Becoming a barrister: requirements, education and training
89What is a barrister?
A barrister, in England and Wales, is a specialised legal advocate. He will advise on knotty legal or factual questions, and will appear in court. In many courts, such as the Crown Court or High Court, barristers have exclusive rights of audience (meaning the right to be heard in a case). A few solicitors now undergo additional training to give them "higher rights", which means they too can appear in the higher courts.
Barristers are the lawyers who appear in dramas and films wearing a wig, collar, and gown.
The top 10% of so of barristers are Queen's Counsel. This does not mean they work for the Queen or government, rather it is an acknowledgment of senior status and ability at the Bar.
All barristers must be Called to the Bar by an Inn of Court. Each barrister belongs to one of the four Inns, Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Gray's Inn, and Lincoln's Inn. In order to be Called, there are academic, vocational, and other requirements.
What qualities does a successful barrister have?
In order to do well at the Bar, it is necessary for a barrister to have the following abilities and attributes:
- quick and thorough intellect;
- self-discipline;
- concentration;
- self-reliance;
- able to make decisions quickly;
- able to analyse and select relevant facts;
- good at research;
- write grammatically and well;
- good at public speaking.
What is a barrister's daily life like?
It depends to a large extent on how many years' call a barrister is (how long he's been doing the job) and what area of law he specialises in.
In criminal law, barristers will for many years spend most working days in court, in the Magistrates' Courts to start with, for less serious offences, and in the Crown Court as time goes on.
At the other extreme, barristers who do tax or chancery work might be in Chambers reading papers and writing advices most of the time, and only go to court rarely.
Other areas, such as personal injury, employment, and immigration, are somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Barristers will divide their time between court and paperwork.
At the independent bar, barristers are self-employed. All barristers must be in a set of Chambers for a number of years after they qualify, and most barristers stay in Chambers. A set of Chambers shares the rent of the building, pays clerks to book work, get papers in, and chase fees, and barristers within a Chambers may well share marketing, recruit and train pupils, and help each other out with difficult case.
In London, many of the Chambers are in or around the four Inns of Court. Most barristers are based in London.
Academic qualifications
To have a decent chance at becoming a barrister, you need good A levels. It doesn't matter what subjects you take, except that you would be well advised to avoid less academic subjects. Doing one A level in Art, Music or Drama is fine, but the rest should be solid, academic subjects. Media Studies, English Language, and Business Studies are not ideal. Instead, do English Lit. and Economics.
I did English Lit, History and Geography. My boyfriend did Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Economics.
To meet the academic qualifications, you need either a qualifying Law Degree, or a degree in any subject plus the CPE one-year course. The degree in either case must be a minimum of 2.ii.
A "qualifying law degree" has to include the seven core legal subjects - Administrative & Public Law, Crime, Tort, Contract, Land Law, European Law, and Trusts. Most universities have other compulsory units in their law degrees, such as the English Legal System, or Jurisprudence.
So in my first year at university (University College, London, in the Faculty of Laws) I did English Legal Systems, Contract & Tort I, Property I, and Public Law. In my second year, Contract & Tort II, Property II, Criminal Law, and European Law.
Equity, trusts and land law are all included in Property I and Property II.
All of those first and second year subjects were set - no choice at all. In my third year, I did Jurisprudence, Law of Evidence, History of English Law, and Media Law. Only the first of those was compulsory.
- Middle Temple
Middle Temple is one of the four Inns of Court, situated between the Strand / Fleet Street and the River Thames. - The Inner Temple
Inner Temple shares a site with Middle Temple, and they also share the Temple Church - The Honourable Society of Lincolns Inn
Lincolns Inn is one of four ancient inns of court and can call to the bar members qualified for the rank of Barrister - Gray's Inn
Gray's Inn is the furthest north of the four Inns, situated in Holborn. - How to Become a Barrister
The Bar Council's page on the necessary academic and other hoops a would-be barrister must jump through.
Vocational course
After you have the academic qualifications, you need to undertake and pass the one-year Bar Vocational Course. This provides training in civil and criminal procedure, opinion writing, advocacy, legal research and drafting.
Before you start the BVC, you must join one of the four Inns of Court.
