All those words telling you how to do it. And now, more words – telling you how not to. To help, here are the top five errors made in pupillage applications, in no particular order, except the order in which they tend to be made. And to help you even more, we have included things you can do to prevent those errors.

It helps to ask why we ask the particular questions on application forms. Because, tedious as they undoubtedly become, they tell us what we think we need to know. They tell us whether you know what the job involves, its demands, what you think are the qualities required to succeed, and why you say you have them. You will note that this isn’t what the questions actually ask: your answers also tell us whether you understand the real issues. They show us how you think, how you express yourself, and something about your capacity for judgement.

The form is, in other words, advocacy. Fair enough, no? And like all advocacy, it demands preparation, thought and care. If you think you can dash it off between lectures, you’re wrong. It should take you around 40 hours (!) to do it properly (portal estimate). That includes all the writing, the time you need to spend away from it so that you can review and revise it (unless you put it away for some time, errors will be missed), the time to show it to someone you trust, sitting down with them to review what you’ve said and ensuring it makes you sound both clear and sensible, and a further revision.

Error 1

Top spot, for both frequency and how aggravated it makes the reader, is failing to spell and grammar-check your application. This is not just infuriating – though it is infuriating – it is unforgiveable. You are applying for a job that puts accuracy of expression, on paper and orally, at its absolute heart, but wot you sez is that you wants to be a barista. Right.

You’re also telling the reader that you can’t actually be bothered to check your work – not entirely reassuring when you are simultaneously asking to be allowed to represent people who might go to prison or lose a case that really matters.

Solution 

That spellcheck thing? Enable it, and the grammar-checker too – to its maximum extent. Let them correct your passive sentences, common mistakes (discreet and discrete anyone?), and prolixity, teach you what they are and make your written work easy to read. The result may not sound like you talking to your friends. That doesn’t matter: you’re not talking to your friends.

Error 2

In the silver medal position comes the ever popular, ‘cliché is my passion’. Clichés are tedious and likely to be untrue. Reaching Out to anyone ought to be done only by members of the Four Tops. You do not want to be a barrister because your passion is for carrying the burning sword of truth and justice aloft, inspiring ordinary folk with the urge for freedom. You want to be a barrister because (you hope) you’ll make a living, it’s likely to impress/satisfy the outside world and, perhaps, because it’s vaguely socially useful.

Your cliché is also likely to be off point. We will not want you because your Mum always said you were good at arguing (it is astonishing how many Mums have said this). Nor because you care desperately about human rights, intellectual property, or ships. Barristers don’t deliver by arguing or caring. In prioritising these things, you’re telling us you don’t know much about the job for which you’re applying.

Solution

Eliminate cliché. Hunt it down like a rabid dog (see what we did there?). Do what you would do if you were preparing a case for real – scrutinise every proposition and ask if it is (a) correct; (b) sensible; and (c) well-expressed. Put the time into your application. It is aimed at getting you into a job in which you want – unlike a great many of your contemporaries – to stay for the rest of your life.

Error 3 

in third place is, ‘I’ve read the question, but not thought about it.’ This much-loved error throws up treasured answers that provide a humorous break for those having to read 300 applications, but don’t help the candidate. ‘Why would you like to join these chambers?’ ‘Dullverton-on-Sea is an entrancing spot. And my Auntie lives here.’ ‘Why would you make a good barrister?’ ‘I was brilliant at debating at school, and I really want to help innocent people accused of crime’. These answers are shallow, dull and boilerplate.

Solution

You must aim for depth. Your answer must make it clear that you understand the question. What does the question ‘why these chambers?’ actually mean? Stop reading and think. It means, ‘show us you know what we do, and what (we think) sets us apart?’ Similarly, ‘why would you make a good barrister?’ is asking, ‘show us you know what qualities are required and why you have them.’ If you didn’t get that – work harder.

Error 4

Failure to think laterally. While more forgivable than the earlier errors, it diminishes the strength of your application. You all know that answers should be backed with concrete examples of your abilities and experience. But, of course, you have limited, if any, legal experience upon which to draw. It’s a mistake to prioritise what sound like barrister stuff – debating and work as a paralegal. Such examples risk making you sound callow because they are limited.

Solution

Think laterally. Analyse what you want to demonstrate. Ability to persuade a tribunal: think about a time you may have influenced a decision at work. Keeping calm under pressure? Have you ever helped a family member or friend through a personal crisis? The advantage is twofold: first, the examples will sound more authentic and less as if you were searching for something to say. Secondly, you will have demonstrated an ability to answer the real question (see 3 above).

Error 5

Trying too hard. Honestly, this is one for which we have real sympathy. There are – perhaps – 600 pupillages in a good, non-COVID, optimistic year. There are at least 3,000 applicants. Almost everyone has a good degree and has done the same things. You’re desperate to stand out.

So, you over-complicate things, and your answers overreach – you pretend that making your mate feel better when their partner looked elsewhere is the ne plus ultra of empathising with a difficult client. And often the particular manifestation lies in the adoption of byzantine forms of expression, the addition of wholly extraneous adjectives, and the embracing of words of maximal length and gargantuan scarcity (see what we did there?). The net effect is the absolute opposite of what you are aiming for.

Solution

In advocacy, less is often more. That demands courage and judgement – but then, so does the job for which you are applying. If you can’t provide a fantastic example, then provide a good one and don’t pretend. Keep your language clear and simple – that is what great advocates do. Be rigidly truthful and realistic: great advocates do that too.