Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Who's naughty, who's nice?

In my post this morning, I wrote about how rare it is for Sets to actually keep candidates informed, and I used QEB Hollis Whiteman as an example of one Chambers that is getting it right.

In the comments, a couple of other Sets were also applauded for their efforts.

So, I've started a new project - at the top of the blog, just underneath the title, you'll see a new menu bar - so far with only two items:

1) Blog (self explanatory)

I've started "Praiseworthy Chambers" as a way of recognising those Sets that actually go out of their way to make things easier for applicants. I don't mean Sets that send out rejections, that should be the very minimum standard; I mean Sets that do something a little bit more than the bare minimum.

So far three Sets make an appearance, if you want to nominate any more please do email me, tweet me or comment on the new page.

And no, before you ask, I will not be creating a 'Wall of Shame' for Sets that do even less than the bare minimum - that will get me into trouble!

1 comment:

  1. Hey mini- Simon Myerson did this a while back with his 'buttress of shame' and 'buttress of acclaim'. Good plan though- it'll hopefully encourage chambers to stop rejecting by silence.

    I'd love to add 18 St John Street to your Praiseworthy Chambers- they sent an initial letter outlining when they'd get in touch, they provided a clear and transparent document outlining what they were looking for in a candidate and what would happen once they offered interviews/assessments. People found out on the assessment day (assessments in morning, interviews in afternoon) whether they were successful and afterwards unsuccessful applicants received letters saying 'don't feel bad about the rejection- you were all very strong applicants'. This was well over and above what they needed to do.

    ReplyDelete