Pupillage
The next stage, and the most difficult, is pupillage. Once a person has passed the BVC, he can become a pupil, the final stage of qualification. Pupillages are provided by sets of Chambers, and some organisations such as the Crown Prosecution Service. They are paid (currently a minimum of £5,000 for the first sixth, and £5,000 guaranteed earnings for the second sixth). The competition is extremely fierce, and it often takes a couple of years to get a place in Chambers.
Pupillage is divided into halves. The first half consists of going to court with the pupil master or pupil mistress,sitting in on his client conferences, and working on his papers.
The second sixth stage is when you start work on your own. "Getting on your feet" as it is known starts with simple hearing such as case management reviews or bail applications. The pupil is still under the direct supervision of a pupil master.
Some pupils do their first and second sixths in the same Chambers, some do them at different Chambers.
Call to the Bar
Before the start of the second sixth, and preferably before the start of pupillage, a would-be barrister must be Called to the Bar. Call is done by the person's Inn of Court.
In order to qualify for call, the person must have the law degree (or other degree plus CPE), and have passed the BVC. In addition, he must have eaten his 12 dinners in his Inn of Court.
Call Night is a grand ceremony, held 3-4 times a year in each Inn's Hall.
|
Bewigged And Bewildered?: A Guide to Becoming a barrister in England and Wales
Price: $26.79
List Price: $32.00 |
|
The First Rumpole Omnibus
Hysterically funny legal fiction, centred on the Old Bailey (which hears the most serious of criminal trials).
Price: $10.45
List Price: $20.00 |
|
The Amateur Historian's Guide to Medieval and Tudor London (Capital Travels)
Price: $5.38
List Price: $20.00 |
Tenancy
Once pupillage is finished, a barrister must try to find a tenancy. This is a permanent place in Chambers.
Most pupils will apply to the Chambers in which they did their pupillages; this is the best bet as a pupil has already spent 6-12 months in the set, getting to know the tenants.
Most sets will, however, have more pupils than tenancies. A lot of pupils have to do a "third sixth", also known as "squatting", and apply to more than one set of Chambers before they get a tenancy.
Legal education doesn't end with tenancy. A new barrister must complete 36 hours of Continuing Professional Development in his first 3 years of practice, including 12 hours of advocacy and 3 hours of ethics.
Thereafter, all barristers still have to rack up CPD yearly, but writing books or articles, or giving lectures, qualifies.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I like this hub, very well explained and easy to understand. Being a Barrister sounds like a very interesting choice of career.
I love it, but it's the kind of stressful, high-pressure job you either love or loathe (-:
Excellent hub -- makes me want to crawl out of retirement and go back to university! It sounds almost like being a tenured professor over here -- publications and research being indicators of further education and keeping current in the field. Glad you love it, and thanks for explaining it all. Being around the Inns of Court must be lovely, too: all that history; and indeed, the profession itself is steeped in historical traditions, with the call to the Inns, and the 12 dinners, etc. You must really feel that you are part of a continuing grand tradition that is so particularly English in the best way.
I adore it. Dinners at Middle Temple, my Inn, are pretty good fun. It's the Hall where Twelth Night was first performed, for example.
Really? Good grief. That is some heritage. Do you have photos of the Hall? I'll look online now for some. . .
Well written hub LG..... Although I have no intension of taking it as a profession but for those who are serious about it, this hub could be a good info provider. You can write about other professions too..... but there is one thing ... you hub mainly focuses on UK. Can you give some more info for US and Asian countries too?
Hi Teresa - have a look at the link above to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, there are great photos there. Packerpack - I'm an English barrister, I dont' know enough about qualifying in the US etc, I'm afraid.
Here's on photo from that site (lunch in the hall)
Packer - I'm sorry, but I'm an English barrister, I just don't know enough about qualifying in other jurisdictions.
:( :( ...... O ya your name (LondonGirl) itself say the place you are from. But again, nice hub
My uncle was both a soliciter and barrister, you can do that down under.
Thanks Packer.
Writer, in the UK, you have to choose one or the other, you can't be both at once.
Hi, congratulations, This is a Google's number one Hub, well done!
thank you for organising the mob!
nicely explained and easy to understand hub
It does take a while to qualify, but in my opinion, it's worth it.
As an outsider it was fascinating to hear about the UK system for becoming a barrister.
