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)

2) Praiseworthy Chambers

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!

Another heart-attack thanks to QEB

QEB Hollis Whiteman, star of this post from a month ago, have once again sent out a "we'll be in touch soon" email. Once again, spying the email titile: "Pupillage Interviews QEBHW", my heart began to beat at a prodigiously rapid rate.

Now over the shock, I have nothing but praise for their efforts at keeping candidates informed. No other Set that I have applied to has made such efforts to try to put applicants at ease, and no other Set has been so willing to offer such detailed information on their timetable - speaking to friends applying to non-criminal Sets, their experience is largely the same: Sets just don't communicate about pupillage. Many Sets don't even bother to tell you if you've been rejected (despite being able to do so with just a couple of clicks on the Pupillage Portal).

So, what this means is that people in my position get used to Sets being beyond useless, and we expect nothing. Thus, when Chambers like QEB actually go out of their way to contact us, it comes as such a shock that we become a couple of years closer to our graves.

Irrespective of the news Sets send me, I only hope that they might all, one day, emulate QEB in the way they communicate that news.

Ceiling patterns

Unlike most people in my position, it is not the quest for pupillage that keeps me up at night, staring mindlessly at the ceiling while Ladyfemale dozes next to me, merrily giggling to herself as a result of some insane dream. Don't get me wrong, pupillage applications are worrying enough to keep even the most serene of people awake until 2am - but, for me, there is a darker shadow looming just this side of the horizon that I just can't ignore:

The results of the Civil Litigation Exam from my BPTC.

In the days following the exam, there was a lot of chat online - there seemed to be a groundswell of support for the idea that the Civil Exam was 'unfair' or 'not fit for purpose'. The complaints have been well rehearsed in all the usual places, but a good summary can be found on the excellent Legal Cheek blog in this post.

As you can see in the linked post, there were various concerns about the exams that were centrally set by the BSB (Civil, Crime, Ethics), and those concerns resulted in a student petition signed by many hundreds of students. I wasn't one of them - firstly because I thought it was appallingly written, and secondly because I didn't agree with many of the complaints. My only cause for concern was that I found the Civil exam difficult, which was to be expected.

However, in the weeks and months since my concern has grown - there have been a number of rumours flying around, and a few hints from tutors at various law schools, which have caused my minor quibbles to grow into a state which can best be described as 'the brink of panic'.

BPTC students who participate in, or simply look at, various online fora and networking sites will be no stranger to the rumours that 80% of BPTC students nationwide have failed the Civil Exam. Now, I'd normally ignore this kind of rumour, but it's appeared from so many different sources that it's managed to seep into my psyche.

There are, however, two versions of the rumour: a) flat out, 80% of people have failed; b) 80% of people failed according to the mark scheme, but [insert any number of solutions here] has happened, so now that figure is markedly reduced.

The second cause of worry ties into rumour "b" above - the supposed rigidity of the BSB mark scheme, and the fact that markers from individual providers have no discretion to award marks. On the last day of the course, BPP hosted an end of year drinks party (much fun), and some of the tutors were slightly more loose-tongued than normal.

I challenged 2 or 3 tutors with the 80% statistic and the response was pretty uniform: "That is definitely NOT the case at BPP", but all of them did (whether through word, or subtle deed) seem to confirm that there were some worries about the rigidity of the mark scheme. My understanding is that the BSB has prescribed very a very specific form of words to use in each of the questions, and if those exact words aren't used, marks can't be awarded. Which is petrifying.

Now, I also know that BPP, and all the other law schools have been consulting with the BSB over the last couple of months, and have been trying to make things a little bit more fair. 

From my other results to date, achieving an Outstanding is genuinely within my reach. Sadly, one failure, any failure, irrespective of the exam, means you can't be awarded the Outstanding, even if your average mark is above the 85% mark. Also, it'll be pretty tricky explaining to various Chambers why I can't give them my final results after 5 July if I have indeed joined the massed throng of Civil failures. 

