*/
When pupillage season closes each year, nearly every member of Chambers’ pupillage committee says the same two things: ‘I can’t believe how well qualified these candidates are!’ and ‘I’m so glad I never have to go through that process again!’ And every year the challenges for us, as recruiters, are the same. First, how can you distinguish between so many clearly capable candidates with so much potential? Secondly, how do we deliver the bad news to the unsuccessful candidates in a way which gives them the best chance of success in the future?
We, along with other chambers in the Midlands, hold an annual Pupillage Information Evening right at the start of January, and at that event we try our hardest to be crystal clear with the candidates about the kind of things which will help their applications and the kind of bear traps they should avoid falling into (I will deal with some of those points later on in this article). However, not everyone gets it right, so what do we do about those who need an additional steer?
Ah yes, the thorny question of feedback. We appreciate that anyone involved in a pupillage committee will necessarily be a volunteer alongside their demanding day job; however, and without wishing to be overly sanctimonious about it, we take the view that those who have done well enough to progress to a final round interview ought to be given the respect of being given detailed and meaningful feedback which will help them to improve their performance in the future. It might be an unpopular opinion among some sets with a high number of applicants and limited resources to deal with individual feedback; however, there are several good reasons for giving it to, at a minimum, those who have reached the final round of interviews:
Giving detailed feedback to hundreds of candidates may simply not be viable. For those who are rejected for interview as a result of their answers on paper, at St Philips (and some other sets) we will, if requested, offer feedback in the form of (1) informing them of their scores compared to the score required to obtain an interview, and (2) providing those candidates with a copy of our marking scheme, so that they can try to see where their scores generally fell, and they should be able to establish what they need to do more (or less) of next time around. More detailed feedback can often be hard to come by, but we try our best to at least give a useful steer.
It can be intimidating for unsuccessful candidates to ask chambers for feedback. For us and many other sets, it is enough for a student to email us and request, as politely as they can, whether feedback is available. That email does not need to be long, sycophantic, or begging. Candidates might find that, if that set does not respond or simply refuses to give feedback, it may not be the kind of institution which they would have wished to have joined in the first place.
It sounds obvious, but you should put implement the tips you are given. Feedback is gold dust, and candidates should try hard to put hurt and disappointment aside, and see it as an opportunity to get ahead. Those who are on pupillage committees up and down the land are doing it, as volunteers, because they care about recruitment and the future of the profession – we want you to succeed! Don’t lose sight of the fact that, whatever your peers are up to, many of the finest legal minds in this country have suffered rejection and failure, sometimes repeatedly, but they took on feedback in a measured and determined manner, and got there in the end. It’s a cliché, but it’s true: the failure is not in being knocked down, but in not getting back up.
In our application form, we ask five questions as a gateway to a first-round interview, and we always tell candidates that what we want to see from their answers are not just what they did in the examples they use for their answers, but what their thought process was (i.e. how/why they did it), and what they learned from it. We want insight, not just narrative. Successful candidates showed us a breadth of experience and interests, by giving examples in their answers which were not just to do with practising or studying law. We want to know that you will be able to gel with professional and lay clients, and having a wide range of opinions and passions is an important part of assessing your suitability for a pupillage (plus, as a recruiter, it’s really boring hearing about law all the time!).
As for performance at interview, what we required from candidates was the ability to think quickly on their feet, and to give us an answer to several binary questions in a cogent and confident way. The best candidates were not afraid to give us a definitive answer which gave them something to defend; the weaker candidates, by contrast, did not seem to be able to form or hold onto a viewpoint, which is an essential skill for forging a successful career at the Bar. We emphasise that we’re not too concerned with what people’s opinions are on the questions that we asked them (indeed, having a different opinion can sometimes liven up an interview, if the panel has just heard the same viewpoint for the previous hour or two…); we only ask that the candidate actually has one, and that they can defend it in a logical and clear way.
Our final round interviews involved the dissection of a difficult legal problem. The best candidates were those who had not just carried out thorough research, but also thought through the practical implications of the advice they were giving. Top quality performances were not reserved to those with industry experience, and there were some excellent undergraduate and Bar training course students who were able to demonstrate the same clarity of thought as those with years of experience under their belt. Those candidates who had carried out the best research were able to engage with the question as if it were a conversation between professionals, rather than a rehearsed and rigid set-piece. We were able to separate the good candidates from the excellent ones by taking them off-piste, or forcing them to take their points of advice or analysis out of the order which they had originally planned – the deeper the research and clearer the analysis, the more agile the performances.
We always tell candidates worried about the competitiveness of pupillage applications: someone has to get these places, so why not you? This year, we offered a pupillage to someone who had applied in four previous rounds, but also to someone who was chancing their arm for the very first time (and several others in between). Keep being positive and hopeful, keep doing the right things to develop, and keep plugging away!