Thanks - I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Hey,LondonGirl!
Excellent info here and very well presented.
thanks - glad you find it useful.
The continuing education aspect of the job sounds like a good way to keep everyone on top of current changes.
Being a barrister in England seems much better than being an attorney in America. I am jeaolous. Great Hub.
Ah no wonder you are such a good proof reader! In NZ its the same as Australia you are qualifed as both barrister and solicitor and some people specialize in court work. I worked near Gray's Inn when I worked for Clifford Chance - I tempted as a legal secretary back in the 1980's - I was a geologist at the time - but I decided on the big OE I wanted to see London not an oil rig in the North Sea. My main claim to fame was an ability to use WordPerfect 4.2 and figure out how to print a document - which (almost) made up for the fact I didn't know how to make the Dictaphone play-back (there's a foot pedal - do they still do that, its very efficient?). I got yelled at once for spelling Clwyd wrong - (clueid I think I got) but he stopped when he heard my New Zealand accent!
BTW you know that personal injury and some other specialised parts of (US) law have some VERY well paying Adsense ads.
Sorry, sorry, I know I'm an appalling pedant, very irritating of me.
I live and work near Gray's Inn, it's an area I know well.
My areas of law are immigration and immigration-related crime, not PI, sadly!
As an American with his law degree, I found this interesting and almost rather mystic or "Harry Potterish" in language. I found myself trying to compare the American method and UK method of being an attorney, which in the US is way easier, at least I think. The terminology is so specialized that for any one outside of the UK, some translation or comparison is needed. All of the Temples and Inns Courts totally lost me. Are these akin to Superior and Municipal courts?
No, they aren't courts at all. Every barrister must belong to one of the Inns of Court. They control entry into the profession (Call to the Bar), education (delegated to training schools and institutions, such as the Inns of Court School of Law). They have libraries, and churches (Temple Church is shared between Middle and Inner Temple), and halls, where lunch and dinner are served, and other function rooms. They hold debates, moots, and speeches, and own the land they sit on.
A lot of the buildings in each Inn are rented to Chambers, the groups of barristers who club together to share expenses and so forth.
I'm a member of Middle Temple, as if my other half, and my Dad and brother are member of Gray's Inn.
Oh, so it is a four year law school, afterwhich, you take the Bar? I presume students can live off campus if they choose.
3 years at university doing a law degree, 1 year at Bar School, then Bar Finals. After that, a year in pupillage, so 5 year altogether.
Students don't live in the Inns (a few do, on scholarships, but we are talking 20 or so a year).
Hi LondonGirl,
I could have seen the answers to my questions, just by reading this hub.
The US adopted the English Common Law and codified many of them but in the last century and this one, many of the legal foundations, in my opinion, have been morphed to only slightly resemble the original concept. Has there been major deviations in English Law in the same time period?
For example, tort of negligence, went to comparative negligence and then to product liability. The reason was basically to extend the jurisdiction to get to the deeper pocket. But today, it is out of control causing person stupidity to be protected, such as having to print caution sign on things that people should pretty much already know. And then it also has to be printed in Spanish and even additional languages.
Great hub
Brilliant, your Hubs, are in my opinion some of the best on Hubpages.
In my country almost anyone that wants to be admitted to the Bar can, as long as they don't have a criminal record. Also academic levels do not matter 7 years after they leave Secondary School, or College they can go to University, consequently many of our solicitors and Barristers, are nothing like the calibre seen overseas.
Keep writing and I'll keep reading
Mandy
Brilliant, your Hubs, are in my opinion some of the best on Hubpages.
In my country almost anyone that wants to, can be admitted to the Bar, as long as they don't have a criminal record. Also academic levels do not matter 7 years after they leave Secondary School, or College they are eligible to go University, consequently many of our solicitors and Barristers, are nothing like the calibre seen overseas. Also they all qualify as Barristers in New Zealand so you have trhe same Study length, but there is a choice of wether to be a lawyer handling cases without going to Court, as in this Country
Court work is done by Barristers only, albeit some lawyers undertake simple Court work. (the reason for this seems to be that, the amount of office work that they do in other areas means that, they are unable to also take High Court actions etc.
Most lawyers in N.Z. are involved in property, will Trusts etc.
