‘I’m so f*****g bored’

A former pupil barrister has been fined £500 for repeatedly swearing during an online ethics exam and at one point sticking up his middle finger to the camera.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) said that by doing so Jack Henry Sadler had “acted in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him”.

The published finding states that last summer, Sadler was taking a professional ethics assessment remotely as part of his mandatory training during his second six as a pupil barrister.

During the exam, Sadler made statements including: “I’m so fucking bored of this”, “This is annoying, oh my god, this is going to really piss me off”, and “Fucking finally, a criminal question… This civil shit… How can you have any ethics if you’re a civil practitioner, honestly.”

The BSB further noted that at the end of the recorded exam, the then-pupil barrister could be seen holding up his middle finger to the camera.

A second charge found that Sadler “failed to keep the affairs of each client confidential and/or failed to protect the confidentiality of each client’s affairs” after he accessed his work email during the recorded exam and clicked on two emails from solicitors’ firms containing client information.

In mitigation, Sadler stated that he did not realise his words and actions could be heard and recorded, and that nothing he said or did was directed at any individual, especially the exam proctor.

Regarding the second charge, Sadler said he did not appreciate at the time that accessing his Outlook could risk a GDPR breach, attributing this to both a lack of knowledge and a lack of thought on his part. The necessary steps were taken by him and chambers to address any potential breach.

The panel agreed that Sadler, who is an unregistered barrister and has since left the bar, showed genuine contrition and remorse.

The matter was handled through a procedure known as determination by consent, an alternative method for dealing with cases that would otherwise be referred to a disciplinary tribunal.

Barristers Shabana Mahmood MP and Richard Hermer KC

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has appointed a pair of fellow barristers to take over the roles of Lord Chancellor and Attorney General after last week’s landslide election victory.

Shabana Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Ladywood, will take up the role of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. Prior to becoming an MP in 2010 she practiced as a barrister specialising in professional indemnity.

Mahmood was awarded a scholarship to study the bar course and was called to the bar by Gray’s Inn in 2003 She will become only the second woman to hold the post and the first observant Muslim to do so.

The greatest honour of my life to walk into @MoJGovUK as the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice yesterday.

Before politics, I was a lawyer. I understand the deep challenges facing our justice system. But there is so much we can do. The hard work starts now. pic.twitter.com/38HwhZZRi2

— Shabana Mahmood MP (@ShabanaMahmood) July 6, 2024

Congratulating Mahmood on her appointment, president of the Law Society Nick Emmerson said:

“The appointment of the new justice secretary Shabana Mahmood is a unique opportunity to bring much-needed change to our justice system and address the longstanding neglect and underinvestment that have left it on the verge of collapse. The challenges ahead are significant and demand urgent attention.”

“It’s crucial to acknowledge that transforming the justice system is a long-term project, requiring a collaborative effort, Emmerson continued. “We look forward to working with Shabana Mahmood over the coming parliament and sharing the insight and experience of our members to rebuild our justice system, harness the economic power of legal services and ensure access to justice for all.”

For his new Attorney General, Starmer has appointed Richard Hermer KC from Matrix Chambers, who will be granted a life peerage in the House of Lords.

The experienced silk was called to the bar in 1993 before reaching the prestigious rank of silk in 2009. He is also a Deputy High Court Judge assigned to the King’s Bench Division and the Administrative Court, and specialises in all areas of private and public international law, as well as domestic public and private law.

Bar Tribunal finally acts

Barrister Henry Hendron has been disbarred after receiving a 14-month jail sentence for a number of drugs related offences.

Hendron was convicted in March last year of three counts of intentionally encouraging/assisting the supply of Class A and Class C drugs, and a further charge of possessing “a quantity of crystal methamphetamine”. His sentences concurrently totalled 14 months.

The drugs were purchased from clients Hendron was representing in criminal proceedings, with his arrest taking place outside of Belmarsh prison.

His behaviour, the independent tribunal said “was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession, and which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity and independence.”

It continued: “Mr Hendron also had a previous criminal and disciplinary record, including for drug related offences, which were taken into account in making the order to disbar.”

Hendron’s legal troubles began back in 2015 when he was arrested after his boyfriend, 18-year-old Miguel Jimenez, was found dead in Hendron’s Temple flat following a drug overdose. Hendron was 34 at the time.

After pleading guilty in March 2016 to two counts relating to possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply he was handed a community order with 18 months supervision and 140 hours unpaid work.

He was then suspended from legal practice for three years, during which time he failed to comply with the tribunals order, and earned himself a reprimand and ban from public access work for a further two years.

Commenting on the most recent order, a BSB spokesperson said:

“Possessing and encouraging the supply of Class A drugs is clearly a very serious matter. The conduct for which Mr Hendron was convicted, including being involved in his client’s criminal activity, is clearly entirely unacceptable behaviour for a barrister and the Tribunal’s decision to disbar him reflects this.”

In statement, Hendron said:

“Previous tribunals had been generous to me and given me chance after chance which by my conduct I took for granted, and in the battle with addiction I squandered those chances to my own folly. In the time it has taken to determine the bar disciplinary process I have used in trying to come to terms with the inevitable prospect disbarment and of losing the profession I have spent my life serving and love. I fully endorse the sanction of disbarment handed to me today, it was the right sanction to impose.”

Along with his disbarment, Hendron was ordered to pay £2,670 costs.

Sparks LinkedIn debate

A barrister has sparked a debate online after claiming it’s “significantly harder” to become a barrister than a solicitor.

Natalie Connor, who describes herself as a “recovering barrister” on LinkedIn, made the eye-catching claim in a post concerning the rules relating to qualifying work experience (QWE) and explained why, as a barrister, she is unable to sign off on trainees’ work.

Introduced alongside the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE), the changes to on-the-job experience allow aspiring solicitors to bypass the traditional training contract process. They can now complete two years of QWE with up to four different employers, including law firms, in-house legal teams and law clinics.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) says that this work must be signed off by a solicitor or registered compliance officer.

This rule appears to be a source of frustration for Connor, who explains that she has been working as a general counsel in-house for tech companies for the past five years.

And while some agreed that the rule seems like a classic example of unnecessary red tape, it wasn’t the only talking point under Connor’s post.

This is because the barrister, who was previously a member of 7 King’s Bench and 11KBW before moving in-house, went on to say the following:

“It is significantly harder to become a barrister than a solicitor. It’s more competitive to train and qualify, and you’re then self-employed from day dot in a ‘learning by doing’ approach at the coalface of real-life legal disputes (hello courtrooms after 6 months, not photocopying client files…).”

Enter the solicitors.

“I have to disagree with this Natalie, and actually, it’s quite disappointing to see people still pushing this narrative to draw even bigger divides between solicitors and barristers in the legal industry,” wrote Pheobe Greenwood, senior legal counsel at tech company Xaar. “What’s significantly harder for one is not always the same for others — it’s all subjective and it depends entirely on your social mobility, your bank balance and your network as to which route is a) open to you and b) will be ‘harder’”.

Elsewhere, Keystone Law partner Andrea James commented: “maybe the fact that you’ve published a statement like ‘It is significantly harder to become a barrister than a solicitor,’ despite never having trained or qualified as a solicitor or worked in a solicitors’ practice, indicates that the SRA is right on this matter!”

