*/
One common mistake candidates make on pupillage applications is not using the STAR method to answer competency-based questions, say James Harrison and Adam Kirke. Here’s how to do it – with worked examples
All pupillage applications will contain competency-based questions. Chambers want to see practical examples where you have demonstrated the skills that they have identified as being key for a barrister. To answer these questions effectively within the limited word count can be challenging. One of the of the most effective ways to do this is by using the STAR method: Situation, Task, Action, Result.
You need to concisely explain the situation that you faced. Think about what the reader needs at this point. It is essential that all key information is introduced to set the scene and enable someone to understand the rest of your answer.
Describing the situation is unlikely to demonstrate competency in of itself and so the recommendation would be to use as few words as possible (approximately 10% of the word count) to allow you proper analysis later in your answer. One way to consider this is to challenge yourself as to how concisely can you describe everything – brevity is a key skill for a barrister.
Having explained the situation you now need to describe the task that you were set and why you were asked to complete that task. Again, this should be a relatively brief summary but should succinctly set out the responsibilities that you had.
In a situation where you were acting as a part of a team do ensure that you focus on your personal role within that team, even if what you did was in support of the achievement of a wider goal.
This is the most important part of your answer because it is where you describe the actions that you took to address the situation. Be specific in setting out the steps you took. By describing what you did and why you did it you are able to set out your decision-making process and the way in which you carried out the action which speak to the skills that you have. Approximately half of your answer should concern this part.
To complete the answer, set out the result of your actions and whether it was a successful answer. Generally, you should try to use examples where there was a successful outcome but if you are able to talk about learning from a mistake then that can be equally valuable.
When I have an argument with my classmate about the knowledge we learnt in the class, there is always no right or wrong answer in raising a legal argument and opinion. However, it is possible that we get the legal principle or course of action wrong. When someone prove me with evidence or relevant information that I was wrong, I am delight to admit it and correct myself.
As a paralegal, I worked with three solicitors who, at any one time, engaged with 20-30 clients. There was no method for diary keeping. On one occasion the diary was full and a regular client’s hearing was overlooked in the diary and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
It was crucial that the client was not penalised for a clerical error.
Although it was unclear who was at fault, I took responsibility for the error. I immediately contacted the client and reassured them that I would correct the situation. I considered the situation and decided that someone from the firm would need to attend Court. I advised the solicitors of the error and they confirmed my proposed way of dealing with it. I came in early the next morning, explained the mistake to the Court and requested the warrant be rescinded.
I kept my word and the hearing was adjourned without a warrant. Afterwards, a difficult but constructive conference was held, diary procedures were changed and no further clerical errors occurred.
On the BPTC we are asked to undertake lots of advocacy. I feel confident when being able to speak in public as it excites me. I like to argue criminal law as this is always something different and challenging. I have been involved in mooting competitions.
As an advocate for the Free Representation Unit I have represented several clients in the County Court. In one case, I was asked to advise on an unfair dismissal claim at the Employment Tribunal.
This involved meeting the client in conference in order to advise upon the merits of the claim and to take instructions.
As a result of those instructions, I was required to research a particular area of law and draft a skeleton argument to argue the admissibility of evidence. At trial, that argument was supplemented by oral submissions, and I was required to respond to the opposing argument whilst on my feet.
The argument was successful and prejudicial information was excluded from trial. As a result, the claimant was successful in his claim and was awarded damages.
I won the KCLBMS Intellectual Property Law Moot and in the final I was asked about the legal ownership of the work product AI-powered 3D printing. The other finalist had not been asked any questions, but I faced a lot of judicial intervention. I took time to answer the questions, which allowed me to structure my answers and give the information that the judge wanted. I said that whilst traditional IP laws, such as patents, typically attribute inventorship to human creators. AI systems, with their ability to autonomously generate inventive solutions, challenge this paradigm and that we need to clarify the law regarding the intellectual property of the persons who programme the computers or input data into the AI.
