of London itself. It is a wonderful city; its huge racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity part of its charm. I have the privilege of seeing this diversity first hand in many of my cases. As Samuel Johnson put it, For by seeing London, I have seen as much of life as the world can show.
Ayeesha Bhutta is a barrister specialising in family law at Field Court Chambers in London.
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 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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