As I sit here and research abuse of process in relation to RIPA, I wonder whether or not this is the sort of life I wish to live. A life full of constant reading, with a large home library of assorted books on Criminal Justice, Evidence and Human Rights. A desk surrounded by empty packets of crisps and fag packets.
I am at the moment rather tempted to delve deeper into being an academic rather than trying to pursue a career at the Bar and there are several reasons why.
Firstly there has been a complete lack of interest from Chambers when applying for mini-pupillages, I do believe that I would make a good barrister (don't we all) I have a good ability to absorb knowledge, to analyse that knowledge and be critical about it, as well as being a semi-competent advocate which I have learnt from my mooting days. There may have been a small hiccup in the fact that I put perhaps a too restrictive of a date in my covering letter for when I was available, however if chambers were interested I doubt that would have really mattered. By not being noticed enough by which ever young tenant was viewing my application, I wonder how much more there is to be done, so that my CV sparkles with fairy magic glittery Bar dust. I am currently applying for lots of NGO work, however I am yet to hear back.
The amount of opportunities for work related experience of crime and human rights are vast I would suggest, however a lot of internships are unpaid and are usually for a month or so, that is perhaps too much of a period of time where I could be earning elsewhere, the internships are in themselves very competitive.
For all my (our) troubles, the lack of interest from Chambers may be a sign of the times, the Bar is very much more so competitive in terms of sheer numbers than it used to be, Chambers will receive hundreds if not thousands of applications for mini-pupillages, there again your CV really must shine.
There is always the issue of the Bar v Solicitor Advocates, where the work is going and whether or not it would be financially viable to enter the profession in this particular climate. I am told that plans for public funding in criminal trials may reduce by 20%, that is a significant drop in income for those already in practice. The thought of being self-employed and not being good enough to make a decent living is another concern.
After this analysis it may just be simpler to try and apply for a Phd and try to win some scholarship, I would be able to keep teaching criminal law, a subject though despite it needs urgent reform in some places, is quite enjoyable and has enabled me to delve much deeper into the substantive law than I ever did as an undergraduate.
I am young however, may not the youngest blogger by very early 20's, a lot of barrister wannabes come to the Bar later on in life, it would not be such a horrendous missed opportunity if I went to the Bar after a Phd or some time being an academic, this would give me a chance to 'establish' myself. As the criminal Bar will inevitably become smaller and ever more so specialised than it is now, there may be a greater link between academics and barristers, as minute points of law become more important than the general aspects.
There is however the gigantic task of writing the Phd, spending 40 hrs a week for three years, on something that I hope would not be remotely crap, but I would have thought it wouldn't be sufficiently ground breaking. I wonder if by doing a Phd, I would actually just be postponing my real desire to be in Court and say "yes M'Lud, I am obliged, [however I would submit that you are quite wrong on this point].
Difficult choices to make, I think I will keep everything up in the air. I already have a scholarship which I deferred last year from Middle Temple, I don't have a scholarship to do a Phd, though I hope as I teach at the institution they would love to keep me and give me some form of teaching award covering Criminal Law and Evidence. Another 3 years of university can't hurt too much.
Lost
Showing posts with label Criminal Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Law. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Thursday, 8 January 2009
The Future of The Criminal Bar
*Please note this post is full of hyperbole which will know doubt get me in trouble much like it does for any prosecutor*
I have attempted in previous posts, to outline some serious threats to the criminal Bar (now spelt with a big B, because after all it is somewhat important). These mainly being solicitor advocates, the Legal Services Commission and the Lord Carter reforms. I don't think it will be necessary to repeat my ramblings on either three topics seeing that they raise the blood pressure of any actual or potential criminal barrister. What I am however trying to attempt is to conclude what my assessment is on the situation and my learned friends to see whether endeavouring to be a criminal barrister is worth the hassle nowadays.
The impending doom
There is likely to be at some point in the near future an implosion in the criminal bar. It raises questions whether us students should get our foot in the door before the system crumbles or should wait to rise out of the ashes. The Barrister v Solicitor line has been irrevocably blurred to the point that both sides are in a silent(or not so silent if we read The Times) war with each other. The system of interdependence has broken resulting in the current feud of the legal profession.
