Junior Bar Report — Survey Results
Welcome again to the Junior Bar Report. As promised in Issue 18 Hearsay, the results of the recent pupillage survey are set out below.
Question 1: How many years have you been practising at the Bar?
0 – 1 years
1 – 2 years
2 – 3 years
3 – 4 years
4 – 5 years
Total
25
27
25
22
19
118
21.20%
22.90%
21.20%
18.60%
16.10%
100%
Question 2: Are you male or female?
Male
Female
Total
86
32
118
72.90%
27.10%
100%
Question 3: Where do you practise?
Brisbane
Regional Queensland
Total
103
15
118
87.30%
12.70%
100%
Question 4: During pupillage, I made professional enquiries of my junior master.
Very often
Often
Occasionally
Hardly ever
Never
Total
19
26
45
21
7
118
16.10%
22.00%
38.10%
17.80%
5.90%
100%
Question 5: My junior master made reasonable attempts to answer my professional enquiries.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
62
44
8
4
118
52.50%
37.30%
6.80%
3.40%
100%
Question 6: My junior master made himself/herself available for attendances, consultations and readings requested by me
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
52
50
10
6
118
44.10%
42.40%
8.50%
5.10%
100%
Question 7: I reported to my junior master, on professional matters generally:
More frequently than once per month
About once per month
Less frequently than once per month
Total
35
25
58
118
29.70%
21.20%
49.20%
100%
Question 8: My junior master gave me devilling work.
Very Often
Often
Occasionally
Hardly ever
Never
Total
8
10
17
20
63
118
6.80%
8.50%
14.40%
16.90%
53.40%
100%
Question 9: My junior master helped me to improve my skills as a barrister.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
30
54
17
17
118
25.40%
45.80%
14.40%
14.40%
100%
Question 10: My junior master treated me with respect.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
67
44
5
2
118
56.80%
37.30%
4.20%
1.70%
100%
Question 11: How many days did you attend pre-trial conferences and consultations with your junior master?
> 20 days
10 – 20 days
5 – 10 days
0 – 5 days
0 days
Total
9
4
7
37
61
118
7.60%
3.40%
5.90%
31.40%
51.70%
100%
Question 12: How many days did you attend court with your junior master?
> 20 days
10 – 20 days
5 – 10 days
0 – 5 days
0 days
Total
3
7
11
39
58
118
2.50%
5.90%
9.30%
33.10%
49.20%
100%
Question 13: My senior master made himself/herself available for attendances, consultations and readings requested by me
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
41
55
10
12
118
34.70%
46.60%
8.50%
10.20%
100%
Question 14: How many days did you attend pre-trial conferences and consultations with your senior master?
> 20 days
10 – 20 days
5 – 10 days
0 – 5 days
0 days
Total
4
8
2
35
69
118
3.40%
6.80%
1.70%
29.70%
58.50%
100%
Question 15: How many days did you attend court with your senior master?
> 20 days
10 – 20 days
5 – 10 days
0 – 5 days
0 days
Total
4
4
10
30
70
118
3.40%
3.40%
8.50%
25.40%
59.30%
100%
Question 16: In New South Wales, readers (pupils) are required to complete ten (10) days of civil reading and ten (10) days of criminal reading during their year-long reading programme. In order to satisfactorily complete the required reading, readers must participate as fully as possible in the case, including reading of the brief, discussion of the issues, preparation of submissions, interviews with witnesses and court attendance. Counsel must certify that the pupil has completed the reading.
Similar requirements should be introduced in Queensland.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
41
42
24
11
118
34.70%
35.60%
20.30%
9.30%
100%
Responses
To my mind, the responses to questions 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 16 are the most interesting. Rule 3.5.5 of the Bar Association’s Administration Rules (hereafter called “the Rules”, which can be found at the following link: http://www.qldbar.asn.au/Administration_Rules_
10_Nov_2006.pdf) provides that a pupil shall report to his/her junior master not less than once a month, on professional matters generally. The responses to question 7 indicate that 49% of pupils report to their junior master less than once a month.
Rule 3.4.7 states that “insofar as it is practicable, masters are encouraged to have their pupils devil for them.” The responses to question 8 indicate that 70% of pupils hardly ever or never receive devilling work from their junior master.