Keep writing and I'll keep ready.
Mandy
Hi issues - glad you found it useful.
There was very little to the tort of negligence until 1932, when the House of Lords decided the every-student-must-know-it case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
In that case, the Plaintiff drank a bottle of ginger beer, found a decomposed snail at the bottom, and got ill. She sued the manufacturer in negligence, and lost, because a friend had paid for the drink and she was excluded from claiming by privity of contract (the rule that only parties to a contract may sue under it).
Lord Atkin introduced into tort law the "neighbour principle", specifically:
"There must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. ...The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question: Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply.
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question."
The current law here is defined in the 1990 case of Caparo Industries Plc. v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568.
The tests are - foreseeability of damage; a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood; and that in all the circumstances, it is fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care.
So we don't go anywhere near as far down the path of hot coffee lawsuits.
LondonGirl,
I believe that in 1928 there was a landmark negligence case in the US.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Isla
This one dealt with the zone of who a negligent act could reasonably be foreseen.
It seems to me that your "neighborur principle" is similar to the zone (duty). The first two elements to simple negligence was duty and breach. Was there a duty (there was no clear ending point and to win a case it sometimes needed a little expansion to include the defendant) to the plaintiff and if so was there a breach of that duty. They both appear to be limiting the liability.For example, you have a tire on your car come off and roll down the road. Where and how far it could be expected to do damage to someone is the zone. What is reasonable? That was the reason for that lawsuit.
We then extended the zone to cross jurisdictional boundaries and get to the big bucks. So they eventually came up in the 1970s, with product liability.
Where else but in the US can you put a cup of hot coffee between your legs in your car, then have it spill and burn you. Your cause of action, it was too hot and I am too stupid to know that. Under the old simple negligence, the contributory negligence of that person would have completely barred the negligence award.
Contributory negligence was harsh in that respect, they can came up with comparative negligence, where the contributory negligence was compared against the negligence cause of action and simple math prevailed.
I see from the case that you cited it was a landmark decision because of all the cases that referred to it.
Allowing the potential new shareholders to be included in the duty of care from the auditors was apparently outside the zone. The current shareholders of course were well in the zone. I just skimmed it, but it appeared there was a reversal and the case took about 6 years (1984-1990) to clear. Auditors failed to do what auditors get paid to do. Is it really unreasonable to think that an incomplete audit would affect potential shareholders?
The following caught my eye in the opinion on the case; which seems to make the issue is economic versus personal injury to be covered the same way.
-------------- from the opinion
The question is, I think, one of some importance when one comes to consider the existence of that essential relationship between the appellants and the respondent to which, in any discussion of the ingredients of the tort of negligence, there is accorded the description "proximity," for it is now clear from a series of decisions in this House that, at least so far as concerns the law of the United Kingdom, the duty of care in tort depends not solely upon the existence of the essential ingredient of the foreseeability of damage to the plaintiff but upon its coincidence with a further ingredient to which has been attached the label "proximity" and which was described by Lord Atkin in the course of his speech in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562, 581 as:
"such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless act."
It must be remembered, however, that Lord Atkin was using these words in the context of loss caused by physical damage where the existence of the nexus between the careless defendant and the injured plaintiff can rarely give rise to any difficulty. To adopt the words of Bingham L.J. in the instant case [1989] Q.B. 653, 686:
"It is enough that the plaintiff chances to be (out of the whole world) the person with whom the defendant collided or who purchased the offending ginger beer."
The extension of the concept of negligence since the decision of this House in Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465 to cover cases of pure economic loss not resulting from physical damage has given rise to a considerable and as yet unsolved difficulty of definition. The opportunities for the infliction of pecuniary loss from the imperfect performance of everyday tasks upon the proper performance of which people rely for regulating their affairs are illimitable and the effects are far reaching. A defective bottle of ginger beer may injure a single consumer but the damage stops there. A single statement may be repeated endlessly with or without the permission of its author and may be relied upon in a different way by many different people. Thus the postulate of a simple duty to avoid any harm that is, with hindsight, reasonably capable of being foreseen becomes untenable without the imposition of some intelligible limits to keep the law of negligence within the bounds of common sense and practicality. Those limits have been found by the requirement of what has been called a "relationship of proximity" between plaintiff and defendant and by the imposition of a further requirement that the attachment of liability for harm which has occurred be "just and reasonable." But although the cases in which the courts have imposed or withheld liability are capable of an approximate categorisation, one looks in vain for some common denominator by which the existence of the essential relationship can be tested. Indeed it is difficult to resist a conclusion that what have been treated as three separate requirements are, at least in most cases, in fact merely facets of the same thing, for in some cases the degree of foreseeability is such that it is from that alone that the requisite proximity can be deduced, whilst in others the absence of that essential relationship can most rationally be attributed simply to the court's view that it would not be fair and reasonable to hold the defendant responsible. "Proximity" is, no doubt, a convenient expression so long as it is realised that it is no more than a label which embraces not a definable concept but merely a description of circumstances from which, pragmatically, the courts conclude that a duty of care exists.