Barristers depend on solicitors for instructions. Solicitors however are now seeing that some of the work done by barristers isn't really that difficult and with the addition of the Legal Aid reforms firms feel it would be much preferable to keep costs in house and use solicitor advocates. This is obviously cost-efficient for the solicitor and also more efficient in the sense that you may have the same solicitor representing you in the police station and at the Crown Court. This will lead to a lack of work for barristers in the Crown Court.
Not quite so apocalyptic?
Is it likely that this will have a major effect on the criminal Bar, very junior and some less junior cases will go to solicitor advocates. What is however unlikely for the time being is solicitor advocates appearing in the High Courts, Court of Appeal or House of Lords. I believe that your standard solicitor advocate will be appearing at one or two Crown Courts that are local to their practice and perhaps a wider range of practice for more established solicitor advocates.
Now what does this mean for the Bar? The work is definitely going to change, having less trial work will ultimately lead to barristers being relied upon for their "specialisms" in chosen fields, most notably serious crime such as homicide and sexual offences, for the time being will be instructed to counsel and junior practitioners will appear with their more learned leaders. As solicitor advocates are not generally experienced enough, and would as I have heard prefer cases to go to barristers.
Specialism will therefore become more and more important for barristers at the criminal Bar. As noted above if there is less junior trial work they will have to pair up in order to survive, the very nature of criminal work may change as we know it.
A mutual agreement?
Unless there is a mutual agreement between solicitors and barristers about the criminal justice system and how it works it it very likely it will implode. Easy solutions could be made to reassure the next generation of young barristers that the criminal bar will not die and that it is a worthwhile pursuit. The recent bickering between both sides, barristers deeming solicitor advocates as inadequate and the majority of solicitors viewing barristers as pompous and in some cases "dreadful" shows that a coherent system needs to be put in place. There need to be clear roles for each party.
This obviously leads to problems of whether a solicitor should really be allowed to practice advocacy and whether direct access to a barrister should be allowed to give "advice". Both give rise to the fact that each party is trying to out do one another instead of working together.
If both are trying to perform each role then should this be continued or should it be resolved by confining them to their original roles? This legal evolution of adding on tidbits to one an other's profession is unlikely to go away. Nor do I suggest is the problem between the two professions.
What is key to perhaps understanding the view of solicitors is that they see barristers as pompous, overpaid and why should it be their "right" to be the next judiciary. They have a direct line to the Home Office, the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Justice. They have power to effect very influential people because ultimately they come from a similar background, Oxbridge educated etc. This lack of diversification in the Bar (though I profess it is becoming better) annoys solicitors. I was told recently by a solicitor advocate that the more the Bar pulls strings to only enrich their own profession solicitors will try and claw back what they can from there.
Essentially the idea here is that there is a lack of balance between what solicitors are paid and what barristers are paid. An average partner of a criminal practice makes about £40,000, that is the starting salary of many students a Magic Circle and Silver Circle firms. According to BarBoy (please inform me if I am wrong) a junior criminal barrister can easily make £40,000. Why is it that solicitors should be paid more than barristers? This problem needs addressing, barristers must show and prove why they deserve to be paid more, by proving their worth. The days of old are gone, which is why many barristers I believe are struggling to make ends meet.
The CPS
Much of the focus of this post has been on the discussion of the solicitor advocates affect on the criminal bar, this is only part of the larger dilemma of a bewilderingly crippled criminal justice system.
Whilst criminal barristers are losing more work due to solicitor advocates they are also having their work depleted by in the in house advocates of the CPS. Whether or not these advocates are deemed as "failures" is not to be discussed here they have a job to do and they are put under an increasing amount of pressure to do it.
The polarisation of the Bar may even have a bigger effect than solicitor advocates in total. Half of the work disappearing to the employed Bar must have a notable effect, but does it matter less because these advocates once belonged to the independent bar so are more trustworthy to conduct cases? I am unsure with my limited knowledge to make any such contention.