So here I am, wondering whether my original answers were in line with the mark scheme; if they weren't in line with the mark scheme has the mark scheme been adjusted; if it hasn't been adjusted, have I failed, if I've failed have I buggered up my pupillage chances? And that, dear friends, is why I find the ceiling so incredibly interesting at 2am.

A particular set of skills

In my most recent post at the Pupillage Pages (I've submitted it, but I don't think it's up yet) I quoted the film 300 as my title. In this post, you get Liam Neeson's masterpiece (my words, not his): Taken.

I say "masterpiece", what I actually mean is: it's got one very cool speech during a phone call, and then Liam Neeson chasing some nasty Europeans. Hooray for him. Anyhow, I quote this film not because of anything directly relevant to the Bar, but because of a conversation I had with an American friend of mine based entirely upon a very simple, probably very common, misunderstanding for Barristers, and Baby-Barristers like me.

I met up with a few friends at lunchtime last Thursday, one of whom (Jerry) is an American chap who was only in town for a few days. I don't know Jerry that well, he's more of a friend of a friend, and our only chance at catching up is the odd brief chat every couple of years when he's in town. Nonetheless, he's pleasant company and I enjoy seeing him. Our conversation went thus:

"Mini, what are you up to now? Still working in the House of Commons?"
"No, I left there a couple of years ago to finish qualifying as a Barrister - I finished last Friday, in fact"
"It took you two years to qualify? I thought it'd be much quicker than that"
"Yeah, I've had to do a couple of courses"
"That's quite a change from what you were doing before"
"Well, yeah, I suppose so - instead of writing speeches for other people I get to work for myself now"
"Like freelancing?"
"Yeah, most Barristers in England are self-employed"
"Really? In the States most of them are directly employed"
"Yep, the thought is it gives you a certain independence, so you can provide a better service"
"I wouldn't have thought it would have mattered that much. I don't care if someone's independent, just get on with it. So, when you're training, if you're self employed, who provides the equipment"
"Well, you don't really need to dress up for the training stage, that comes once you're qualified, and the training provider gives you all the books."
"I see. It's probably good you don't need to carry around all your own equipment"
"Yeah, lots of qualified Barristers have wheeled suitcases and things. But yeah, for now, it's largely a skills based course, it's just a case of learning, and then thinking on your feet if you ever get a job"
"Thinking on your feet? In the States they just take their orders and get on with it"
"You'd be surprised - although you do have to follow instructions, there is a bit of leeway in how you present things. You also don't have to follow plainly mad instructions."
"Like super-skinny-double-shot-wet-mocha-caramel-latte-with-extra-resentment?"
"What?"
"You know, ludicrous coffee orders"
"Why would I be making coffee?"

Barrister/Barista. Whatever.

Progress!

As you might have seen in my other blog over on the pupillage pages, last Friday I got some good news: my first pupillage interview.

Well, in an unexpected turn of events, this morning I woke up to an email with yet more good news - sent at 5 minutes to midnight last night. Do these barristers have nothing better to do with their evenings than email people that want to steal their work from underneath them?

Anyhow, that leaves my statistics at 1 rejection, 2 interviews, 13 to hear from.

I am still utterly pessimistic, though.

And now for something completely different...

After the black hole of charisma this morning I thought I'd wander along the river to Tower Bridge mags.

Silly me. The magistrates sat at 2pm, by 2.05 both trials listed for this afternoon in Court 1 had collapsed.

Magical scenes.

In my respectful submission

I'm sat in Court 3 at Southwark Crown Court and am witnessing the world's worst attempt at a Voir Dire (hearing on what evidence can be included/excluded). The prosecution advocate is a CPS Solicitor Advocate and she's beyond dreadful. Every single sentence begins: "and, your honour, in my respectful submission...".

Every bloody sentence. Lesson number one at Bar School is: 'if you say 'respectfully' it means you think your judge is an idiot'.

The defence counsel (probably no more than 4 or 5 years call herself) is just playing with her. Every application has gone her way and half the prosecution evidence has been excluded.

In my irrelevant opinion, advocacy should be, at the very least, engaging. The quality of prosecution today makes me want to hide under a rock until it all goes away.