There are, of course, cases where, in any ordinary meaning of the words, a relationship of proximity (in the literal sense of "closeness") exists but where the law, whilst recognising the fact of the relationship, nevertheless denies a remedy to the injured party on the ground of public policy. Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 A.C. 191 was such a case, as was Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] A.C. 53, so far as concerns the alternative ground of that decision.
But such cases do nothing to assist in the identification of those features from which the law will deduce the essential relationship on which liability depends and, for my part, I think that it has to be recognised that to search for any single formula which will serve as a general test of liability is to pursue a will-o'-the wisp. The fact is that once one discards, as it is now clear that one must, the concept of foreseeability of harm as the single exclusive test - even a prima facie test - of the existence of the duty of care, the attempt to state some general principle which will determine liability in an infinite variety of circumstances serves not to clarify the law but merely to bedevil its development in a way which corresponds with practicality and common sense. In Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman, 60 A.L.R. 1, 43-44, Brennan J. in the course of a penetrating analysis, observed:
"Of course, if foreseeability of injury to another were the exhaustive criterion of a prima facie duty to act to prevent the occurrence of that injury, it would be essential to introduce some kind of restrictive qualification - perhaps a qualification of the kind stated in the second stage of the general proposition in Anns [1978] A.C. 728. I am unable to accept that approach. It is preferable, in my view, that the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty o
LondonGirl
I think my comment was too large.
Thanks for the interesting case.
Not too large at all! I'll reply in more detail this evening.
It's great that you are a barrister. Your intellect must be superb. I just wish I could be one.;-) Thanks for sharing this Londongirl.
HI issues - not too long at all, very interesting. I think the "public policy" type restriction on torts comes into play more here than it does in the USA, as does contributory negligence.
One other factor which is relevant is that it's only in very ususual cases that we have extra damages on top of provably loss - little in the way of "and £20 million for the insult".
LondonGirl,
I guess we invented punitive damages of which the attorney gets as much as his client. OK maybe not 50% put most likely a third. The theory of punitive damages was supposed to prevent the rich and the powerful from repeating these torts.
Contract law is pretty much out of pocket damages but torts are where the real money is awarded.
I think that your system is fairer but I think comparative negligence shares the stupidity in the lawsuit.
Thanks for the intro to English Trial Law.
Cheers
Hi Mandy - I'm glad you found it interesting! I've enjoyed reading your hubs a lot.
Ethics is important to me, and almost all barristers, I think (and hope!) WE have a dedicated ethics phone line at the Bar Council, so if in doubt, you can ring and get advice in a difficult situation.
I do absolutely no work with trusts, wills, or property (-:
Quite interesting and very different, it seems, than the USA legal system. Yours seems very complex and defined, yet in some ways it might be easier to select a specific type of legal representation.
I'm not, at the moment, seeking a legal expert, but I will keep you in mind if I ever run into trouble in the UK.
Very good read, although I have to admit that, when I clicked on it, I thought it was about the employees at Starbucks.
Hi issues - neither barristers nor solicitors are allowed to take a % of the damages in any cases here.
We do have "conditional fee agreements" in some areas of law. For these, you don't get paid unless you win, but if you do win, you get your normal fee plus an uplift. And this is paid as costs by the other (losing) side.
Hi Hibiscus - I'm not that clever, but good at fooling people into thinking I am, which is rather handy (-:
Rochelle - glad you enjoyed it, and here's hoping you never get into the position of needing a lawyer in the UK!