Responding below the line herself, Connor appeared to double-down on her position, stating that it’s categorically harder being a pupil barrister in the first 6 months (and indeed the first 12 months which is the full duration of pupillage — we don’t get 2 years like trainee solicitors). And I stand by that.”

Even a fellow barrister struggled to agree with Connor’s viewpoint. “Having practised as both and for many years was a training principle, I can’t agree with you that training to be a solicitor is ‘easier’,” wrote Simon Heaney, a tenant at St John’s Buildings Barristers’​ Chambers. “I can’t see how a rigorous TC (as was) was/is a very tense and difficult experience not to do and to observe.”

In a further post this morning, the barrister sought to clarify her position, stating, ‘Many misunderstood my post and thought I was suggesting that it is harder to be a barrister than a solicitor. I don’t think that.”

“In many ways I think it’s actually harder to BE a solicitor — although realistically I think the jobs are so different it’s impossible to make an objective comparison,” Connor continued. “What I think we CAN objectively compare, however, is the relative difficulty of BECOMING a barrister versus BECOMING a solicitor.”

Connor then goes on to detail some of the difficulties of life as would-be barrister, including lack of financial assistance, challenges securing pupillage and “no structured training”.

Setting aside the question of who has it tougher, many students will likely share Connor’s frustrations around QWE. Legal Cheek reported on research earlier this month that found 17% of students described the sign-off process as “difficult” or “very difficult,” marking a four percentage point increase from the previous year.

Worked with group of ‘corrupt legal professionals’

A barrister and part-time immigration tribunal judge has been handed a three-year jail sentence for his part in a £1.8 million legal aid fraud.

Rasib Ghaffar, 54, conspired with legal clerk Gazi Khan, solicitor advocate Azar Khan, and solicitor Joseph Kyeremeh to defraud the taxpayer through submitting false legal aid claims, according to a statement released by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The offences relate back to a string of cases in 2011 and 2012 where the gang submitted false defendants’ costs orders, seeking to claim inflated legal costs back through legal aid.

Ghaffar’s case centred on four claims arising from separate defendants who were acquitted. The claims totalled £1,856,584, of which £469,477 (25%) was paid out.

Of this, Ghaffar was responsible for a fee note in his name for £184,000, relating to over 350 hours of purported work. The evidence, however, showed that he had only been instructed seven days before the conclusion of the case.

Gazi Khan, described by a CPS statement as “the leader in this criminal operation” has also been convicted of fraud offences relating to fraudulent defence cost orders.

In one of the cases the firm City Law Solicitors, of which Azar Khan was the principle partner, started work on a case around 10 weeks before its conclusion. Despite this short time frame the firm claimed to have carried out 500 hours of work, costing over £162,000.

The real giveaway? The firm backdated the work it said it had done to include “a long period when it was not instructed to represent any defendant”, resulting in a £93,000 payout through legal aid.

Kyeremeh, another partner in the same firm, claimed for 650 hours work at a value of over £176,000, with £60,000 coming from public funds.

Malcolm McHaffie of the CPS commented: “These convicted defendants defrauded the Legal Aid Agency for their own purposes. They fraudulently took advantage of a statutory scheme which was designed to help acquitted defendants with their genuinely incurred legal costs.”

“The Metropolitan Police and the CPS worked closely together to bring these corrupt legal professionals to justice and are now facing the consequences of their wrongdoing,” McHaffie said.

“The CPS will now commence confiscation proceedings in order to reclaim the defendants’ proceeds derived from the fraud,” he added.

Ghaffar was jailed for three years, Gazi Khan received a five-year sentence, and Azar Khan was sentenced to two years, suspended for two years. Kyeremeh was also given a two-year suspended sentence.”

Incident occurred in 2019

An unregistered barrister has been suspended after punching a fashion designer during a dispute over a spare seat at a Wagner performance at the Royal Opera House.

Matthew Adam Feargrieve is prohibited from obtaining a practicing certificate for 12 months following the conclusion of an independent disciplinary tribunal this week.

The sanction follows Feargrieve’s 2019 conviction for assault, where he was found to have punched fashion designer Ulrich Engler at least once during a dispute over an empty seat at the upscale Covent Garden venue.

The tribunal said Feargrieve had behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession.

At Feargrieve’s trial, the court heard how he had “lost his temper” when Engler moved from his seat in row B to an empty seat in row A, shortly before the third performance of Wagner’s Ring Cycle began.

The Oxford-educated lawyer maintained it was in fact Engler who had started the fracas, claiming the fashion designer had thrown his partner’s coat on the floor after she objected to him sitting in the vacant seat.

Feargrieve was eventually found guilty of assault and ordered to pay a fine of £900, costs of £775 and £500 in compensation.

Commenting on the order, a Bar Standards Board spokesperson said:

“Barristers have an obligation not to behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or in the profession, even when not practising. The tribunal’s decision shows that Mr Feargrieve’s actions leading to his conviction were a clear breach of that duty and the sanction reflects the seriousness of this breach.”

250 spots up for grabs

The Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) has launched its flagship student mentoring scheme for 2024-25 with a record number of chambers getting involved.

The programme, which sees students receive a series of one-to-one mentoring sessions, has this year attracted mentors from across 25 commercial sets, with at least 250 mentee spots expected to be on offer.

These participating sets have also agreed to cover reasonable travel expenses for the mentees allocated to them.

In addition to mentoring, students will be invited to a pupillage interview and application workshop and social event in January 2025, which last year featured a keynote introductory speech from Mr Justice Foxton, the Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court.

Legal Cheek is also pleased to announce it will once again act as exclusive media partner for the programme, ensuring that it reaches as many potential applicants as possible.

The scheme targets applicants from under-represented groups at the bar, especially the commercial bar. It assesses candidates with realistic prospects of obtaining a pupillage based on their need for mentoring and their potential for a career at the bar.

Alexander Gunning KC, chair of COMBAR, commented:

“The promotion of diversity at the Commercial Bar continues to be one of COMBAR’s core aims. It is vital that the Commercial Bar recruits from the most talented future practitioners, including, in particular, those from backgrounds that have traditionally been under-represented.”

He continued: “This initiative allows applicants from under-representative backgrounds, who meet the requisite standards, to access one-to-one mentoring with practitioners from 25 participating sets. It is an important way of promoting access and demonstrating that the Commercial Bar is open to applicants from all backgrounds. I am delighted that this year’s Scheme can build on the success of previous years and I want to thank all those involved volunteering their time to make this happen.”

Students must apply by Friday 20 September using COMAR’s application form.

The participating chambers are: 3 Verulam Buildings, 4 New Square, 4 Pump Court, 7 King’s Bench Walk, 11 King’s Bench Walk, 36 Stone, Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Devereux Chambers, Essex Court Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Henderson Chambers, Keating Chambers, Maitland Chambers, Monckton Chambers, One Essex Court Chambers, Quadrant Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Serle Court, South Square , Twenty Essex, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings.

Polly Botsford looks at legally trained PMs of the past and the potential impact of Starmer in No.10

With betting odds at an astonishing 1/33 that Labour will win the election on July 4 and Sir Keir Starmer our next PM, the UK looks set to have a barrister in Downing Street. It’s not clear, however, whether this will be a boon for the legal profession.