Upon separation in June 2015, my husband and I made informal financial and child arrangements. During my LLB, he told me that he intended to start divorce proceedings much earlier than agreed, as well as make substantial changes to our agreement.
This change gave me concerns about my ability to perform well in my forthcoming exams. By discussions and emails, I convinced him to postpone negotiations until after my finals to maintain stability for my studies.
By email, I set out my plans for the year ahead with its variable outcomes (depending on exam results, Inns of Court scholarships, and pupillage applications). In a subsequent phone call, I explained my view that there was a significant advantage to waiting for certainty, namely that we could reach a more final agreement, which would be cheaper. I explained that there were risks and costs associated with litigation. I made an emotive argument that lengthy discussions would be counter-productive and could ultimately jeopardise my grades. Although I did not agree with the substantive proposal, I chose to seek a compromise and delay the process by explaining that the best decision for both of us could be made when I had a clearer plan to work from.
Because my offer was firm, fair and pragmatic and despite facing strong opposition from the outset, I convinced him of its merits. We agreed to wait until after my final exams and use the summer break to discuss more formal arrangements. During that summer, before commencing my BPTC, I undertook my own legal research to draw up a consent order.
The really valuable bits of STAR are ‘AR’ – they situate you in the answer – anybody could have been in your position but your unique skills/attributes/personality means you did what you did.
Using the STAR method also helps you make sure you have answered the question properly. It’s good to get into the habit of using it because it plays a huge part in career development, for example if you apply for grading with the Crown Prosecution Service or if you want to become a KC or a judge.
Also, everyone writes differently – don’t write answers as you think they want them. Be formal but authentic: the application should be yours and yours alone, and that way you will stand out among your fellow candidates.
James Harrison is a criminal barrister at Six Pump Court. James works predominantly in Kent doing both prosecution and defence work. In addition, James completes regulatory work for local authorities and statutory regulators such as the Care Quality Commission.
Adam Kirke is a barrister at 9BR Chambers specialising in general crime. He prosecutes and defends across the criminal spectrum including in areas of violence; drugs; sexual offences and fraud. Adam also accepts regulatory work on behalf of Social Work England and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
All pupillage applications will contain competency-based questions. Chambers want to see practical examples where you have demonstrated the skills that they have identified as being key for a barrister. To answer these questions effectively within the limited word count can be challenging. One of the of the most effective ways to do this is by using the STAR method: Situation, Task, Action, Result.
You need to concisely explain the situation that you faced. Think about what the reader needs at this point. It is essential that all key information is introduced to set the scene and enable someone to understand the rest of your answer.
Describing the situation is unlikely to demonstrate competency in of itself and so the recommendation would be to use as few words as possible (approximately 10% of the word count) to allow you proper analysis later in your answer. One way to consider this is to challenge yourself as to how concisely can you describe everything – brevity is a key skill for a barrister.
Having explained the situation you now need to describe the task that you were set and why you were asked to complete that task. Again, this should be a relatively brief summary but should succinctly set out the responsibilities that you had.
In a situation where you were acting as a part of a team do ensure that you focus on your personal role within that team, even if what you did was in support of the achievement of a wider goal.
This is the most important part of your answer because it is where you describe the actions that you took to address the situation. Be specific in setting out the steps you took. By describing what you did and why you did it you are able to set out your decision-making process and the way in which you carried out the action which speak to the skills that you have. Approximately half of your answer should concern this part.
To complete the answer, set out the result of your actions and whether it was a successful answer. Generally, you should try to use examples where there was a successful outcome but if you are able to talk about learning from a mistake then that can be equally valuable.
When I have an argument with my classmate about the knowledge we learnt in the class, there is always no right or wrong answer in raising a legal argument and opinion. However, it is possible that we get the legal principle or course of action wrong. When someone prove me with evidence or relevant information that I was wrong, I am delight to admit it and correct myself.