Question 9 really goes to the heart of the system of pupillage. If pupillage has a purpose then it must be to enable a novice barrister to acquire practical training. The responses to question 9 indicate that 29% of the Junior Bar believe that their training was totally ineffective, which, I am sure you will agree, is an unsatisfactory result.
Rule 3.5.9 provides that “wherever possible, pupils will attend a Court with a master during the conduct of a case by the master, and attend pre-trial conferences and consultations.” The responses to question 11 indicate that 83% of pupils spend less than 5 days in pre-trial conferences and consultations with their junior master. Similarly, the responses to question 12 indicate that 82% of pupils spend less than 5 days in court with their junior master.
The responses to question 16 indicate that 70% of the Junior Bar believe that some form of compulsory reading programme, similar to that in New South Wales, should be introduced in Queensland.
Suggestions Regarding an Amendment of the Rules
As a result of the survey, I make the following suggestions in relation to amendment of the Rules:
1. At the commencement of pupillage, the junior master would sign a standard form, confirming that the junior master understands that:
a. he/she is strongly encouraged to have their pupil devil for them;
b. he/she is strongly encouraged to advise their chamber group of the pupil’s capacity to devil for the group;
c. he/she has an obligation to receive reports from the pupil not less than once per month, on professional matters generally;
d. he/she and the pupil have a joint obligation to ensure that the pupil completes fifteen (15) days of reading during pupillage, which will include reading of the brief, discussion of the issues, preparation of submissions, interviews with witnesses and court attendance.
2. The pupil would also sign the form, declaring that he/she understands his/her obligations under the Rules. The form would be filed with the Bar Association.
3. During pupillage, the junior master and the pupil would have a joint obligation to ensure that the pupil completes fifteen (15) days of reading during pupillage, which would include reading of the brief, discussion of the issues, preparation of submissions, interviews with witnesses and court attendance. The reading would be undertaken under the supervision of any barrister of not less than five years’ standing in actual practice. The reading would be paid or unpaid, that is, if a pupil is briefed as a junior to a silk in a matter then that would count as reading.
4. The Bar Association would provide the pupil with a standard form, upon which the pupil would record the dates reading was undertaken. The dates would be certified by the supervising barrister. The forms would be filed with the Bar Association at the completion of pupillage.
5. At the completion of pupillage, the junior master would sign a standard form, confirming:
a. whether the pupil has devilled for them;
b. whether he/she advised their chamber group of the pupil’s capacity to devil for the group;
c. that he/she received reports from the pupil not less than once per month, on professional matters generally;
d. that he/she complied with his/her obligation to ensure that the pupil completed fifteen (15) days of reading during pupillage.
The form would be provided to the Bar Association.
The purpose of the suggested amendments is, firstly, to ensure compliance with r. 3.5.5, secondly, to introduce a compulsory reading programme and, thirdly, to encourage devilling.
I have attached your comments on pupillage. Some respondents took the view that masters should be required to have their pupil devil for them. Whilst this would undoubtedly assist pupils, in my view it would place an unfair and unwanted burden on masters. That being said, I cannot see any harm in strongly encouraging masters to advise their chamber group of the pupil’s capacity to devil for the group and r. 3.4.7 could be amended in that respect.
Several respondents argued that mandating 15 days of (potentially) unpaid reading might place an intolerable financial burden upon some pupils. I think that the answer to this argument lies in the majority of your comments and in the responses to question 16. Many respondents pointed out the need for pupils to receive a minimum acceptable standard of training and experience. A compulsory reading programme would go a long way towards ensuring that every new member of the Bar received basic, one-on-one, practical training from experienced counsel. In my view, the benefits of receiving such training would outweigh any financial detriment. This is especially so in circumstances where barristers are no longer required to complete court reports prior to admission. In reality, requiring pupils complete 15 days of reading is only making compulsory that which should be occurring already. There may be a rare case where, due to physical location or financial circumstances, it would be impracticable for a pupil to complete 15 days of reading. The Bar Council already has the power under r. 3.5.19 to exempt a barrister from compliance with the Rules (for example, the pupil’s legal experience or the nature of his/her work can be taken into account). I would suggest an amendment of r. 3.5.19(ii) to accommodate physical location and financial circumstances.