Nevertheless there appears to be a lot of work being swallowed up by otherwise than the independent bar.
Conclusion
The majority of the reasons why the criminal bar looks doomed, is because it simply isn't viewed as cost efficient. Solicitor advocates and the CPS have no real alternative otherwise than to instruct their own counsel if they want to get by. Will this mean a rise in miscarriages of justice or a deflated notion of justice for all if the independent criminal Bar cannot function as it once did? I again am unsure.
I am sure that it will never be the case that you can pay less and get more in the criminal justice system and it will lead to the brightest and best candidates looking elsewhere to finance lives of luxury that their other seemingly bright friends have chosen in general common law, company law, litigation etc. This is a serious problem that needs addressing.
Will there be enough work for me when I qualify? It is unsure, it all depends on what agreement the Bar and the Law Society can make with one another before the situation implodes and chaos runs amok. Hopefully they will. The current forecast is that there will be light spells and maybe storms, leading to very specialised work in the higher courts for the time being.
Is it worth it? Imagine yourself in 20 years time, and ask yourself if there was anything that you would regret not having done. If you think you would regret not being at the Criminal Bar despite all its difficulties then that is the area for you. If not then it is likely you could probably get away with something else. What is certain is that competition for the Criminal Bar is as tough as any other area. We all hear the phrase "if you are determined enough you will succeed" but how determined does one need to be, in able to try and predict the future of the profession you wish to enter hoping that it will be the right choice and also still alive and kick well enough that you will be able to make a decent living out of it?
I suppose there is always hope....
*note - I hope for a particular reader that this is a little bit more ambitious than my usual posts ;) *
I have attempted in previous posts, to outline some serious threats to the criminal Bar (now spelt with a big B, because after all it is somewhat important). These mainly being solicitor advocates, the Legal Services Commission and the Lord Carter reforms. I don't think it will be necessary to repeat my ramblings on either three topics seeing that they raise the blood pressure of any actual or potential criminal barrister. What I am however trying to attempt is to conclude what my assessment is on the situation and my learned friends to see whether endeavouring to be a criminal barrister is worth the hassle nowadays.
The impending doom
There is likely to be at some point in the near future an implosion in the criminal bar. It raises questions whether us students should get our foot in the door before the system crumbles or should wait to rise out of the ashes. The Barrister v Solicitor line has been irrevocably blurred to the point that both sides are in a silent(or not so silent if we read The Times) war with each other. The system of interdependence has broken resulting in the current feud of the legal profession.
Barristers depend on solicitors for instructions. Solicitors however are now seeing that some of the work done by barristers isn't really that difficult and with the addition of the Legal Aid reforms firms feel it would be much preferable to keep costs in house and use solicitor advocates. This is obviously cost-efficient for the solicitor and also more efficient in the sense that you may have the same solicitor representing you in the police station and at the Crown Court. This will lead to a lack of work for barristers in the Crown Court.
Not quite so apocalyptic?
Is it likely that this will have a major effect on the criminal Bar, very junior and some less junior cases will go to solicitor advocates. What is however unlikely for the time being is solicitor advocates appearing in the High Courts, Court of Appeal or House of Lords. I believe that your standard solicitor advocate will be appearing at one or two Crown Courts that are local to their practice and perhaps a wider range of practice for more established solicitor advocates.
Now what does this mean for the Bar? The work is definitely going to change, having less trial work will ultimately lead to barristers being relied upon for their "specialisms" in chosen fields, most notably serious crime such as homicide and sexual offences, for the time being will be instructed to counsel and junior practitioners will appear with their more learned leaders. As solicitor advocates are not generally experienced enough, and would as I have heard prefer cases to go to barristers.
Specialism will therefore become more and more important for barristers at the criminal Bar. As noted above if there is less junior trial work they will have to pair up in order to survive, the very nature of criminal work may change as we know it.
A mutual agreement?