A review of the Labour Party’s manifesto launched yesterday is a mixed bag. There are pledges for increased policing and more and better prosecutions, particularly in relation to violence against women. Legal aid gets a passing mention (for victims of disasters or state-related deaths), but nothing on a more general increase for criminal or civil cases, and no details on how the next government might deal with the court backlog apart from allowing associate prosecutors to work on cases. There are, however, specific pledges around historic injustices: such as responding to the Grenfell Inquiry and appointing a Windrush Commissioner.

It might be that Starmer, a barrister and KC from Doughty Street Chambers and once head of the Crown Prosecution Service, isn’t talking too much about these issues because they don’t win votes. But the shadow justice secretary and other labour leaders have repeatedly stated that they won’t commit to policies that they can’t afford in order to maintain a profile of being fiscally responsible rather than spendthrift.

There may yet be reason to cheer, however. Lawyers tend to indirectly benefit from a heavy legislative agenda: clients need advice in times of changes in the law. And in its most recent period in office, the Labour Party has tended to bring in more new legislation than the Conservatives — by some margin. A rough comparison of the total pieces of primary legislation passed between 2000 and 2010 (Labour) and 2010 and 2020 (Conservative) was 345 to 285. That’s 20% more under Labour. Many of the ideas in the Labour Manifesto could lead to legislative change such as in immigration, employment, housing, and so on. There are even minor reform proposals for the House of Lords that will engage constitutional lawyers’ brains. All in all, the chances are lawyers will be much busier if Labour are successful (particularly if they have a whopping parliamentary majority). All in all, the chances are lawyers will be much busier if Labour are successful (particularly if they have a whopping parliamentary majority).

Starmer the charmer?

Starmer’s legal career has been nothing less than wig-droppingly impressive. He has already had a stellar career at the bar as a human rights barrister and was a founder member of Doughty Street — a top human rights set that boasts members including Kirsty Brimelow KC and Amal Clooney. During this time he won an award from for his outstanding contribution to pro bono work. His career then took a surprise turn when he accepted the post of director of Public Prosecutions where he oversaw the prosecution of MPs for misuse of expenses, amongst other high profile issues. He won his knighthood for services to criminal justice. In terms of past PMs’ legal backstory, there is no comparison in history.

There have, of course, been quite a few past Prime Ministers that have been legally trained. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, Britain had leaders like William Pitt the Younger, Henry Addington and Lord Grenville, who were trained at the bar (all at Lincoln’s Inn) and practiced for a brief time until politics took over. At the time, the Bar was one of the few ways that an aristocrat could, respectably, earn a living. But this was not about having a supercharged legal career.

It is not until the dawn of the 20^th century that practising lawyers make their appearance at No.10, with the likes of Asquith (called to the bar in 1876 — Lincoln’s Inn — and took silk in 1890) and Clement Attlee (Inner Temple). Famously, Margaret Thatcher was, very briefly, a tax barrister, and Tony Blair studied jurisprudence at Oxford, and then became a barrister (Lincoln’s Inn again). He was pupil-master to Lord Irvine, who set up a new chambers, 11 King’s Bench Walk, where Blair met his wife, Cherie. (Irvine would go on to become Blair’s Lord Chancellor.) David Lloyd George (PM from 1916-22), who ran his own practice, remains the only solicitor to become prime minister.

Former practising lawyers also feature on the back benches of parliament. Research estimates that as much as 8% of MPs (for Labour and Conservative) were members of the legal profession immediately prior to winning a seat in 2019.  Indeed, one brave City lawyer, the current head of pro bono at Mayer Brown, Mehreen Malik, is standing as the Conservative candidate against Starmer in the London seat of Holborn and St Pancras. The odds are very much stacked against Malik; just ask the bookies.

Polly Botsford is a freelance law and current affairs writer.

Tribunal described relationship as “toxic”

A barrister has been reprimanded after sending “grossly offensive” messages to a former partner on social media.

Rashvinderjeet Panesar admitted to two professional conduct offences in relation to the messages, accepting that they could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his integrity, and were likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him and/or the profession.

The messages, sent via Instagram between December 30, 2020, and March 4, 2021, were intended to cause distress or anxiety to Person A, Pansear’s unnamed former partner, according to the disciplinary tribunal.

The tribunal said it had also seen additional “unpleasant”, but “less offensive” comments posted by him on TikTok during the same period, directed at the same person.

The barrister submitted to a conditional police caution at the time, and then promptly self-referred to the Bar Standards Board.

The tribunal said “it is clear that the relationship between the Respondent and the recipient of the messages had severely deteriorated and that there were difficult proceedings relating to matters consequential upon the breakdown of that relationship.”

It also noted that at the time Pansear “had spent a period with a low mood and heightened anxiety, from which he has since recovered”.

Whilst the messages were “grossly offensive”, the tribunal accepted that Panesar was “reacting, albeit wrongly, to public and private denigration of him by the recipient of the messages”.

“While that explains his behaviour, it does not justify or excuse it,” the tribunal said. “It was not behaviour that the public would expect from a professional, although it was the product of a private dispute rather than anything relating to his professional practice.”

In determining that a reprimand was the appropriate sanction, the disciplinary body considered that there was “no direct evidence” of an effect on the recipient, who herself used social media to “cause upset”. The relationship was described as “clearly toxic”.

Also taken into account were the fact that Pansear made an apology “which appears genuine and sincere”, immediately self-reported to the Bar Standards Board, and that there have been no further incidents since 2021.

The tribunal stated that it did not see any real risk of repetition in this case and found no need to address any other risks to the public.

Pansear was also given a costs order of £2,100.

Perfect for the WFH solicitor in your life

An enterprising lawyer has just revolutionised Zoom attire with their latest invention: the Facade suit, or ‘Facsuit’ for short.

“Why ‘dress up’ when it’s just a video meeting? says inventor Ken Carlson, a US lawyer specialising in landlord and tenant law. “Stay in your civies and just hang one of these in front of you. They’ll never know.”

The unusual product comprises a shaped cardboard sheet, onto which a jacket, shirt, and, in some cases, tie, are stapled.

The Facsuit can then be positioned in front of the user to give the appearance of being properly dressed, when in fact the lawyer, banker, or other professional can wear whatever they like behind the facade. “Business meetings will never be the same again,” the product’s website proclaims.

You can see a full demo of the Facsuit in action below:

“We have come to enjoy working from home, avoiding the commute, having more quality time at home, and even handling home matters during work breaks,” says Carlson. “The spoiler is the expectation that you still have to wear a suit and tie on these video calls, even if it’s just a few minutes.”

“Who wants to get dressed up just for that?” the lawyer asks. “Judges get absolutely hostile to a lawyer appearing on video who is not in a suit and tie. The Facsuit is simply the practical compromise, to look like you’re wearing a nice suit and tie where it’s required, and then quickly take the Facsuit off in a second as soon as it’s over.”

For those looking to procure what is sure to be the perfect gift for the solicitor or barrister in your life, the good news is that the most affordable Facsuits are only $30-$60 (without shipping). Whilst the quality of this cheaper offering is branded as “Gag/joke”, those who are more fashion conscious may choose to opt for the $151-$250 “luxury” option.