Rule 3.5.8 states that pupils shall attend at least two Common Room Dinners. I would be surprised if anyone at the Junior Bar had attended such a dinner! One respondent made the very good suggestion, I think, of re-enlivening such dinners by awarding CPD points to those who were willing to come along and talk to pupils about advocacy and so on. Similarly, the Bar Association could offer a discounted price to pupils for attending the annual Bar Dinner. The aim is to increase interaction between pupils and the senior members of the Bar.
One respondent thought that the terms “pupil” and “master” were outdated and should be replaced by “reader” and “tutor” (New South Wales) or “reader” and “mentor” (Victoria). Personally, I think there is some merit in the argument. To my mind, the term “mentor” emphasizes a level of responsibility for the pupil/reader that perhaps the term “master” does not. I would be interested to receive your comments on the matter.
I have attached a number of charts, which separate the results into gender and location. I will leave it to readers to interpret the responses for themselves but I do note that 13 out of 15 regional barristers never received devilling work from their junior masters and the other 2 hardly ever received it.
If you have any comments on pupillage or about this article then I encourage you to use the Hearsay Forum.
A copy of this article will be sent to the Pupillage Committee of the Bar Association. I will also refer the Committee to your comments on the Forum.
Finally, I would like to thank Greg Williams of One Practice Legal Recruitment who helped enormously in the preparation and presentation of the survey.
Chris Crawford
Additional Comments Regarding Pupillage and/or Training
“At present the only statement about what senior and junior masters are required to do, is so dated that it is not followed. A recent list of requirements for pupil masters, that they have to sign off on, would be an improvement. The current list of requirements for barristers in their pupillage, state that they must attend a minimum of two bar dinners per annum. There is only one held each year!!!!!”
“I was incredibly fortunate with my junior and senior masters. They were extremely accessible and supportive. But I have heard from my peers that my experience may have been rare.”
“My senior pupil master was Hack SC. He allowed me to squat for free in his room for 6 months. He included me in conferences. He read my briefs and discussed strategy with me. He introduced me to solicitors and got me in to cases. You should get him to talk with other silks about the duty to give back to a profession that has given us all so much. His is a model that should be followed.”
“I think this is a very important system that works well.”
“I have been very lucky with my choice of junior master. He has been very willing to help me on a regular basis. I do know of other pupils where this is not the case. I know in my own circumstances I would be completely lost without the assistance I have received.”
“I was in chambers with my junior master, so I had a high level of everyday access. I never did devilling work, but I had a lot of work referred to me by my junior master, who then assisted and supported me to carry out the briefs.”
“The Queensland system of pupillage needs serious and major reform. The main problem with pupillage in Queensland is its complete lack of structured training and accountability. The system relies entirely upon the relationship between reader and master for its success, which means that some readerships may be of great benefit to the reader and some may be completely useless. The absence of any requirements for structured training and to report the quantity and nature of the training to a third party (in contrast to NSW), mean that the training provided is entirely ad hoc. This is a serious deficiency in the Queensland system of readership. I illustrate this from my experience. I practise in a regional city. I had a local junior master but my senior master was in Brisbane. Both masters were (and are) well respected, highly talented and very busy practitioners with whom I had pre-existing relationships (from my time as a solicitor). They were extremely helpful and always answered my queries when I raised them. However, this did not overcome the fundamental structural inadequacies in my pupillage arrangements. There was no document or agreement (or even a discussion) about what assistance could be provided, how much time they were expected to spend with me and in what form. As a junior practitioner, I felt inhibited about contacting them very often, as I knew they were very busy. This meant that the sum total of my pupillage training involved one chance at devilling (from the junior master) and occasional phone calls from me to each master, usually about practice management issues. During the readership year, I spoke to my junior master and senior master (separately) by phone about once every 3 months. I was always the one who initiated contact. The opportunity to sit with the masters in court was never offered, and I had no involvement in their practices whatsoever. I would have welcomed any opportunity to be involved in cases in this way. In short, my pupillage arrangements were of virtually no benefit to me whatsoever. I could have made those contacts myself, and I have obtained more training since then by continuing to contact senior practitioners to ask questions, and by securing a number of junior briefs. I should say that I remain on very good terms with both masters, and that my comments are not a reflection on them but on the lack of clarity and structure in the current pupillage arrangements. I look forward to reform of the existing arrangements to bring them into the 21st century. While you are at it, could you please change the outdated and sexist nomenclature of “pupil” and “master”? The New South Wales terms of “reader” and “tutor” would be a great improvement, as would the Victorian terms of “reader” and “mentor”. Thank you for conducting the survey.”
