*/
Pupillage applications are overwhelming, exhausting and stressful for everyone. If you’re neurodivergent, though, the challenges are multiplied. Not only are you competing against many other highly capable candidates, you’re doing so in a system that’s not designed for brains like yours.
This article aims to provide some useful tips and suggestions on navigating the process, from an autistic barrister who remembers it all too well. One caveat: I don’t claim to speak for all neurodivergent people, or even all autistic people. Everyone’s neurotype manifests itself differently.
Whether to disclose neurodivergence is a personal choice. I’d love to say you needn’t worry about doing it because all chambers are inclusive and accepting of difference nowadays. Unfortunately, I can’t, because bitter experience has shown me that stigma, scepticism, and discrimination are alive and well in some quarters. Keeping your diagnosis private means this can’t happen.
That said, if you don’t disclose, then you can’t seek reasonable adjustments (more on that later). The Bar is far from perfect, but it is increasingly recognising the value of neurodiversity. Many common neurodivergent traits – like hyperfocus, empathy, and analytical thinking – are positive assets for a legal career. Good chambers will be keen to ensure that promising candidates aren’t held by back by structural barriers in the recruitment process. They can only meet your needs if they know those needs exist.
To apply for pupillage, you need to know what area of law you want to do. Your studies may have made you fairly confident about this already. But being a barrister involves much more than just understanding and applying the law. If you’re neurodivergent, you may be fine with the subject matter but face considerable challenges navigating the system that’s developed around it.
Here’s an illustration. I always wanted to practise criminal law; it fascinated me and I spent my spare time reading cases long after I’d finished the GDL. In reality, though, I was eminently unsuited to my criminal pupillage. My autism means I need predictability and preparation time – but for most of my second six I’d wake up in the morning not even knowing what court I was going to, never mind the case I’d be doing when I got there. I rarely got papers in advance – or even any instructions beyond my client’s name and, if I was lucky, the offence they were charged with. I had nothing to research and no time to do it anyway. Some people thrive on that style of working, but I existed in a perpetual state of heightened anxiety.
I survived that pupillage, somehow, but switched to immigration law immediately afterwards. It’s far more suited to the way my brain works; there’s lots of law, the hearings are listed well in advance, and most of the issues are set out in writing. Knowing this earlier, and targeting my pupillage applications accordingly, would’ve avoided a lot of heartache. That’s why, however informed you think you are from your studies, there’s no substitute for seeing what it’s actually like to be a barrister in your chosen field. Access to the public gallery at court is free, and nowadays some will let you observe remotely. Mini-pupillages give further insight into what it’s like behind the scenes, as do mentoring and marshalling, both available through the Inns of Court. Above all, keep an open mind. My passion for immigration, an area that plays to my strengths, has far surpassed my interest in crime; in fact, it’s now one of my autistic ‘special interests’.
I always hated it when chambers asked me why I’d applied to them. The honest answer was I’d have been happy with any pupillage, anywhere. When bemoaning my lack of success at interview, I was frequently told I’d just been unlucky and my time would come because it’s ‘just a question of fit’. This was not reassuring for a ‘socially inept weirdo’ (I didn’t know I was autistic back then) who’d never fitted in anywhere.
The Bar is an old-fashioned place, and sadly there are still probably some sets that, consciously or otherwise, are more interested in whether candidates fit their preconceived ideal of what a barrister’s like in whether they’re the best person for the pupillage. This is undoubtedly a barrier for neurodivergent applicants, who by definition deviate from most people’s expectations. But there are things you can look for when seeking to identify where you’re most likely to be valued.
A good start is to see if a set publicises its recruitment criteria. Increasingly, chambers websites or pupillage adverts publish mark schemes and particularised lists of the qualities they are looking for. This is good evidence they genuinely want the best candidates; if, like me, you need predictability and structure, it’s also extremely helpful to have a framework to work to when preparing application forms and interviews.
Something else to look for when researching chambers is how they treat the neurodivergent people they’ve already worked with. I don’t mean whether they publicly proclaim their support for neurodiversity; that’s easy to do and all too often meaningless. I mean whether they already have successful members who are openly neurodivergent, and whether they’ve engaged in initiatives to widen access for those who’d otherwise be marginalised for not fitting the mould.
Chambers are obliged to make reasonable adjustments to prevent disabled applicants being put at a substantial disadvantage. Not all neurodivergent people identify as disabled, but that shouldn’t stop you requesting the adjustments you’re legally entitled to. A set inviting you to interview should discuss and agree these with you in advance.
What’s appropriate will vary between individuals, but it may include extra interview or preparation time to allow for processing differences, the provision of written materials in a particular format, or use of a laptop to make notes. Don’t be afraid to get creative with adjustment requests; a chambers that cares will listen to your suggestions, and one that doesn’t is frankly not worth your time.
For me, a key reasonable adjustment is simply informing the panel of differences in communication style. I struggle with eye contact in everyday life, which leads some to assume I’d be a poor advocate. In fact, when in the formal, structured environment of court, I’m totally different; I’m playing a role, and part of that role is looking the judge in the eye. Explaining this in advance helps avoid misconceptions on the part of interviewers – and if they give me an advocacy exercise, they’ll see for themselves that I’m just as good as anyone else.
Like most of society, the Bar has a long way to go before it is fully inclusive of neurodivergence. In my view, though, the independent nature of the profession means that if you’re good at what you do, there’s plenty of scope to succeed without having to conform to neurotypical norms.
