Profession

Being a clerk in today’s Bar is very different to the life of Billy Lamb in “Silk”. Paul Martenstyn explores how clerks’ roles and skill sets are evolving . 

“A barrister’s clerk? What exactly do they do?” It’s a question I’ve been asked regularly since I first started clerking in the mid 1990s. Since the escapades of the fictional Senior Clerk Billy Lamb were brought to the small screen in the BBC1 drama series Silk, the question has recently changed to “Are all barrister’s clerks like that?!” Thankfully in my experience they are not, and by some way. 

Adam Sampson Chief Legal Ombudsman gives us his thoughts on Silks, barristers’ financial management issues and some of his current cases…  

Touring one or two of the Silks’ parties over the past few days left me with mixed emotions. On the one hand, it is nice to see talent recognised. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Silk system, it does at least provide a mechanism by which years of dedication and hard work is honoured. 

Sam Stein QC lays out the Bar Standards Board’s position regarding the awarding and conduct of pupillages and sets down the basic rules  with which all chambers must comply.  

The vast majority of practitioners enjoy their work and would not do anything else. The vast majority of practitioners are probably not fit to do anything else. 

Nichola Higgins, Chairman of the Young Barristers’ Committee, looks at the challenges facing the younger members of the Bar and how they will need to adapt to survive.  

You are not alone in feeling some despair as the Ministry of Justice continues its drive to reduce the need for lawyers, to divert cases towards alternative forms of dispute resolution and reduce lawyers’ remuneration. 

Geoff Everett and Toby Tallon of Smith & Williamson outline the key business structures available to chambers  to enable them to withstand the stormy times ahead.  

Critical analysis after disaster strikes is seldom kind. As seen recently in Japan, commentators have found it all too easy to lay the blame for the aftermath of the tsunami on the inadequate  plans, safety measures and management structures that were in place. A weather warning has now been issued for the UK Bar. 

Nancy Erika Smith takes a sceptical approach towards the impartiality of justice in the US and asks whether judges and juries can put aside firmly held beliefs just because they have taken an oath to do so.  

Sir Stephen Sedley’s article about judge recusal is probing and provocative. He points out our universal view that judges with a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case must recuse themselves. Unfortunately, the West Virginia case (Caperton) is not the worst example of that principle being violated. 

In the February issue of Counsel Andrew Neish QC put the case for a pupillage “Wild Card Scheme” and invited responses. Here, Simon Myerson QC sets out some drawbacks of the scheme

I would like to deal with some of the matters raised by Andrew Neish in his recent article, People like us. We ought to begin with why diversity is a good thing. There are, I think, two answers. 

Max Hill QC and Nichola Higgins explain why the CBA, which is cautiously supportive of the scheme, has significant reservations about how it will work.  

The Advocate Panels scheme, which was launched on 31 March 2011, will consist of seven regional, circuit based panels divided into four “Levels” across each of the circuits plus an additional London Panel. 

Keir Starmer QC welcomes the launch of the CPS Advocate Panels Scheme, which he believes represents a turning point in the delivery of prosecution advocacy and improved relations between the CPS and the Bar.  

The CPS currently prosecutes just over one million criminal defendants every year. The vast majority are in the magistrates’ courts, but many are in the Crown Court and some are in the appellate courts. The advocacy in those cases is carried out either by self-employed advocates, mostly barristers, or by barristers and solicitors employed by the CPS. In my view, that is a healthy mix. 

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause” and yet surely a judicial oath is an answer to the appearance of partiality? Sir Stephen Sedley looks at the tests for recusal and who decides upon them.  

Few people in this country, I would guess, reading the headnote above, attached to the official report of a recent decision of the US Supreme Court, would regard it as a difficult case.