“The present pupillage system is too ad hoc. There is no uniformity of experiences that pupils can expect to receive. It is completely up to the masters as to how much or how little they involve their pupils. Some pupils get a fantastic learning experience but others get virtually nothing. In my view there should be some sort of baseline set as to the types of experience a pupil MUST be given by a master. Both pupil and master would then know what to expect. Another advantage is that all barristers new to the bar would then have the same level of training.”
“I have had a particularly fortunate experience with my junior master. It would be advantageous to have more interaction with my senior master but it is understandable that he is extremely busy. The bottom line however is to have guidance in regards to what is required in a practical and ethical sense to become professional in this chosen career of law.”
“There is an immense inequity between successful pupillage where the masters are interested in ensuring the exposure and education of the pupil and virtually non-existent pupillage (as in my case) where the masters do not make themselves available or are uninterested. Additionally, the situation causes unnecessary stress and embarrassment. If pupillage is merely a cute tradition, albeit a happy relationship in some/few cases, it ought to be scrapped. Some other improved and focussed system should be put into place to help ensure the initial education and success of new barristers. Serious thought should be given to the introduction of a clerking system specifically restricted to junior barristers, say 0-3 or 5 years out of practice. Such a system, if conducted by conscientious and skilled clerks, is likely to be trusted and used by firms of solicitors seeking more junior barristers…especially those who are nonetheless expert in one or other field.”
“Being given a small but adequate “pupil room” rent free, in my junior master’s chambers for a period of approximately 8 months meant that I had professional support available at all times. It meant I was included in social events at which I was introduced to others working in the profession. The benefits to me from that opportunity are many and varied and ongoing. The generosity and support of the barristers in those chambers was crucial to me developing the confidence and the skills to aspire to a career at the bar.”
“Pupillage does not allow for those going to the bar who have already been solicitors for many years and have experience in briefing and observing barristers.”
“I have been very disappointed the pupillage system as I am still in that period. I have felt unsupported at a time when I needed it most.”
“As there are no “standards” for acting as a junior or senior master, practitioners often agree to take on this role with an expectation that very little will be required of them. Newly admitted counsel are often concerned about intruding where masters are busy. The end result is that many new practitioners do not get assistance, feedback or support which is invaluable in your first year at the Bar. It may be that a different system (perhaps where a chambers group has responsibility for a new reader) may be more effective than a one on one relationship with a single junior master. With respect to the current requirement for a senior master, I am of the view that this relationship would be more effective in the 3rd year of practice, when the opportunity to participate in more complex matters is more realistic.”
“Much more open listing of available junior and senior masters in a central roll on the BAQ website for beginners who know no-one.”
“Pupillage appears to be one of those things that you “get out what you’re prepared to put in”… A useful construct, but needs more rigour in its application.”
“As I commenced employment with a government department, I did not require the pupillage I would have required had I entered private practice in chambers.”
“In respect of the last question, pupils should not have to do criminal work if they only intend to practice in the civil sphere and vice versa (personally I have no interest in criminal law and in 4 years at the bar have never, and will never, run a criminal matter). I strongly believe masters need to be more the drivers of the relationship – it can be awkward for the pupil if they feel like they are imposing on the masters for assistance. Masters should be encouraging meetings, offering briefs for the pupil to peruse, asking the pupil along to court appearances.”
“Those members of counsel accepting the position of master should regard themselves as obliged to pursue pupils continual professional development throughout the pupillage year.”
“There exists a number of junior counsel who had little or no contact with their senior masters, including myself. Some more formal framework should be adopted.”
“Pupils have a vast range of experiences during pupillage. Some masters both junior and senior are happy to see the pupil when approached but make no approaches themselves. The pupil then has minimal interaction for fear of overstepping the boundary. To ensure that the bar properly reflects all walks of society, any changes to the pupillage arrangements must recognise that overheads are high and a lot of new starters already have difficulty in making a living without placing additional burdens on the pupil to participate in unpaid work. There could be some guidelines established to ensure that both parties are enriched by the experience.”
