Don’t know why this has so many thumbs down. There is a very clear trajectory and movement toward completely de-professionalising the Solicitor profession. Even taking last 10 years alone, we’ve been going from a graduate profession + quite rigorous assessment and training toward an open – ended ‘Go and round up people with a net in the car park” system where as I understand it basically everyone is in principle entitled to or able to qualify with next to no legal let alone academic training. We already had the lowest bars to entry of most developed country in terms of training time (its much more normal for it to not only be a graduate profession, but a post-graduate one like the USA and most of EU). It always surprises me for example that many Family barristers who did the GDL will be doing specialist family work having never, ever done any study of family law. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but lowering it even further seems to serve no one, seeks to fill a demand that doesn’t exist, and will eventually significantly devalue the profession – especially in litigation and dispute resolution,

Nah it’s gone woke now

All joking aside AI , I agree . The school dinners were ghastly so we had to spend hours beforehand in the pub and then have to beg for permission to visit the WC. I was lucky to have had 2 wonderful generous and busy Family Law Pupil Master / Mistress in my 12 months so I learned a lot (and about law too) and was paid for the work I did even though they didn’t have to in 1988 . I used to tease my Solicitor trainee flat mates -“I’ll be in Court before you and qualify before you .” In those days the Bar Exams were far easier to pass than the memory test book -worm Law Society exams . My former flat mates are doing very well as Senior Commercial Partners (good luck as they are great guys) and I followed my heart and went into Criminal Practice but fortunately now retired and hope that the younger generation have the opportunity to make a living from whichever path in law they feel passionate about . I was lucky .

I think you’ve missed her point. It’s because she’s GC now and GC’s are the one who sign-off on SQE at a firm.

I enjoy your commentary, brother.

You are out of your tree if you think my previous comment stated anything other than the proposition that those with the strongest academic pedigree were the ones who opted for the Bar.

I would imagine it is the same story in other law departments at good universities across the country.

And, no, going to a good university (including Oxford or Cambridge) does not necessarilya mean that one had a privileged upbringing – a point which is almost too obvious to state.

Earn more (but have to pay chambers fees, indemnity insurance etc out of pocket), work less (in theory, but in practice the people working at top commercial sets work more because they’re self employed and it’s simply the kind of person they are). It’s a false comparison.

It’s not the life you think it is. To even stand a reasonable chance at a top set you need further education, ideally the BCL, and many have other practical experience (such as lecturing).

It is just irrelevant for the purposes of her post.

But I think this analysis ignores the fact that once your in, the bar is much less triangular than firms are. Chambers are generally fairly evenly distributed across ages from 25 – 60ish. Once you’re a member at a set no one’s really going to try kick you out unless you’re really shit or you get handsy at Chambers Xmas party.

Firms have a big need for lots of trainees/NQ/ junior associates, and (by numbers) much less need for partners. (my understanding is) people not on partner track at city firms end up getting pushed out.

Saying the the bar is more competitive on entry, ignores the fact that sols have to fight harder to stay in the business once they’re in.

Commercial junior barristers earn more, work less, qualify faster, do more interesting work, and have far more control over how they work than Kirkland NQs. Soz…

Clearly has too much time to post that nonsense up. You make a very valid point. The SRA has not jurispruduction over her.

Paragraph 1: obviously the proposition is that it is harder to become a barrister all other things being equal i.e. for the same person. It would be easier for superman to jump to the top of a building than for myself to jump to the top of a chair, but that’s not because the chair’s easier.

Paragraph two: both have competitive processes — does not mean they are equally as competitive as each other

Pls fix

Isn’t that still the case?

Meanwhile, ‘An Observer’ at least appreciates the proper hierarchy of life in regard to access to the professions. Keep the plebs down, what!

But, TC at a major law firm vs pupillage at a criminal law set of chambers – I’d say TC is more difficult to undergo due to the nature of the clients and the corporate world.