Budding entrepreneurs and tailors, may, however, wish to make use of the product’s seller offering. The site allows people to become Facsuit producers, offering a step-by-step guide to producing the garments, and even an online marketplace to sell them.

“For those interested in making these, preliminary market testing shows that these will be very popular, flying off the shelves,” the website boasts. “[They] present an unprecedented job opportunity for those who are still struggling with the economy, and looking for extra income.”

High Court ruling

Law students with upcoming exams may be interested in a recent judgment of the High Court which found that the seabed does not constitute land.

The case was brought by mayor of Portland Town Council in Dorset, Carralyn Parkes, questioning in a judicial review whether a barge housing asylum seekers should require planning permission.

The appeal concerned controversial barge the Bibby Stockholm, and whether the seabed in Dorset over which it is moored constitutes ‘land’ and is therefore subject to planning controls.

The docking, she argued, should require planning permission as a material change in the use of that land so as to constitute ‘development’.

Mr Justice Holgate found that the seabed does not meet the statutory definition of ‘land’, however.

“If land were to be treated as including the seabed, there would be no logical stopping place before the limits of this country’s territorial sovereignty are reached. That approach would be inconsistent with the legislature’s intention to enact a system of development control in relation to the land, not the sea.”

“It is logical to include the foreshore within the area referred to as ‘land’ because it is not always covered by the sea,” Mr Justice Holgate said.

Aiding the court were top barristers from a host of leading sets. Silks and juniors were called in to represent parties from 39 Essex Chambers, Cornerstone Barristers, Landmark Chambers, and Twenty Essex.

Interim suspensions

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has expanded its powers to regulate barristers with interim suspensions following approval from the Legal Services Board (LSB).

After a consultation last year, the BSB and disciplinary tribunals have increased powers to protect the public by restricting or suspending a barrister’s practise on an interim basis.

These suspensions can be handed out to barristers where a finding of misconduct has been made, but a sanctions decision has been deferred to a later date. This, the BSB says, will assist in protecting the public and the public interest.

The powers will also allow the BSB to refer barristers to an interim suspension panel “where it is necessary to protect the public or is otherwise in the public interest”.

Sara Jagger, BSB director of legal and enforcement said:

“We are pleased that the Legal Services Board has now approved these important changes to our regulatory arrangements, which will enable us to better protect the public and maintain public confidence.”

Bar Council working group reviews future of court dress

Senior judicial figures are reportedly in talks with the Bar Council about scrapping barristers’ wigs, which could mark the end of the historic headwear.

The requirement for some barristers to wear the traditional horsehair has come under fire from a number of lawyers who say it discriminates against people with Afro-Caribbean hair, The Telegraph reports.

“Following questions from barristers about wigs and hair discrimination, the Bar Council set up a working group to consider court dress in the context of all protected characteristics,” the Bar Council said.

“The findings of the working group are currently being discussed with the judiciary as part of our regular dialogue on equality and diversity matters,” it added.

Since changes in 2007 not all barristers have been required to wear wigs, with the rules excluding family, civil, and Supreme Court cases.

A spokesman for the judiciary is reported as saying that, “senior judges are in active discussions with the Bar Council about the findings of their working group on court dress”.

“We welcome these discussions as part of our continuing joint work on diversity and inclusion in the legal profession,” they added.

Back in 2022, Garden Court barrister Professor Leslie Thomas QC branded wigs a “ridiculous anachronism” that has no place in a “modern legal profession”, adding that they “reek of privilege and exclusion”.

“I cannot see the point of them” he continued, before noting that the cost of a wig could be “disconcerting to less well-off members of society who wish to enter the profession”.

As yet, however, no decision has been made.

Are you for or against the scrapping of barristers’ wigs? Let us know in the comments below.

Disbarred

A former barrister at DWF has been disbarred after making false allegations in a report to the regulator against a fellow barrister, alleging homophobia, harassment and discrimination.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) said Barry John Harwood “failed to act with honesty and/or with integrity and behaved in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession”.

A Bar Disciplinary Tribunal determined that Harwood had “fabricated” certain aspects of the allegations, which were deemed “serious” and were made against a colleague.

Harwood was reportedly the deputy director of DWF Advocacy, the firm’s in-house chambers, but left in 2019 shortly after making the reports to the BSB.

He was ordered to be disbarred earlier this month; however, the tribunal has only now published its full findings against him.

The tribunal heard that Harwood accused the barrister of intentionally addressing his partner as “husband” in emails, despite being aware that they were in a civil partnership rather than married. Harwood claimed this amounted to homophobia.

But it emerged Harwood had described his partner as “husband” and referred to their relationship as “married” in past WhatsApp messages exchanged with the accused.

Harwood, who was called to bar in 1998 and is former member of the Bar Council, also alleged that the same colleague had bullied another staff member by using an offensive nickname. However, the tribunal heard that the colleague had never raised any concerns about it with Harwood.

In a further complaint, Harwood said that a colleague had raised concerns with him about comments made by the same barrister on WhatsApp regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as that colleague had lost a close friend in the attacks.

But the tribunal found that Harwood “had distorted and exaggerated [the colleague’s] position and his views” and there was “no basis” for what he complained about.

In reaching its decision to disbar Harwood, the panel noted the conduct was “deliberate and sustained” and “harmful to all concerned”, but particularly to one barrister. “It was also upsetting and worrying to the others who were involved… all of whom are legal professionals who were caught up in what Mr Harwood said and did, and all of whom worried about the consequences of what was happening,” the tribunal said.

Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said:

“Dishonestly and deliberately making false allegations to a regulator, especially in relation to serious matters such as discrimination and harassment, is wholly incompatible with membership of the Bar and the tribunal’s decision to disbar Mr Harwood reflects this.”

Harwood was disbarred and ordered to pay costs of £5,544.

He didn’t respond to our request for comment.

Who won what: revealed

Last night, the legal community gathered to honour the achievements of the nation’s top trainee-rated firms and chambers at the annual Legal Cheek Awards ceremony.

This year’s Legal Cheek Awards, sponsored by BARBRI and BPP University Law School, was held at the Battlebridge Suite of Kings Place London.

More than 250 guests from the UK’s premier law firms and barristers’ chambers attended the much-anticipated ceremony, alongside social media influencers and prominent industry figures.

After enjoying some fizz and canapés, Victoria Cromwell, BARBRI’s Head of New Business, and Caroline Lister, Director of Client Partnerships at BPP, delivered welcome addresses.

Legal Cheek‘s Sophie Dillon and Saad Khalil, the hosts of this year’s awards, were joined by award sponsors, as well as Legal Cheek student campus ambassadors and staff, to reveal the winners across the 25 categories featured in this year’s ceremony.

The winners were determined by the results of our annual trainee and junior lawyer and barrister surveys, which included responses from over 2,000 lawyers across the country.