“It would be helpful if there was some kind of mechanism by which all newcomers to the bar could have an opportunity to appear as a junior in trials.”
“I am an experienced lawyer (21 years as a solicitor before admission to the bar) and my practice to date has been exclusively advice work. Consequently my requirements of pupillage masters have differed from other new barristers.”
“It is difficult for regional barristers to have a meaningful connection with their pupils.”
“My only concern with the New South Wales reading requirement is that it may make it more difficult for the less financial pupils to break into the profession.”
“I don’t agree that pupils should spend 10 days in civil and 10 days in crime. It may be that a pupil only intends to practice in one area alone and may be difficult if their master only practises in the one field, which is usually the case. However, some time in one area – crime, family or civil may be useful and workable.”
“Considerable difficulty exists in “requiring” pupils attend unpaid in proceedings to report on the same. Most pupils have to earn a living to meet chambers costs and the like. The better approach to pupillage would be to reintroduce the two counsel rule for silks and thereby create an opportunity for senior masters to incorporate their pupils more readily into the system.”
“There seems to be no obligation felt by masters (senior masters in particular) to provide devilling or allow pupils to participate in court work. I made numerous attempts to contact my senior master and ask for work, to no avail. If masters take on pupils there should be some way to enforce the obligations owed. Alternatively, pupils should have some mechanism to change masters during the pupillage year.”
“Enforced “reading” may be an advantage if it discourages masters from accepting the responsibility in the first instance. More emphasis should be paid by the BAQ to setting out a protocol of what each master is expected to give as to working in the preparation with clients and the brief, and the court environment. If pupils are also aware of this protocol, then they know what to expect of their masters. Testing is not the answer, but the experienced practitioners mentoring. My experience was that neither regular devilling nor offers to accompany and observe (which I was prepared to do without reward) was offered. I was not offered one junior brief, and still have not been, by my senior master.”
“Whether or not a pupil receives work from their master depends upon the practice of their master. It would be ideal if the pupil is led by their master in a trial but the reality of the situation is, I think, a rarity in today’s modern practice.”
“I think pupillage is an antiquated unproductive system designed to achieve little more than to keep people in their place and reduce competition at the bar.”
“I’ve been a barrister in another country before. Rules should accommodate for pupils with prior experience.”
“In regional areas there is a major problem in getting basic opportunities to represent a client (criminal) and make submissions under supervision. Legal Aid Queensland require 6 months criminal law experience before it is possible to join the Duty Lawyer Roster … a catch 22 situation as previously novice barristers would get basic criminal law experience in this role. Finally I have been able to get some experience with ATSILS. Frankly, I was reaching a state of despair that I would ever stand up in a court and make a submission… Please, please look at your new barristers who are looking for a start in a regional area, they do need practical assistance to get on the job training. Forget the readings and papers, senior barristers just don’t have the time and the junior is not getting what they really do need … practical experience.”
“The whole process of pupillage seems to be entirely “hit and miss”. I was very fortunate to have junior and senior masters who were unstintingly encouraging and supportive of me. Many of my colleagues were not so fortunate. One must query the role of the Bar Association itself in relation to pupillage. Apart from preparing and issuing the pupillage rules, the Association appears to lack any interest in pupils. I saw no evidence of the Association seeking to support and encourage new members of the Bar.”
“My senior master has been an excellent mentor, providing guidance, assistance, and devilling work. His efforts embody the true meaning of being a mentor, and for that I am very much appreciative. In contrast, my junior master makes excuses not to see me and when he does it is for his own purpose. He has not provided guidance or mentoring. He is essentially a mentor in name only. The profession of a barrister is one that has limited time constraints, and high demands. It is a high pressure environment. So it is understandable that there are times where it can be difficult, or impossible, to consult with a master, and this simply goes with the job? A master performs an essential role in the barrister profession. It is also the case that a master is not a reference tool, they are to be treated with respect, not only for their experience but also for the fact that they are volunteering to assist the young barristers. Only after exhausting all other avenues would a person go to their master for assistance in relation to a point of practice or legal issue. A person should have researched the issues thoroughly, and have already considered all the options, beforehand. A pupil should not abuse the goodwill extended by their master. However, if a person agrees to take on a role as master, then they should, at the least, show some interest in fulfilling the basic fundamentals of a mentor. And to this end, can I suggest that there should be more guidance by the BAQ as to what a mentor should do, so that a person has a clear understanding of what the role encompasses before they agree to take on the responsibility. It may be necessary to provide a master with guidelines for a minimum level of participation. As a mentor effectually signs off on a person’s pupillage, there is an incentive on the pupil not to report under performing mentors, and not to seek the assistance of the BAQ. I hope that these comments provide assistance.”