Ali Tabari is a barrister at St Philips Chambers in Birmingham and is Chair of the Pupillage Committee.
When pupillage season closes each year, nearly every member of Chambers’ pupillage committee says the same two things: ‘I can’t believe how well qualified these candidates are!’ and ‘I’m so glad I never have to go through that process again!’ And every year the challenges for us, as recruiters, are the same. First, how can you distinguish between so many clearly capable candidates with so much potential? Secondly, how do we deliver the bad news to the unsuccessful candidates in a way which gives them the best chance of success in the future?
We, along with other chambers in the Midlands, hold an annual Pupillage Information Evening right at the start of January, and at that event we try our hardest to be crystal clear with the candidates about the kind of things which will help their applications and the kind of bear traps they should avoid falling into (I will deal with some of those points later on in this article). However, not everyone gets it right, so what do we do about those who need an additional steer?
Ah yes, the thorny question of feedback. We appreciate that anyone involved in a pupillage committee will necessarily be a volunteer alongside their demanding day job; however, and without wishing to be overly sanctimonious about it, we take the view that those who have done well enough to progress to a final round interview ought to be given the respect of being given detailed and meaningful feedback which will help them to improve their performance in the future. It might be an unpopular opinion among some sets with a high number of applicants and limited resources to deal with individual feedback; however, there are several good reasons for giving it to, at a minimum, those who have reached the final round of interviews:
Giving detailed feedback to hundreds of candidates may simply not be viable. For those who are rejected for interview as a result of their answers on paper, at St Philips (and some other sets) we will, if requested, offer feedback in the form of (1) informing them of their scores compared to the score required to obtain an interview, and (2) providing those candidates with a copy of our marking scheme, so that they can try to see where their scores generally fell, and they should be able to establish what they need to do more (or less) of next time around. More detailed feedback can often be hard to come by, but we try our best to at least give a useful steer.
It can be intimidating for unsuccessful candidates to ask chambers for feedback. For us and many other sets, it is enough for a student to email us and request, as politely as they can, whether feedback is available. That email does not need to be long, sycophantic, or begging. Candidates might find that, if that set does not respond or simply refuses to give feedback, it may not be the kind of institution which they would have wished to have joined in the first place.
It sounds obvious, but you should put implement the tips you are given. Feedback is gold dust, and candidates should try hard to put hurt and disappointment aside, and see it as an opportunity to get ahead. Those who are on pupillage committees up and down the land are doing it, as volunteers, because they care about recruitment and the future of the profession – we want you to succeed! Don’t lose sight of the fact that, whatever your peers are up to, many of the finest legal minds in this country have suffered rejection and failure, sometimes repeatedly, but they took on feedback in a measured and determined manner, and got there in the end. It’s a cliché, but it’s true: the failure is not in being knocked down, but in not getting back up.
In our application form, we ask five questions as a gateway to a first-round interview, and we always tell candidates that what we want to see from their answers are not just what they did in the examples they use for their answers, but what their thought process was (i.e. how/why they did it), and what they learned from it. We want insight, not just narrative. Successful candidates showed us a breadth of experience and interests, by giving examples in their answers which were not just to do with practising or studying law. We want to know that you will be able to gel with professional and lay clients, and having a wide range of opinions and passions is an important part of assessing your suitability for a pupillage (plus, as a recruiter, it’s really boring hearing about law all the time!).
As for performance at interview, what we required from candidates was the ability to think quickly on their feet, and to give us an answer to several binary questions in a cogent and confident way. The best candidates were not afraid to give us a definitive answer which gave them something to defend; the weaker candidates, by contrast, did not seem to be able to form or hold onto a viewpoint, which is an essential skill for forging a successful career at the Bar. We emphasise that we’re not too concerned with what people’s opinions are on the questions that we asked them (indeed, having a different opinion can sometimes liven up an interview, if the panel has just heard the same viewpoint for the previous hour or two…); we only ask that the candidate actually has one, and that they can defend it in a logical and clear way.
Our final round interviews involved the dissection of a difficult legal problem. The best candidates were those who had not just carried out thorough research, but also thought through the practical implications of the advice they were giving. Top quality performances were not reserved to those with industry experience, and there were some excellent undergraduate and Bar training course students who were able to demonstrate the same clarity of thought as those with years of experience under their belt. Those candidates who had carried out the best research were able to engage with the question as if it were a conversation between professionals, rather than a rehearsed and rigid set-piece. We were able to separate the good candidates from the excellent ones by taking them off-piste, or forcing them to take their points of advice or analysis out of the order which they had originally planned – the deeper the research and clearer the analysis, the more agile the performances.
We always tell candidates worried about the competitiveness of pupillage applications: someone has to get these places, so why not you? This year, we offered a pupillage to someone who had applied in four previous rounds, but also to someone who was chancing their arm for the very first time (and several others in between). Keep being positive and hopeful, keep doing the right things to develop, and keep plugging away!
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