Pupillage applications are overwhelming, exhausting and stressful for everyone. If you’re neurodivergent, though, the challenges are multiplied. Not only are you competing against many other highly capable candidates, you’re doing so in a system that’s not designed for brains like yours.
This article aims to provide some useful tips and suggestions on navigating the process, from an autistic barrister who remembers it all too well. One caveat: I don’t claim to speak for all neurodivergent people, or even all autistic people. Everyone’s neurotype manifests itself differently.
Whether to disclose neurodivergence is a personal choice. I’d love to say you needn’t worry about doing it because all chambers are inclusive and accepting of difference nowadays. Unfortunately, I can’t, because bitter experience has shown me that stigma, scepticism, and discrimination are alive and well in some quarters. Keeping your diagnosis private means this can’t happen.
That said, if you don’t disclose, then you can’t seek reasonable adjustments (more on that later). The Bar is far from perfect, but it is increasingly recognising the value of neurodiversity. Many common neurodivergent traits – like hyperfocus, empathy, and analytical thinking – are positive assets for a legal career. Good chambers will be keen to ensure that promising candidates aren’t held by back by structural barriers in the recruitment process. They can only meet your needs if they know those needs exist.
To apply for pupillage, you need to know what area of law you want to do. Your studies may have made you fairly confident about this already. But being a barrister involves much more than just understanding and applying the law. If you’re neurodivergent, you may be fine with the subject matter but face considerable challenges navigating the system that’s developed around it.
Here’s an illustration. I always wanted to practise criminal law; it fascinated me and I spent my spare time reading cases long after I’d finished the GDL. In reality, though, I was eminently unsuited to my criminal pupillage. My autism means I need predictability and preparation time – but for most of my second six I’d wake up in the morning not even knowing what court I was going to, never mind the case I’d be doing when I got there. I rarely got papers in advance – or even any instructions beyond my client’s name and, if I was lucky, the offence they were charged with. I had nothing to research and no time to do it anyway. Some people thrive on that style of working, but I existed in a perpetual state of heightened anxiety.
I survived that pupillage, somehow, but switched to immigration law immediately afterwards. It’s far more suited to the way my brain works; there’s lots of law, the hearings are listed well in advance, and most of the issues are set out in writing. Knowing this earlier, and targeting my pupillage applications accordingly, would’ve avoided a lot of heartache. That’s why, however informed you think you are from your studies, there’s no substitute for seeing what it’s actually like to be a barrister in your chosen field. Access to the public gallery at court is free, and nowadays some will let you observe remotely. Mini-pupillages give further insight into what it’s like behind the scenes, as do mentoring and marshalling, both available through the Inns of Court. Above all, keep an open mind. My passion for immigration, an area that plays to my strengths, has far surpassed my interest in crime; in fact, it’s now one of my autistic ‘special interests’.
I always hated it when chambers asked me why I’d applied to them. The honest answer was I’d have been happy with any pupillage, anywhere. When bemoaning my lack of success at interview, I was frequently told I’d just been unlucky and my time would come because it’s ‘just a question of fit’. This was not reassuring for a ‘socially inept weirdo’ (I didn’t know I was autistic back then) who’d never fitted in anywhere.
The Bar is an old-fashioned place, and sadly there are still probably some sets that, consciously or otherwise, are more interested in whether candidates fit their preconceived ideal of what a barrister’s like in whether they’re the best person for the pupillage. This is undoubtedly a barrier for neurodivergent applicants, who by definition deviate from most people’s expectations. But there are things you can look for when seeking to identify where you’re most likely to be valued.
A good start is to see if a set publicises its recruitment criteria. Increasingly, chambers websites or pupillage adverts publish mark schemes and particularised lists of the qualities they are looking for. This is good evidence they genuinely want the best candidates; if, like me, you need predictability and structure, it’s also extremely helpful to have a framework to work to when preparing application forms and interviews.
Something else to look for when researching chambers is how they treat the neurodivergent people they’ve already worked with. I don’t mean whether they publicly proclaim their support for neurodiversity; that’s easy to do and all too often meaningless. I mean whether they already have successful members who are openly neurodivergent, and whether they’ve engaged in initiatives to widen access for those who’d otherwise be marginalised for not fitting the mould.
Chambers are obliged to make reasonable adjustments to prevent disabled applicants being put at a substantial disadvantage. Not all neurodivergent people identify as disabled, but that shouldn’t stop you requesting the adjustments you’re legally entitled to. A set inviting you to interview should discuss and agree these with you in advance.
What’s appropriate will vary between individuals, but it may include extra interview or preparation time to allow for processing differences, the provision of written materials in a particular format, or use of a laptop to make notes. Don’t be afraid to get creative with adjustment requests; a chambers that cares will listen to your suggestions, and one that doesn’t is frankly not worth your time.
For me, a key reasonable adjustment is simply informing the panel of differences in communication style. I struggle with eye contact in everyday life, which leads some to assume I’d be a poor advocate. In fact, when in the formal, structured environment of court, I’m totally different; I’m playing a role, and part of that role is looking the judge in the eye. Explaining this in advance helps avoid misconceptions on the part of interviewers – and if they give me an advocacy exercise, they’ll see for themselves that I’m just as good as anyone else.
Like most of society, the Bar has a long way to go before it is fully inclusive of neurodivergence. In my view, though, the independent nature of the profession means that if you’re good at what you do, there’s plenty of scope to succeed without having to conform to neurotypical norms.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Developing a tech start-up demands a different definition of excellence to the Bar, says Saara Idelbi. The co-creator of Advocatr on entrepreneurship, AI advocacy training, and matching the thrill of a killer cross-examination
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