So who won what? Read on to find out…

Best law firm for training 2024: Mayer Brown

Highly commended: Accutrainee, Addleshaw Goddard, BCLP, Forsters, Herbert Smith Freehills, Macfarlanes, Pinsent Masons, Slaughter and May, Travers Smith

Best law firm for quality of work 2024: Hogan Lovells

Highly commended: Akin, Bates Wells, Cooley, Forsters, Goodwin Procter, Jones Day, Latham & Watkins, Osborne Clarke, Ropes & Gray, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best law firm for peer support 2024: Shoosmiths

Highly commended:  Fieldfisher, Gibson Dunn, Hill Dickinson, Lewis Silkin, Osborne Clarke, RPC, Stephenson Harwood, Taylor Wessing, Withers

Best law firm for partner approachability 2024: Kennedys

Highly commended: Brabners, Bristows, Dentons, Eversheds Sutherland, Howard Kennedy, Katten Muchin Rosenman, Shoosmiths, Squire Patton Boggs, Trowers & Hamlins

Best law firm for work/life balance 2024: Clyde & Co

Highly commended: Ashfords, Cripps, Gateley, Mills & Reeve, RWK Goodman, Russell-Cooke, Wedlake Bell, Weightmans, Winckworth Sherwood

Best law firm for legal tech 2024: Addleshaw Goddard

Highly commended:  Allen & Overy, Ashurst, Burges Salmon, CMS, Dentons, Fletchers Solicitors, Penningtons Manches Cooper, TLT, Travers Smith

Best law firm for perks 2024: Weil Gotshal & Manges

Highly commended: Clifford Chance, Cooley, Kirkland & Ellis, Milbank, Morrison Foerster, Sidley Austin, White & Case, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best law firm office 2024: Lewis Silkin

Highly commended: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Cooley, Gowling WLG, Greenberg Traurig, K&L Gates, Kingsley Napley, Mishcon de Reya, Morrison Foerster, Paul Hastings, Vinson & Elkins

Best law firm for WFH 2024: TLT

Highly commended: Addleshaw Goddard, Akin, Allen & Overy, Bevan Brittan, Michelmores, Osborne Clarke, Shakespeare Martineau, Walker Morris, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best law firm for eco-friendliness 2024: Bates Wells

Highly commended: Burges Salmon, Charles Russell Speechlys, Forsters, Lewis Silkin, Michelmores, Orrick, Osborne Clarke, TLT, Travers Smith

Best law firm for international secondments 2024: White & Case

Highly commended: Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, HFW, Norton Rose Fulbright, Watson Farley & Williams

Best law firm for client secondments 2024: DWF

Highly commended: Bird & Bird, CMS, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, Taylor Wessing.

Most admired law firm 2024: Latham & Watkins

Highly commended: Addleshaw Goddard, Allen & Overy, Bird & Bird, Burges Salmon, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith Freehills, Kirkland & Ellis, Osborne Clarke, Slaughter and May

The Legal Cheek firm of the year 2024: Osborne Clarke

Highly commended: Burges Salmon, Cooley, Farrer & Co, Forsters, Howard Kennedy, Lewis Silkin, Shoosmiths, TLT, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best use of social media 2024: Mary-Grace Olu (TikTok)

Highly commended: Founder of ‘It’s All Hearsay’, Megan Hulme (Instagram); Mia Siddique aka ‘Legally Possible’, (Instagram); Henry Nelson-Case, ‘that corporate lawyer’ (TikTok); The CMS accounts for graduates, (Instagram and TikTok); Ali Obeid (TikTok); Harry ter Haar aka “James Somerset” (TikTok)

The winner of this category was decided by an independent judging panel, made up of Robbie Mullett (Made in Chelsea star and future trainee City solicitor), Jordan Sanga (Big Brother winner for 2023 and former lawyer), and Aishah Hussain (editor at Law Middle East and former Legal Cheek features editor).

Best Legal Cheek Journal contribution 2024: Lauren Slade – How election legislation has failed the UK’s visually-impaired voters

Highly commended: Access to justice: how can we do more? by law student Sophia McKenna; Could you be fired by a robot – and would UK anti-discrimination law protect you? by law graduate and future trainee solicitor Puja Patel; Non-fatal strangulation and suffocation: why was this new offence necessary and what has been its impact? by English graduate and aspiring barrister Lucy Sutton; Competition chronicles: Microsoft vs the CMA and FTC by law student and aspiring commercial solicitor Dara Adefemi; Failure to prevent fraud and what it means for businesses by aspiring barrister Shifra Moriarty; Legal Takeaway: Who’s who for Deliveroo? by aspiring solicitor Joshua Masson

The winner of this category was decided by an independent judging panel, made up of The Right Hon Lord Burrows (Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom), I. Stephanie Boyce (former President of the Law Society of England and Wales), and Suzi Ring (Legal Correspondent at the Financial Times).

Legal Cheek Campus Ambassador of the Year 2024: Alexandra Shuck

Highly commended: Shannah McKenna, Sophia McKenna and Manik Sibal, Cardiff University; Vaughan Temiloluwa Oluwafemi, University of Dundee;  Mariella Vildoso, Ulster University.

Best chambers for training 2024: Crown Office Chambers

Highly commended: 12 King’s Bench Walk, 2TG, 3VB, 4 Stone Buildings, 5 Stone Buildings, 7KBW, Blackstone Chambers, Falcon Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Keating Chambers, Littleton Chambers, Pump Court Tax Chambers, Quadrant Chambers, Ten Old Square, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for quality of work 2024: Monckton Chambers

Highly commended: 11KBW, 3 Hare Court, 4 Pump Court, 4 Stone Buildings, 5 Essex Chambers, 5 Stone Buildings, 7KBW, Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Cornerstone Barristers, Crown Office Chambers, Devereux Chambers, Exchange Chambers, Falcon Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Keating Chambers, Kings Chambers, Littleton Chambers, New Square Chambers, No5 Chambers, Pump Court Tax Chambers, Quadrant Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Serle Court, South Square, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for colleague supportiveness 2024: Henderson Chambers

Highly commended: 11KBW, 4 Stone Buildings, 5 Essex Chambers, 7KBW, Blackstone Chambers, Crown Office Chambers, Falcon Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Hailsham Chambers, Littleton Chambers, Outer Temple Chambers, Quadrant Chambers, Selborne Chambers, Tanfield Chambers, Ten Old Square, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for facilities 2024: Gatehouse Chambers

Highly commended: 39 Essex Chambers, 4 New Square Chambers, 7BR, Blackstone Chambers, Crown Office Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers, Keating Chambers

Best chambers for work/life balance 2024: Falcon Chambers

Highly commended: Keating Chambers, Serle Court, Twenty Essex, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for social life 2024: Selborne Chambers

Highly commended: Blackstone Chambers, Crown Office Chambers, Falcon Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Gough Square Chambers, Keating Chambers, Quadrant Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for legal tech 2024: 39 Essex Chambers

Highly commended: 3PB, 42BR Barristers, Blackstone Chambers, Crown Office Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers, Keating Chambers, Monckton Chambers, Pump Court Tax Chambers, Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, Wilberforce Chambers

The Legal Cheek chambers of the year 2024: Keating Chambers

Highly commended: 11KBW, 39 Essex Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Crown Office Chambers, Falcon Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Littleton Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Legal Cheek’s annual conference gathered together key figures from across the profession to discuss skills gaps, innovations, apprenticeships, SQE and more

LegalEdCon 2024 returned to Kings Place in London yesterday with a host of talks exploring the hottest topics in legal education and training.

On the day of the conference, nearly 300 delegates gathered to hear the latest industry insights from leading experts in the legal field. This year’s conference featured sessions on a variety of topics, including the latest developments in the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) regime, innovations in solicitor training, addressing skills gaps, solicitor and graduate apprenticeships, and AI.