“The Bar Association should be responsible for the allocation of pupils to pupil masters. The current ad hoc system finds newly graduated barristers having to find their own masters, and for some with limited success. The pupillage programme needs to be more structured, with pupils and masters clear in what is required (the suggested New South Wales system goes some way to addressing this). This guarantees that pupils will at least receive a minimum acceptable standard of training and experience. While this no doubt puts more responsibilities onto masters (and the Bar Association), this should really be seen as core business for a master, and not an extra burden to carry.”
“My pupillage was invaluable, however I believe that was more out of being lucky with my choice of junior master then anything to do with the system of pupillage. I would strongly recommend some form of compulsory devilling during pupillage as a method to improve the quality of opinions/submissions prepared by pupils.”
“It is hard to find that a year is long enough to learn a profession when the consequences of a stuff up are so readily catastrophic for a client’s prospects and yet somehow we must.”
“Pupillage is not taken seriously in Queensland. In other States there is a strong tie between master and pupil and in some the pupil must be in the master’s chambers during pupillage. Although there is possibly that requirement in Queensland it does not happen in practice – some masters allow squatters for a short time.”
“There should be more obligations placed upon the masters by the Bar Association for them to include the pupil in what area of work they are doing.”
“Pupillage shall only ever be as good as the amount of time both the pupil and master are willing to spend on skills and professional development together. The tradition of “squatting” should be encouraged to facilitate this development. Personally, I would not have any prospects of success at the private bar without having been afforded the opportunity to squat with my junior master. I know that I will become a better barrister for having been strictly moulded and groomed by my masters.”
“Whilst I did not attend at that many hearings with my masters, arrangements were made to attend court etc with other senior or junior counsel. I have found that the collegiate environment at the bar enables continuing and ongoing support.”
“I found both my senior and junior master to be helpful and respectful. They both made time available to me whenever I requested it even when I knew they were very busy. What really needs reform is the institution of silk not the institution of pupillage. I have not received one piece of work from a silk. I have received much work from other juniors by way of devilling or being given the whole case. I resent that many silks never employ a junior. I resent that I have had to appear against silks on a number of occasions and those silks have not had juniors. These solo silks are competing directly with me for work in the area of law that I consider is my strongest. If people wish to take the accolade of silk then they should take the responsibility of having a junior. Pupils should not have to do free work for silks as was proposed in the previous question. Silks should be encouraged to employ pupils as their juniors and ensure that they are adequately paid for the work.”
“I found the relationship with my junior pupil master very valuable, particularly since I chose a junior that practiced in the same area I intended to. My senior was involved in work that was beyond the scope of my ability to participate effectively.”
“A compulsory one-fits-all model is unsuitable because of widely different backgrounds and experience of pupil barristers, and the different types of chambers pupil barristers join. (e.g. the reason I had relatively little professional contact with my junior and senior masters was because they were not in the chambers I ended up joining, and I devilled for and was given much advice and support by the members of that chambers.) Opportunities such as the New South Wales model referred to would be valuable for some, but if made compulsory would be a burden for others, who would be required to sacrifice paying work within their capabilities to undertake training that they don’t need and which (e.g. criminal reading) may be totally irrelevant to their intended fields of practice. The BAQ CPD programme is valuable, convenient and affordable for pupils, and attendance at it should be encouraged.”
“This is where the transfer of skills from silks to the junior bar should occur. It is currently just another tick the box requirement, from my experience. The one time I really needed assistance from my senior master, he spoke to me in an unacceptable manner and could not assist me with a very serious issue. I then went to Tony Glynn SC who assisted with no notice. I could not have asked for a better service.”
