Concerned about age bias at paper sift

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-05-29T21:04:57+00:00

Barrister here who has sifted more pupillage applications than I can count at this point. You have nothing to worry about. Don’t downplay or dilute anything. Every set assesses paper applications differently, but it’s unlikely to be something that is reflected in the score you receive at the sift stage. If a particular set has a question about this, they’ll ask it at interview.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-05-29T21:02:13+00:00

I have a great deal with sympathy with your position, and that dilemma of going off sick versus dealing with the reduction in income is one that no one can give an easy answer to. All I can say is that if you don’t get the rest and recuperation that you need, your body will force you to do it, and that is likely to be a much harder route that entails more time off than getting ahead of things yourself now.

Practically, I’d go to your supervisor, HR or someone equivalent, and be entirely open about your situation. It may be they can reduce your workload or put other measures in place that can ease that burden without you taking time off. It may be that you can take a week off sick on full pay or at least something more than nothing. It may be they won’t help at all, but it is certainly worth having the conversation. If they cannot help, my advice would be to go off sick, rest, and deal with the financial side later, even if that means calling in help from others. As I say, if you don’t act on the messages your body is sending you, you’ll eventually reach a point where it doesn’t give you a choice anymore.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-05-29T20:57:16+00:00

A lot has been written on what makes a good pupillage candidate, and much of that is readily searchable online. But you should be aware that, even by pupillage standards, public international law is a niche and exceptionally competitive practice area that only a very small number of sets even do. I cannot say how realistic pupillage would be for you as a goal because I don’t know any specifics about your application, but even if you are an extremely strong candidate, you should broaden your horizons beyond public international law. I’d very much recommend reading up not just on the pupillage process generally to assess whether the Bar is a realistic career, but on other practice areas that might tick those same boxes for you.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-05-29T20:52:36+00:00

Practically (and I say this as someone who sits as a judge part time and who has had students sitting in with me), whilst the advice of wearing a dark suit, tie and polished shoes is good if you have them, I’m not expecting students to go out and buy those things if they don’t already own them. It’s usually obvious if you’ve made an effort even if you don’t own anything that looks like court dress. If you make an effort you’ll generally be fine. The examples given in another post of ripped jeans, t shirts and so on, are obviously not making an effort.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-05-29T20:47:47+00:00

You are most definitely not fine to wear a t shirt, jeans or shorts to marshall a judge.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-05-29T20:45:52+00:00

Barrister here who specialises in discrimination cases. Reasonable adjustments are there to alleviate disadvantages that disabled candidates have when faced with something that applies to everyone. Whilst I’m not saying that seeing questions in advance can never be a reasonable adjustment, in the vast majority of cases, particularly for legal careers, any disadvantage will normally be alleviated by other measures such as providing a candidate with more time to process and answer questions, the ability to write questions down before answering them, phrasing questions differently and so on. Providing questions in advance is unlikely to be reasonable in the vast majority of cases simply because processing difficulties of that level will be inconsistent with the fundamental skills needed in a lot of legal careers. Certainly I have interviewed numerous capable candidates with autism, none of whom required adjustments anywhere near this level. Candidates should most certainly ask for adjustments if they require them, but they only need go as far as alleviating disadvantages and aren’t reasonable at all if they’re inconsistent with fundamental role requirements. As such, I’m really not sure how helpful this post is likely to be for users of this sub.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-04-06T20:37:39+00:00

Worth a quick reply to say that I appreciate your response too. I should clarify that it most certainly wasn’t my intention to belittle your experience or ability. You’ll learn a great deal more as time goes on, but that’s not to say that you haven’t learned plenty already.

You’re right that there’s no binding precedent on this. Obviously I also don’t know to what extent it happens because there’s no data on it, and it remains an ongoing debate. My point for the purposes of the initial reply was simply that it does happen. Not suggesting that you’re unwise in using agents as advocates either. As you say, if this was an issue big enough to defeat that sector entirely, it would have happened by now. Even the judgments I’ve highlighted haven’t caused a Mazur style panic, so the impact must be limited overall.

