*/
Stephen Hockman KC responds to Nick Vineall KC and Fallon Alexis’s proposals to defer call to the Bar until after pupillage
This article responds to ‘The timing of call’ by Nick Vineall KC and Fallon Alexis, which was published in the December 2023 issue of Counsel. In my respectful view there are major concerns – one ‘internal’ and the other ‘external’ – as to the proposal to defer call until after the obtaining of a practising certificate.
The external concern is easier to explain and its consequences are easier to predict. Our tradition of enabling students from overseas to be called to the Bar has not only achieved the surely desirable objective of strengthening our links with a good number of overseas jurisdictions. Perhaps more importantly it has encouraged the preservation of the tradition of specialist advocacy in those jurisdictions and thereby strengthened the rule of law in those countries. It is inevitable that if no one can be called to the Bar unless and until they have completed a pupillage in this jurisdiction, the number of individuals joining the Inns from abroad will be drastically reduced; indeed, quite intentionally, that source of membership will be virtually extinguished overnight. To my mind such a development will not only diminish the historic role of the Inns overseas, but it will of course lead very quickly to a drastic reduction in the number of those participating in call ceremonies, which will soon become a very visible symbol of the Inns’ diminished role.
The internal concern, which is even more significant, does in some ways reflect the external aspect. The consequence of deferral of call will place the decision as to who is willing and able to apply to join an Inn of Court almost exclusively in the hands of existing sets of chambers/employers, who alone can decide to whom to offer pupillages, and who cannot be criticised for adopting a potentially restrictive stance on this issue. It seems to me self-evident that if we move to a system in which no one can even be eligible to be called to the Bar unless and until they have completed pupillage, then the number of those seeking to join an Inn of Court is bound to drop sharply and significantly, with many bright graduates choosing instead to follow the path to becoming a solicitor. The authors of the December article themselves acknowledge that deferral of call will lead to a reduction in the number of people undertaking the Bar course.
The net result will be a branch of the profession which is gradually less diverse, and certainly perceived as less diverse and more socially exclusive. It will also be a profession which is very unlikely to expand at anything like the rate at which it has expanded during our professional lifetimes, and indeed it will be a profession which will fairly soon start to contract in numbers. Yet the future of the Bar as a separate branch of the legal profession, and the future of self-regulation under the Bar Standards Board, is inextricably linked to the size and numerical strength of the profession. We cannot hope to exercise continuing influence, both within the legal profession itself and more widely, unless we maintain and indeed increase our numbers as we have done steadily over the last 50 years. A decision in favour of deferral is therefore likely to put our branch of the profession on a downward path, at the very least from a reputational point of view, just at the moment when it is already vulnerable to competition in the commercial sphere from the major law firms, and by reason of funding constraints in the publicly funded sphere. At the same time, a reduction in numbers will likely hinder the Inns in their ability post-pandemic to re-invigorate their lettings arrangements.
In the light of the above strategic risks, the possibility of what is described as ‘confusion’ as to the role of someone called but not yet authorised to practise can carry little weight. Indeed, in 2007 the Bar Standards Board itself, after a wide-ranging consultation exercise, rejected the idea of deferral, holding that its public register of those with practising certificates provided sufficient clarity as to the identity of those entitled to practise as barristers.
This article responds to ‘The timing of call’ by Nick Vineall KC and Fallon Alexis, which was published in the December 2023 issue of Counsel. In my respectful view there are major concerns – one ‘internal’ and the other ‘external’ – as to the proposal to defer call until after the obtaining of a practising certificate.
The external concern is easier to explain and its consequences are easier to predict. Our tradition of enabling students from overseas to be called to the Bar has not only achieved the surely desirable objective of strengthening our links with a good number of overseas jurisdictions. Perhaps more importantly it has encouraged the preservation of the tradition of specialist advocacy in those jurisdictions and thereby strengthened the rule of law in those countries. It is inevitable that if no one can be called to the Bar unless and until they have completed a pupillage in this jurisdiction, the number of individuals joining the Inns from abroad will be drastically reduced; indeed, quite intentionally, that source of membership will be virtually extinguished overnight. To my mind such a development will not only diminish the historic role of the Inns overseas, but it will of course lead very quickly to a drastic reduction in the number of those participating in call ceremonies, which will soon become a very visible symbol of the Inns’ diminished role.
The internal concern, which is even more significant, does in some ways reflect the external aspect. The consequence of deferral of call will place the decision as to who is willing and able to apply to join an Inn of Court almost exclusively in the hands of existing sets of chambers/employers, who alone can decide to whom to offer pupillages, and who cannot be criticised for adopting a potentially restrictive stance on this issue. It seems to me self-evident that if we move to a system in which no one can even be eligible to be called to the Bar unless and until they have completed pupillage, then the number of those seeking to join an Inn of Court is bound to drop sharply and significantly, with many bright graduates choosing instead to follow the path to becoming a solicitor. The authors of the December article themselves acknowledge that deferral of call will lead to a reduction in the number of people undertaking the Bar course.
The net result will be a branch of the profession which is gradually less diverse, and certainly perceived as less diverse and more socially exclusive. It will also be a profession which is very unlikely to expand at anything like the rate at which it has expanded during our professional lifetimes, and indeed it will be a profession which will fairly soon start to contract in numbers. Yet the future of the Bar as a separate branch of the legal profession, and the future of self-regulation under the Bar Standards Board, is inextricably linked to the size and numerical strength of the profession. We cannot hope to exercise continuing influence, both within the legal profession itself and more widely, unless we maintain and indeed increase our numbers as we have done steadily over the last 50 years. A decision in favour of deferral is therefore likely to put our branch of the profession on a downward path, at the very least from a reputational point of view, just at the moment when it is already vulnerable to competition in the commercial sphere from the major law firms, and by reason of funding constraints in the publicly funded sphere. At the same time, a reduction in numbers will likely hinder the Inns in their ability post-pandemic to re-invigorate their lettings arrangements.
In the light of the above strategic risks, the possibility of what is described as ‘confusion’ as to the role of someone called but not yet authorised to practise can carry little weight. Indeed, in 2007 the Bar Standards Board itself, after a wide-ranging consultation exercise, rejected the idea of deferral, holding that its public register of those with practising certificates provided sufficient clarity as to the identity of those entitled to practise as barristers.
Stephen Hockman KC responds to Nick Vineall KC and Fallon Alexis’s proposals to defer call to the Bar until after pupillage
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
Let’s hear it for the assessors, says Dame Anne Rafferty of the KC Selection Panel. And to make silk assessors’ lives a little easier when applicants come calling in May, Dame Anne fields some commonly asked questions