As a paralegal, I worked with three solicitors who, at any one time, engaged with 20-30 clients. There was no method for diary keeping. On one occasion the diary was full and a regular client’s hearing was overlooked in the diary and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
It was crucial that the client was not penalised for a clerical error.
Although it was unclear who was at fault, I took responsibility for the error. I immediately contacted the client and reassured them that I would correct the situation. I considered the situation and decided that someone from the firm would need to attend Court. I advised the solicitors of the error and they confirmed my proposed way of dealing with it. I came in early the next morning, explained the mistake to the Court and requested the warrant be rescinded.
I kept my word and the hearing was adjourned without a warrant. Afterwards, a difficult but constructive conference was held, diary procedures were changed and no further clerical errors occurred.
On the BPTC we are asked to undertake lots of advocacy. I feel confident when being able to speak in public as it excites me. I like to argue criminal law as this is always something different and challenging. I have been involved in mooting competitions.
As an advocate for the Free Representation Unit I have represented several clients in the County Court. In one case, I was asked to advise on an unfair dismissal claim at the Employment Tribunal.
This involved meeting the client in conference in order to advise upon the merits of the claim and to take instructions.
As a result of those instructions, I was required to research a particular area of law and draft a skeleton argument to argue the admissibility of evidence. At trial, that argument was supplemented by oral submissions, and I was required to respond to the opposing argument whilst on my feet.
The argument was successful and prejudicial information was excluded from trial. As a result, the claimant was successful in his claim and was awarded damages.
I won the KCLBMS Intellectual Property Law Moot and in the final I was asked about the legal ownership of the work product AI-powered 3D printing. The other finalist had not been asked any questions, but I faced a lot of judicial intervention. I took time to answer the questions, which allowed me to structure my answers and give the information that the judge wanted. I said that whilst traditional IP laws, such as patents, typically attribute inventorship to human creators. AI systems, with their ability to autonomously generate inventive solutions, challenge this paradigm and that we need to clarify the law regarding the intellectual property of the persons who programme the computers or input data into the AI.
Upon separation in June 2015, my husband and I made informal financial and child arrangements. During my LLB, he told me that he intended to start divorce proceedings much earlier than agreed, as well as make substantial changes to our agreement.
This change gave me concerns about my ability to perform well in my forthcoming exams. By discussions and emails, I convinced him to postpone negotiations until after my finals to maintain stability for my studies.
By email, I set out my plans for the year ahead with its variable outcomes (depending on exam results, Inns of Court scholarships, and pupillage applications). In a subsequent phone call, I explained my view that there was a significant advantage to waiting for certainty, namely that we could reach a more final agreement, which would be cheaper. I explained that there were risks and costs associated with litigation. I made an emotive argument that lengthy discussions would be counter-productive and could ultimately jeopardise my grades. Although I did not agree with the substantive proposal, I chose to seek a compromise and delay the process by explaining that the best decision for both of us could be made when I had a clearer plan to work from.
Because my offer was firm, fair and pragmatic and despite facing strong opposition from the outset, I convinced him of its merits. We agreed to wait until after my final exams and use the summer break to discuss more formal arrangements. During that summer, before commencing my BPTC, I undertook my own legal research to draw up a consent order.
The really valuable bits of STAR are ‘AR’ – they situate you in the answer – anybody could have been in your position but your unique skills/attributes/personality means you did what you did.
Using the STAR method also helps you make sure you have answered the question properly. It’s good to get into the habit of using it because it plays a huge part in career development, for example if you apply for grading with the Crown Prosecution Service or if you want to become a KC or a judge.
Also, everyone writes differently – don’t write answers as you think they want them. Be formal but authentic: the application should be yours and yours alone, and that way you will stand out among your fellow candidates.
One common mistake candidates make on pupillage applications is not using the STAR method to answer competency-based questions, say James Harrison and Adam Kirke. Here’s how to do it – with worked examples
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