The keynote session this year focused on law influencers (dubbed ‘lawfluencers’) and offered attendees unique insights into the growing social media landscape in law. The session was delivered by a group of speakers with different perspectives on approaching working in the law whilst maintaining an online presence, including discussions on their experiences of the SQE and the skills that junior lawyers often lack.

Session 1: Skills and knowledge gaps: where are trainees and junior lawyers strong, and what do they need to improve?

The speakers:

• Jim Moser, Director of Professional Development at The University of Law
• Peter Arnold, Head of Talent at CMS
• Kirsty Wilkins, Head of Professional Development at Willkie Farr & Gallagher
• Emma Lilley, Head of Legal UK&I at SD Worx and Founder of ‘In-house Potter’

In the first session ULaw’s Jim Moser, Director of Professional Development, kicked off LegalEdCon 2024 with a session focusing on the skills and knowledge gaps in trainees and junior lawyers. The speakers candidly spoke on how law students can overcome setbacks and develop into successful, competent, and well-rounded lawyers. As the speakers explained, filling these gaps allows juniors lawyers to hit the ground running in their legal careers.

Peter Arnold, Head of Talent at CMS, spoke about future-proofing legal talent to ensure emerging juniors develop into well-rounded lawyers. He focused on what future lawyers need in the modern day, and how talent teams can focus on developing their juniors to fulfil the needs of law firms. He explained that the key characteristics and skills they need to develop are strong legal knowledge, tech-savviness, and a growth mindset. He noted that learning doesn’t stop at law school, when student are undertaking their qualifying studies or even when they become a newly-qualified lawyer; a “continual growth mindset” is key.

Next up, Emma Lilley, Head of Legal UK&I at SD Worx and Founder of ‘In-house Potter’ took to the lectern. She added some “in-house spice” to the conversation to speak on what in-house clients want from junior lawyers. She highlighted the importance of developing ethical standards by encouraging emotional intelligence, noting that leading by example is crucial in supporting individuals to stand up for their beliefs. Lilley also told the audience that communication skills are valuable in the modern, tech-driven, and hybrid workplace, and that in-house teams must be attuned to evolving forms of communication.

Finally, Kirsty Wilkins, Head of Professional Development at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, spoke on the allusive qualities that partners want to see in their juniors. She mentioned that, although tech skills and legal knowledge are essential, partners often prioritise interpersonal qualities. “People sell people,” she noted, emphasising that team spirit is crucial for juniors to develop into well-rounded lawyers.

Session 2: AI corner

The speakers:

• Mike Kochkin, CEO of BeSavvy
• Matthew Leopold, Head of Brand and Insight at LexisNexis
• Samantha Hope, Head of Emerging Talent at Shoosmiths
• Samantha Wong, Events Coordinator at Legal Cheek presenting Aikanah, Legal Cheek’s AI Ambassador

Matthew Leopold, LexisNexis’ Head of Brand and Technology, opened the AI Corner session with an impassioned talk. He explained the incredible changes coming to the legal industry, pronouncing today’s lawyers as the luckiest legal generation so far. Being able to embed knowledge and experience in a changing world gives today’s lawyers the flexibility to approach AI technology in a way which is going to change the landscape of the legal education, he enthused. “Imagine what the opportunities will be when we think holistically about AI in the law”, he noted. Leopold finished up by explaining that  advances in generative AI technology now gives lawyers the opportunity to draft e-mails and legal statements, and summarise research.

Next to take the lectern was Samantha Hope, Head of Emerging Talent at Shoosmiths, who was unable to attend the conference, but gave her talk via a pre-recorded video for the discussion. Talking on generative AI in training contract applications, she explained that one in three Shoosmiths’ applicants appeared to have used AI in their applications. Embracing this tech in legal practice, she explained, will allow lawyers to devote time on developing their wider skillset. So, she urged law firms to keep on top of technological developments and AI trends in order to make the most of the immense potential of gen AI tech. She finished by throwing a question to the audience: “Are you team AI or team ban AI in applications?”

Following this talk, Mike Kochkin, CEO of BeSavvy, spoke about the use of AI for junior lawyers. Using tech developed at his company BeSavvy, he explained how legal training can be simplified and honed through technology. He told the audience that “what took years can now take one day”, when it comes to legal training, through using “AI agents” to provide memory, tools and planning in the legal training process.

The final speaker of this session was Legal Cheek‘s own Samantha Wong, Events Co-ordinator and creator of Aikianah, Legal Cheek‘s AI influencer. She discussed the process of creating the AI ambassador, from Aikanah’s inception to her role as an influencer on Instagram. She discussed the creation process, including the AI prompts she used to produce images of Aikanah. She also divulged the challenges she faced, including the AI technology creating wonky hands, teeth, feet, and the limited extent to which AI can create photo-realistic videos.

Lunch and networking

Session 3: Solicitor apprenticeships: beyond the hype

The speakers:

• Lorna Bailey, Head of Learning and Development at Fletchers Solicitors
• Jane Robson, CEO at the the National Association of Licensed Paralegals
• Lucy Dolan, Early Talent Manager at Gowling WLG UK
• Bethany Taylor, Associate at Eversheds 
• James Catchpole, Associate Professor and Head of Professional Programmes at City, University of London
• Patrick McCann, Legal Practice Chair of City of London Law Society Training Committee

James Catchpole, Associate Professor and Head of Professional Programmes at City, University of London, opened the discussion. He began by touching on the exceptional characteristics of many solicitor apprenticeships and the outstanding results they’re achieving on the SQE. Urging firms to increase intakes of apprentices, he noted that this route isn’t being embraced widely enough, nor diversely enough. He introduced a debate: “Why are firms so slow to embrace this route to qualification?”

For the Q&A session, our speakers answered questions on creating solicitor apprenticeship programmes, the benefits of having apprentices, and the challenges faced by firms implementing them. Lorna Bailey, Head of Learning and Development at Fletchers Solicitors, gave her tips for firms looking to take on apprentices. “Educate the firm about apprenticeships, as well as the wider communities in local schools,” she advised. “And be sure to track the data!”. Patrick McCann, Legal Practice Chair of City of London Law Society Training Committee, reaffirmed his overwhelming support for solicitor apprenticeships and urged more law firms to tap into this talent pool.

Towards the end of the Q&A session, the microphone was passed to Bethany Taylor, Associate at Eversheds, to talk about her experiences as one of the country’s first solicitor apprentices. She took this opportunity to highlight her career journey throughout the six-year scheme, and the benefits she’s experienced along the way.

Session 4: SQE latest developments

The speakers:

• Liz Ritter, BPP Law School (chair)
• George McNeilly, Early Careers Partner at DWF
• Camilla Brignall, Learning & Development Manager at Linklaters
• Kamila Czerwinski, Graduate Solicitor Apprentice at TLT
• Julie Swan, Director of Education and Training at the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
• Tanya Dolan, Senior Counsel at Astra Zeneca

Chaired by Liz Ritter, Head of Client Development at BPP Law School, the session discussed how the SQE is opening up new pathways in the profession and highlighted some of the challenges in its administration.