“Junior and senior master should give some areas of their cases for readers to research and join them in court as spectating juniors without any remuneration but in a learning capacity and to familiarise themselves with court protocol and procedure. Perhaps the Bar Association could have a log of small matters even pro bono ones that could be allocated to the new barristers to give opportunities for court work, drafting etc. These could be overseen by senior barristers.”
“Whilst my pupil masters made themselves available to me when I requested assistance, I did not ever receive any work from either of my pupil masters. That was a little bit frustrating when some other pupils seemed to be constantly receiving work from their masters. In this regard, it seems to be somewhat “luck of the draw”, although I can’t think of any way of avoiding this (other than telling pupils to do their research on choosing their master). In my case, my pupil masters were really nothing more than a title. Whilst they took my calls and helped me with matters I found difficult, they did nothing more than any other member of the bar whom I have asked for advice over the years. I would support a more structured pupillage programme.”
“Pupillage is really what the pupil makes of the opportunity. Both my masters have been available to me whenever I have asked, but I probably have not made the most of the opportunity.”
“There should be a great deal more structure. There needs to be some guideline for masters, particularly junior masters.”
“The emphasis on training particularly formal is becoming absurd. What the Association should do is that organizations like Legal Aid make sure that work is provided to the bar. This means granting assistance to counsel to appear for committal hearings, requiring the preferred solicitor suppliers to operate a running transparent list of whom they brief – after all where is counsel going to get the experience from.”
“Very difficult when one is at the bar in regional Queensland and has no colleagues in the same town – Bundaberg (2004).”
“Experiences almost certainly differ. I probably felt I needed less guidance (though I certainly needed some) having been a solicitor for 10 years than a university graduate might. There is currently little structure at all to pupillage. A difficulty with compulsory reading or court time is the lack of court work generally.”
“A real problem I have noticed as a junior junior is the getting of in court experience. Most of the civil Magistrates and District Court trial work which was once grist to the mill for a junior junior has now disappeared. I think it is important that junior and senior masters take their pupils to court with them and that a minimum requirement to that effect should be introduced.”
“I think pupillage in Queensland needs to be overhauled. Now that court reports are no longer completed before admission to the bar, there needs to be a system in place whereby new barristers are to attend court; preferably with a pupil master. What about every chamber group being allocated a pupil? That would increase a new barrister’s chance of getting (a) devil work and (b) a “pupil appearance”. What about bringing back compulsory bar/pupil dinners in the common room (giving silks and juniors CPD points for attending and giving, say, a brief talk to pupils). What about bringing back moots – not only for pupils but for all barristers (again, providing CPD points in the advocacy stream for participation and judging). I hope this is of some assistance.”
“I can safely say that I achieved nothing by participating in a pupillage programme.”
“The current system needs to be completely revised. The Bar Association needs to see the entry of legal professionals to the bar in the same light as doctors wishing to specialise. Instruction, guidance and mentoring are all necessary, but sadly lacking. This is not the fault of the masters, who are themselves provided with little or no guidance on how best to assist with the development of a new barrister’s practice. However, the role of masters needs to be reviewed and proper guidelines presented so that both master and pupil are able to benefit from the experience. Principal among these is that the pupil should squat for at least three months in the chambers of one of their masters, so as to gain some actual insights into the proper practice of law at the bar, and to be properly supervised in the conduct of early cases and devilling work. Ideally, pupils would receive a paid period (for perhaps six months) during which time they would be expected to assist their master(s) on a daily basis. Taking work in their own name should be discouraged for the first three months. In paying for the first six months, the master can truly utilise the skills of the new junior, and the new junior cannot trouble themselves overly with cashflow issues; there will be enough time for worry once they take up their own chambers. There are many, many other changes which need to be adopted. Whilst New South Wales has a better programme than Queensland, the English Bar are the leaders in this area and their example should be copied as much as possible. I implore the Association to make wholesale, rather than tokenistic, changes to the pupillage system. The benefits to the image of the profession and the Association itself will become manifest within a few short years. I eagerly await the results of the current survey”
“My experience is that it is a fiction.”
“I was one of the few and very fortunate who had a pupil master who actually looked after me, at what must have been a considerable cost to him. My pupillage has been of immeasurable benefit to me.”
“My pupil masters were accessible, even if I did not take full advantage of their availability and preparedness to assist. Pupillage is an excellent system, which perhaps could be extended to 24 months.”