Eye - my coffee making skills should be avoided at all costs....
LondonGirl,
It seems to me that the English Legal system at least in the area of legal representation is fairer than those in the US.
BTW, is there an English Court which is similar to our small claims court where just the parties go and no lawyers are allowed?
Civil Court cases are divided into sections, depending on how much they’re worth. If your case is worth:
$5,000 or less (if you are filing as a business), you can file your lawsuit in Small Claims Court. (Small Claims Court section of this website.) $7,500 or less (if you are filing as an individual) you can file your lawsuit in Small Claims Court. (Small Claims Court section of this website.) $25,000 or less, you can file it in a court called a “Limited Jurisdiction Superior Court”.More than $25,000, you can file in a court called an “Unlimited Jurisdiction Superior Court”.
Jurisdiction --A court has to have the legal authority to hear and decide a case. This means that the court has to be authorized to handle the: subject matter (what the case is about), person or place the case is about, and amount of money the case is worth.
------------------
As I mentioned in a previous comment, the jurisdiction of the small claims court should be raised to say $20,000. No jury, no lawyers and a swift hearing and it is done. In this court, you have to rely on the experience and wisdom of the judge and not the cleverness of the lawyer or the technicalities of the law. It may not be any better than a formal court but it gives you your day in court.
What do you think about it?
Civil cases for damages are divided into three tracks - small claims track, fast track, and multi-track. Roughly speaking, small claims is under £5k, fast track up to £50k, multi-track over that. But if they are below that amount and very complicated, they get bumped up a track.
You can be represented by a lawyer in the small claims track, but the costs are not usually recoverable.
Certain types of action can't be brought in small claims, I think, such as actions against hte police, where there has to be a jury.
LondonGirl,
Thanks so much for the information.
It is very interesting.
Cheers
Glad I could help! Any other questions, ask away. I've been really interested in our exchanges.
My daughter graduating from college soon and she's quite the London-fan (remember my 3 days in London columns here?), anyway...she's always planned on getting a graduate degree in library/research sciences and now has the bug to get that degree in London! She is graduating with honors from a small university in Boston and wants to try for admittance at UCL ... IF she makes it in ... she'd love to earn a bit of extra money babysitting for your little sweetie! Whatcha think? Here in USA we're always looking for reliable babysitters, how's that problem in UK?
Hope she likes UCL - I'm not going to say a bad word about the place where I got my undergrad and postgrad degrees (-:
She (or you) should send me an email, if she would like to know more about UCL or London or babysitting!
Lack of concentration would definitely take me out of the mix! Interesting hub.
glad you enjoyed it!
With a Welsh grandmother and a Scott/English grandfather, I remember hearing this term. Great explanation of title and qualifications... Hope they serve one better than the lawyers we have here in the US of A do…
Well, I won today anyway (-:
Hi London girl, I made it and what information you have included. My cousin is a barrister and I had no idea how he got their, now I do ..thanks a lot ,speak soon
hi - glad you enjoyed it! What area of law is your cousin in?
LG, how long have women been allowed to practice law in England? This is relatively new, right? Meaning within the last hundred years?
I don't know exactly, but I bet women weren't admitted to the Bar until after the First World War - probably 1920s or 1930s.
Whatever you do, don't go into this with intent of chasing asbestos cases...the money may be good, but its pretty competetive!
Hi LondonGirl,
Thank you for such an enlightening and enriching informational write-up about the Bar. I am a final year B. A., LL. B. student from India. Most of my doubts have been cleared, and questions answered, thanks to your article, except one. I would like to know what are the costs that are incurred for doing the course at the Bar, and what would be the average living costs at London. If you could give me a break-up, then I would really be very thankful to you. Thanks in advance.
I agree. Chasing asbestos cases in Colorado is a losing proposition too. Take a look at http://www.coloradoasbestoslawyers.net/ fro more information.
The Bar Course costs, at the moment, as astonishing £10,000 to £11,000. You need to reckon on another £10k living expenses in London as well. With a student visa, you can work up to 20 hours a week, and full-time during holidays, which can help a bit with the costs.
Very good hub LG. It's interesting to learn about careers in other countries, thank you for sharing.