Taking the form of a Q&A, the first question enabled the speakers to explore how their respective firms and organisations are embracing the SQE. Camilla Brignall, Learning & Development Manager at Linklaters, discussed how the Magic Circle firm has embedded the SQE into its training models, including solicitor apprenticeships and the traditional training contract route. She was followed in quick succession by George McNeilly, Early Careers Partner at DWF, discussing the routes to qualification his firm, and finally by Tanya Dolan, Senior Counsel at Astra Zeneca, discussing qualification opportunities at the Big Pharma corporation.

The speakers also discussed how they had adapted their existing training models to meet the developments in the SQE space, the various study options available to candidates, and the advantages of taking on SQE2 after some Qualifying Work Experience (QWE). This led the speakers onto a discussion focusing on the graduate solicitor apprenticeship model.

Kamila Czerwinski, Graduate Solicitor Apprentice at TLT, took to the mic to reflect on juggling SQE studies with his work at the firm. She highlighted the importance of time management, study approaches and effective communication as an apprentice. Taking the audience beyond the ‘stigma’ of apprenticeships, she discussed how firms can shift their understanding and mindset on apprenticeships.

Ritter then directed the discussion towards high exams fees, accessibility and the uncomfortable pass rates among minority ethnic candidates. McNeilly urged firms to take responsibility to address accessibility issues and the disparity in pass rates across ethnicities. To close the session, Ritter directed a question to Julie Swann, Director of Education and Training at the SRA, regarding the recent SQE marking errors, before opening the floor to questions from the audience. Swann responded with remarks such as “desperately disappointing” and assured that “it will not happen again.

Session 5: Innovation in legal education

The speakers:

• Elizabeth Rimmer, Chief Executive of LawCare
• Ellen Swarbrick, Trainee Solicitor at Vinson & Elkins
• Rachel Boyle, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Legal Neurodiversity Network
• Pedro Leake-Bandeira, Trainee Solicitor at Accutrainee
• Dr Naila Anwar, Head of Law at University of Huddersfield
• Robert Dudley, Head of Employability & Engagement at BARBRI (Chair)

Chaired by Robert Dudley, head of Employability & Engagement at BARBRI, innovation in legal education was the penultimate session of the day. The free-flowing panel discussion had a focus on technology’s ability to improve training for trainee solicitors, as well as the challenges individuals entering the legal industry are currently facing.

The session kicked off with Elizabeth Rimmer, Chief Executive at LawCare, who discussed LawCare’s two main objectives. The first, to provide support to those working in the sector. And the second, to focus on advocacy and education. Elizabeth also went on to discuss the challenges a virtual working environment can bring, and the importance of focusing on alleviating stress and anxiety.

Ellen Swarbrick, trainee solicitor at Vinson & Elkins, discussed the challenges she faced while working alongside her studies. Swarbrick argued that the flexibility of completing the SQE with Barbri made juggling these conflicting responsibilities easier. Swarbrick also discussed the benefits of completing BARBRI’s Prep for Practice course, arguing that it helped bridge the gap between having a basic understanding to having more focused knowledge when going into practice.

This positive effect of BARBRI’s courses was also highlighted by Pedro Leake-Bandeira, a recent SQE graduate and current trainee solicitor with Accutrainee. BARBRI’s SQE course helped him to understand how to condense his knowledge, while the flexibility of working for Accutrainee meant that he could adapt his working hours during the day – something which he believes significantly helped him juggle his day-to-day responsibilities.

The session went on to consider the experiences of current undergraduate students, with Dr Naila Anwar, Head of law at the University of Huddersfield, focusing on the mental challenges students are currently facing. Anwar discussed the impact Covid-19 continues to have on students — with many students never having sat an exam, it has left students anxious and has resulted in an increase in mental health issues.

Rachel Boyle, founder of the Legal Neurodiversity Network, advocated for the importance of raising awareness and creating a change in attitudes towards neurodiversity in the legal industry. Boyle discusses the network’s events, which have seen discussions surrounding the challenges neurodiverse individuals are facing. Boyle argued the importance of upskilling and having open and honest conversations.

The session wrapped up with an audience Q&A which highlighted the importance of creating a safe space and celebrating successes.

Keynote from lawfluencers

The speakers:

• Megan Hulme, Founder of ‘It’s All Hearsay,’ Associate at Mishcon de Reya
• Omotayo Anifowoshe, ‘The SQE Babe’ legal influencer
• Jay Heer, Future Trainee Solicitor at Simmons & Simmons and Founder of JaysLawLife

The final session of the day started with Omotayo Anifowoshe, founder of ‘The SQE Babe’ on TikTok. Anifowoshe shared her story and the challenges she is facing while self-funding her legal education. Her TikTok account shares useful tips with students following the same path, as well as providing an insight into the unique challenges that self-funding the SQE brings. Anifowoshe argued that while the SQE has its flaws, it does acknowledge that not all individuals have an easy route into the profession.

The second speaker of this session was Jay Heer, a future trainee solicitor at Simmons & Simmons and founder of JaysLawLife. Heer began by sharing his career journey to date. After passing SQE1 in January, Heer completed SQE2 last week and shared his thoughts on the intensity and experience of the exams. While Heer did not find the concept of a new exam daunting, he found that getting answers to SQE-related queries was difficult. He argued that this ultimately creates a fear of the unknown and increased anxiety in students.

The final speaker of LegalEdCon 2024 was Megan Hulme, founder of ‘It’s All Hearsay’ and litigation solicitor. Hulme qualified two years ago and spent her session time discussing the transition from trainee to associate. Hulme argued the importance of forward-thinking, resilience and determination. Hulme also went on to highlight that her progress has increased significantly since qualification, due to the ability to stay with one team and understand the way senior members of the team like work to be completed.

Alex Aldridge, Legal Cheek‘s publisher, brought the conference to a close, thanking the speakers, delegates and headline sponsors BARBRI, BPP University Law School and The University of Law, as well as silver sponsors LexisNexis and The City Law School, and additional sponsors Oxford University Press,  The National Association of Licensed Paralegals, Intellek and The Food Chain.

Annual programme of events runs later this year

The key themes for this year’s Pro Bono Week have been unveiled, with the role of technology in enhancing access to justice set to be one of the top talking points.

Now in its 23rd year, Pro Bono Week brings together lawyers from across the UK to advocate for and encourage more legal professionals to offer free legal assistance to individuals unable to afford it.

The organisers of the event have now revealed that the central focus of the week is “The Power of Pro Bono”, encompassing three distinct themes. These are:

• Barred from justice: the powerful, everyday stories of the impact of lawyers and law students who give their time to protect the rights of those most disadvantaged in society.

• Embedding pro bono in your organisation and career: placing pro bono at the heart of everyone’s practice and hearing from those at the forefront of establishing business structures for pro bono within law firms, chambers, in house, universities and charities.

• How technology can enhance access to justice: existing and new tools to ensure pro bono is innovative and effective.

The week will showcase a series of events aimed at highlighting the significant and impactful pro bono work already underway in the UK, while also promoting new opportunities to encourage participation nationwide.

Commenting on the themes of Pro Bono Week 2024, Toby Brown, chair of UK Pro Bono Week said:

“Across the country there’s a wealth of valuable pro bono work being done every day by the UK’s legal professionals. This year’s events will focus on recognising and celebrating the difference pro bono makes to the lives of those who otherwise would be barred from accessing justice. With just six months to go until Pro Bono Week 2024, we look forward to supporting our colleagues across the sector to finalise their plans and events in the coming months.”