Unless there is a mutual agreement between solicitors and barristers about the criminal justice system and how it works it it very likely it will implode. Easy solutions could be made to reassure the next generation of young barristers that the criminal bar will not die and that it is a worthwhile pursuit. The recent bickering between both sides, barristers deeming solicitor advocates as inadequate and the majority of solicitors viewing barristers as pompous and in some cases "dreadful" shows that a coherent system needs to be put in place. There need to be clear roles for each party.
This obviously leads to problems of whether a solicitor should really be allowed to practice advocacy and whether direct access to a barrister should be allowed to give "advice". Both give rise to the fact that each party is trying to out do one another instead of working together.
If both are trying to perform each role then should this be continued or should it be resolved by confining them to their original roles? This legal evolution of adding on tidbits to one an other's profession is unlikely to go away. Nor do I suggest is the problem between the two professions.
What is key to perhaps understanding the view of solicitors is that they see barristers as pompous, overpaid and why should it be their "right" to be the next judiciary. They have a direct line to the Home Office, the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Justice. They have power to effect very influential people because ultimately they come from a similar background, Oxbridge educated etc. This lack of diversification in the Bar (though I profess it is becoming better) annoys solicitors. I was told recently by a solicitor advocate that the more the Bar pulls strings to only enrich their own profession solicitors will try and claw back what they can from there.
Essentially the idea here is that there is a lack of balance between what solicitors are paid and what barristers are paid. An average partner of a criminal practice makes about £40,000, that is the starting salary of many students a Magic Circle and Silver Circle firms. According to BarBoy (please inform me if I am wrong) a junior criminal barrister can easily make £40,000. Why is it that solicitors should be paid more than barristers? This problem needs addressing, barristers must show and prove why they deserve to be paid more, by proving their worth. The days of old are gone, which is why many barristers I believe are struggling to make ends meet.
The CPS
Much of the focus of this post has been on the discussion of the solicitor advocates affect on the criminal bar, this is only part of the larger dilemma of a bewilderingly crippled criminal justice system.
Whilst criminal barristers are losing more work due to solicitor advocates they are also having their work depleted by in the in house advocates of the CPS. Whether or not these advocates are deemed as "failures" is not to be discussed here they have a job to do and they are put under an increasing amount of pressure to do it.
The polarisation of the Bar may even have a bigger effect than solicitor advocates in total. Half of the work disappearing to the employed Bar must have a notable effect, but does it matter less because these advocates once belonged to the independent bar so are more trustworthy to conduct cases? I am unsure with my limited knowledge to make any such contention.
Nevertheless there appears to be a lot of work being swallowed up by otherwise than the independent bar.
Conclusion
The majority of the reasons why the criminal bar looks doomed, is because it simply isn't viewed as cost efficient. Solicitor advocates and the CPS have no real alternative otherwise than to instruct their own counsel if they want to get by. Will this mean a rise in miscarriages of justice or a deflated notion of justice for all if the independent criminal Bar cannot function as it once did? I again am unsure.
I am sure that it will never be the case that you can pay less and get more in the criminal justice system and it will lead to the brightest and best candidates looking elsewhere to finance lives of luxury that their other seemingly bright friends have chosen in general common law, company law, litigation etc. This is a serious problem that needs addressing.
Will there be enough work for me when I qualify? It is unsure, it all depends on what agreement the Bar and the Law Society can make with one another before the situation implodes and chaos runs amok. Hopefully they will. The current forecast is that there will be light spells and maybe storms, leading to very specialised work in the higher courts for the time being.
Is it worth it? Imagine yourself in 20 years time, and ask yourself if there was anything that you would regret not having done. If you think you would regret not being at the Criminal Bar despite all its difficulties then that is the area for you. If not then it is likely you could probably get away with something else. What is certain is that competition for the Criminal Bar is as tough as any other area. We all hear the phrase "if you are determined enough you will succeed" but how determined does one need to be, in able to try and predict the future of the profession you wish to enter hoping that it will be the right choice and also still alive and kick well enough that you will be able to make a decent living out of it?
I suppose there is always hope....
*note - I hope for a particular reader that this is a little bit more ambitious than my usual posts ;) *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