It sounds like it is much harder to get an advanced legal career there in the UK than it is here in the States. Here you need a 4 year undergraduate degree in any subject, like there it is recomended that it have substance. Mine was a liberal arts degree in History. Next there is 3 years of law school. After that you are ready to take the Bar exam for your state (every state has it's own exam but accredited Law Schools will prepare you for that). After passing the Bar, you can practice law in your state and need special permission to pracice in another state when needed. There is no distinction between lawyers beyond their specialty like your barristors and solicitors. The largest segment of lawyers practice torts, contracts and taxation. I took a break between Undergrad and Law School. It was supposed to be for 1 semester but turned into 14 years...lol never went back. Sometimes I wish I had. Thanks again for the hub.
How come you didn't return? Did you decide it wasn't for you?
We study for 5 years here, as against 7 for you, but all 5 of those years (6 in my case, I did a masters) are usually law study.
Doesn't there tend to be a division in practice? Some lawyers do court work, others don't?
I have completed My MBA from a private university from Bangladesh. I am Interested to do Bar at law, if any one plz inform me how can I get That ?
my email : rikto2002@yahoo.com
Do you mean in Bangladesh, or in England? Do you have a law degree?
Can you do the bvc course and become a barrister with a criminal record?
Many Thanks
I like this hub, very well explained and easy to understand. Being a Barrister sounds like a very interesting choice of career
Great info and very interesting... it is always intriguing to me how different countries do things... I'm from Canada and I love learning about other countries and cultures...
hey....
Thanks for the info you have no idea how much you have helped me. I was thinking about changing my career untill i read your hub.well now i am more conferdent about becoming a Barriater and your hub has been the most helpful.
Khan - a criminal record of any kind would make it hard to become a barrister. You'd need to check with the Inn you wanted to join on the specifics of the particular crime, though.
li, glad you liked it! I love being a barrister.
Hi London girl,
Your hub is very interesting. I am considering doing the CPE course. I have a quantity surveying degree and a masters in project management, but i have always had an interest in law. Recently I have been reading up on becoming a barrister (Bewigged and Bewildered by Adam Kramer) and it seems very interesting and well, challenging. I am Irish but I am considering studying in the UK. There are a variety of universities to choose from and although the CAB issue the applications, the applicant can select 3. Do you know which institions provide the most rounded and detailed course and which are more favoured, if any?
On another note, how long have you been a barrister? What do you enjoy most about it? How do you find juggling parenthood and being a barrister?
Apologies for bombarding you with all the questions :)
Hi London Girl,
Could you give me advice for my daughter who is in 6th form. She is very keen on becoming a barrister and understands it will be challenging to find a pupillage. Can you give me any tips for her in this area? Do you pay to join the Inn? thanks.
It sounds like the same practice for lawyer in the US. I always want to be a lawyer but I am not good in presenting my case in an argument. So I put that dream into a forever wish list.
I like education, especially Special Education. I'll write more about it on my hubs.
- HubMob weekly topic: Education, Colleges, universities and other educational options
Homeopathy is getting strong in India as evident from spreading netwrok of Homeopathic research and education institutes in aevery corner of the country. - 5 months ago
- British barrister to represent Radovan Karadzic in war crimes trialTimes Online2 days ago
The Yugoslav war crimes tribunal has appointed a British barrister to represent Radovan Karadzic if the former Bosnian Serb leader continues to boycott his trial when it resumes in March.
- British barrister to represent KaradzicThe Scotsman2 days ago
A LONDON-BASED barrister is to represent former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic at his trial for war crimes and genocide.
- Lawyer backs down over drink-drive websiteStuff32 hours ago
A barrister who advertised on his website that he would use "technicalities and loopholes" to get drink-drivers off charges has agreed to remove the page after an outcry from road safety advocates and victims of drink-drive crashes.
- Lawyers may take standSunday News2 days ago
BARRISTER Chris Comeskey has been ordered to give evidence at the court case of a man accused of stealing medals from Waiouru Army Museum – but maintains he has no intention of doing so.
- Newsreader sues ITV for colleague's 'racist mimicking'Daily Telegraph12 hours ago
A female newsreader who has accused a colleague of mimicking black TV presenters is suing ITV for £5 million on grounds of race sex and age discrimination.
ilovehubbing says:
10 months ago
nice hub