Mock murder trial

A future pupil barrister, who also happens to be a professional mind reader, is taking a show to the Edinburgh Fringe this summer.

Tomas McCabe, due to start his pupillage at Hailsham Chambers in September, is combining his passions at the Edinburgh Fringe with the show 1 Murder: The Mind Reading Lawyer.

The performance, which is running for the majority of August, “combines mind reading and courtroom drama in a totally unique magic show.”

The hour-long show focusses on the murder trial of an audience member, with fellow onlookers taking on the role of jurors and judge.

McCabe, who studied law at Birkbeck, University of London, won’t be the first lawyer to blend profession and performance at the Fringe, however. Back in 2022 a criminal solicitor took to the festival to debut her show “Shit Lawyer”, whilst last year saw a group of bar course students and future pupil barristers from Inner Temple bring their show to the Scottish capital.

Keen Legal Cheek readers may remember McCabe from his expose on the Inns of Court’s best and worst bars, or, more recently, for making an appearance on the must-follow lawfluencers for 2024 list, and the longlist for our award for Best Use of Social Media 2024.

If you’re interested in getting a sneak peek of McCabe’s mind reading skills, take a look at the YouTube clip below.

HMCTS says it’s urgently investigating allegations

A leading London chambers says it will not be sending its pupil barristers to Stratford Magistrates Court following allegations of “invasive searches” conducted by security.

Garden Court Chambers expressed concern over the reports of invasive searches at Stratford Magistrates’ Court, stating that “as a Chambers we have a duty to ensure our pupils’ safety and wellbeing”.

The statement published yesterday goes on to say that it “would risk breaching those obligations” if it sent pupils to the court before the allegations have been fully investigated and resolved. “As such, we shall not be sending our pupils to this court until that happens,” the statement added.

The decision comes after several lawyers raised concerns about the approach to security at the court.

In a recent letter addressed to the head of security at HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the London Criminal Courts’ Solicitors’ Association expressed deep concern over reports of “over-zealous and heavy-handed” enhanced searches, finding them “extremely concerning”.

The association said these enhanced searches can include the “use of a ‘wand’ metal-detection device, ‘pat down’ search (often after the subject has been asked to move to a secluded area, off the foyer), removal of clothing (most notably shoes) and an extensive property search, which includes inspection of privileged legal documents and the requirement that the entire contents of bags be emptied out onto a tray.”

Some complaints received by the LCCSA talk about a host of other security actions “which range from the absurd to the genuinely disturbing,” the letter continues. These claims include lawyers being required to spray deodorant and perfume on their body and apply lip balm onto their lips, with one professional subjected to “an oral examination”.

While acknowledging security concerns within the court following recent “protest-related trials” which led to “some disruption”, the group said “this is causing distress and inconvenience to our members that they should not have to endure as part of their working day”.

“I am sure you can appreciate that our members must enter the court building because they have professional obligations to the court and to their clients to be present within the court building on time,” the letter continues. “They are therefore effectively forced to endure whatever is imposed upon them by the security staff because if they refuse or raise objection at the time, they will not be allowed into the building and this is obviously not an option for them.”

A HMCTS spokesperson said: “These are serious complaints and we are urgently investigating them as a matter of priority. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. Our security measures are designed to protect the safety of all court users within our premises and remain under constant review. They are put in place in consultation with judiciary and the police.”

A Law Society spokesperson commented that “a number of serious incidents” had been brought to its attention, following a “pattern of alleged rogue behaviour”.

“We are making urgent enquiries of HMCTS to establish the facts and to secure assurances as to the safety of our members,” the spokesperson added.

BSB describes finding as ‘striking’

Chambers that use blind or contextual recruitment tools in pupillage applications have a greater proportion of white and male pupils than sets that don’t adopt the tools, research has found.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) report shows that 42% of pupillage providers used blind recruitment methods, meaning that candidates’ personal information is not seen by the those carrying out the shortlisting for interviews. This can include omitting the candidates name, school or university. For the largest sets, this figure rises close to two-thirds.

Although less popular, the report also found that 18% of chambers used contextual recruitment, factoring in a candidates’ personal circumstances when assessing their applications. Both forms of recruitment techniques were most commonly used by providers specialising in commercial law.

The “most striking finding”, the BSB said, was that chambers who did use blind or contextual recruitment had a “higher proportion of male pupils and a higher proportion of white pupils” than sets that didn’t.

Despite this, the recruitment tools may have played a role elsewhere, with chambers using blind recruitment having a marginally higher proportion of pupils who attended state schools than those that did not.

“This suggests that for many organisations, adopting particular recruitment approaches such as contextual or blind recruitment may have a relatively limited impact in terms of increasing the proportion of their pupils who are female or from minority ethnic backgrounds.”

Earlier this year the BSB launched a consultation which proposed, amongst other things, removing the degree requirement of a 2:2 to become a barrister. This, it said, could make the profession more diverse, with “graduates who are more likely to achieve a degree classification of lower than a 2:2 are more likely to be from Black, and Asian backgrounds, which under the current requirements could negatively impact such applicants”.

The Bar Council responded by objecting to the majority of proposals, including the one outlined above, saying that such a move would simply lead to more students investing substantial amounts in bar training only to struggle in securing a pupillage and practicing as barristers.

Courtesy of 11KBW

A City Law School graduate has secured a major scholarship to help fund his dream of becoming a barrister.

Jaizzail Ofori has become latest recipient of the 11KBW Scholarship for black students on the bar course, securing £30,000 towards tuition fees and maintenance, accompanied by mentoring from members at the set, as well as a guaranteed assessed mini-pupillage.

Successful applicants are required to demonstrate both the capability to thrive at the bar and evidence of accomplishments, along with a clear intention and ability to practice within the civil or commercial bar.

Ofori was chosen by a panel consisting of two members from the sets pupillage and tenancy committee and two external assessors: Paul McFarlane, partner at Capsticks and the first chair of the Employment Lawyers Association with Afro-Caribbean heritage, and Dr Maggie Semple OBE, a member of the Queen’s Counsel Appointments Selection Panel.

Funding for bar courses can offer a lifeline for budding barristers, with the most expensive courses setting students back sums towards £20,000.

To combat this, many sets allow students who have already secured a pupillage to draw down a portion of their pupillage award to fund their bar course studies or maintenance. The Legal Cheek Chambers Most List shows that these drawdowns can reach as high as £30,000, with Henderson Chambers, Landmark Chambers, Pump Court Tax Chambers, and Wilberforce Chambers all offering future pupils this sum.

Jane McCafferty KC, chair of 11KBW’s equality and corporate social responsibility committee, commented: “We are delighted to announce Jaizzail as this year’s 11KBW scholar and wish him, and all the shortlisted candidates, every success in what we are sure will be stellar careers at the Bar.”

Joint head of chambers, Daniel Stilitz KC, added:

“We congratulate Jaizzail on winning the 11KBW scholarship, which reflects his outstanding talent as a lawyer. All our shortlisted candidates were exceptionally able advocates, and we wish them every success in the next stage of their careers.”

Other scholarships are on offer from the Inns of Court. Students looking to fund their bar courses should keep an eye out for the autumn application window, while support for the GDL closes later today.