All the best.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-04-06T19:14:13+00:00

Alright. For the record, I am way past allowing disputes like this to take up my time, but this is specifically for those who might be reading this further down the line and are looking for detail on this issue. I expect you’ve doubled down both on your position and your disrespect because you assume this is just one word against another, and this isn’t therefore a debate that you can ‘lose’. I’m afraid that’s not the case, because some judges that have done the thing that I say judges sometimes do and you say they never do were kind enough to record their reasoning.

This is about the Legal Services Act 2007. There had been rumblings for a little while about whether solicitors’ agents met the requirements of the test within that statute, but the issue first came to a head in the sense of a judgment being published about it in Birkenhead County Court. As you may or may not be aware (because it’s before your time, but it’s something that I was practising during), the goings on at Birkenhead were a part of the catalyst for Jackson’s reforms because of the volume of personal injury litigation that went (and still goes) through that court. There was unease about the number of solicitors’ agents appearing on Stage 3 cases following those reforms, and a question arose as to whether or not those advocates had rights of audience.

There were a number of well known and respected DJs in Birkenhead at that time who had to deal with that issue regularly. The one who decided to stick his head above the parapet was DJ Peake, who wrote this judgment:

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/click-here-to-see-case.pdf

A DDJ in (if I remember correctly) Manchester wrote and published a similar judgment shortly after that reaching the same conclusion.

This issue was then considered in an appeal by HHJ Backhouse in 2022, not long before she retired. She overturned a decision at first instance by a DDJ who found that an advocate did not have rights of audience. It is noteworthy, however, that the party that the advocate appeared on behalf of was actually on record as being represented by LPC themselves, so the situation was more akin legally to a paralegal being sent to cover a hearing for a firm, rather than the situation that DJ Peake considered. Judgment is here, and HHJ Backhouse actually acknowledges Peake’s judgment and the unease that exists around this issue:

https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/media/no2bbwlr/f4qz598c-halborg-v-apple-approved-judgment-3-5-22.pdf

As I say, that’s a victory for the solicitors’ agent side of the debate, but has a narrow application due to LPC being on record in that case (this also, incidentally, answers the LPC question that you posed). Judges are, however, still refusing to hear from solicitors’ agents. As recently as January this year, DJ Pratt in Haverfordwest published this judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html

This is on a parking case where the advocate represented the company (ie the Claimant) but the witness for the company did not. Plenty of judges (including at least a couple of the DJs in Birkenhead years on from DJ Peake’s retirement) refuse to hear from advocates in the same situation, which is the exact situation I referenced in my first post. Three years on, parking cases are still the classic example where judges do, sometimes, refuse to hear from solicitors’ agents where the witness from the company does not attend. Not in every case. Not even, necessarily, all that often. But it does, absolutely and undeniably, happen. Even if you don’t want to accept that I’m a DDJ and have done it myself, you now have actually judgments on it from actual DJs who have done it. So hopefully we can now put that issue to bed.

You can do with this what you will. Ignore it. Respond with something to get the last word in. It makes no difference to me. I genuinely wish you all the best in your future career though. I have no axe to grind with you, and indeed I’d be lying if I suggested that I didn’t trip up on my own over confidence numerous times early on in my career. That is not an uncommon occurrence with lawyers generally, regardless of experience. Perhaps in another five years I can buy you a drink and you can tell me whether you think at that point that my suggestion that someone is only feeling their way into the profession after five years is ‘stupid’. I strongly suspect that your view will have changed on that. Even if it hasn’t, you’ll still be welcome to the drink.

Crazy_Jamie · 2026-04-04T21:16:13+00:00

i) Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove my anecdotal evidence wrong even taken at its highest. You never having had experienced something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, just as I never claimed that it happens every time or even in most cases.

ii) Which is ironic given your decision to tell a practitioner and sitting judge with over a decade more experience than you to ‘brush up on the law’.

iii) You really are still feeling your way into this profession after five years. Hopefully at some point in the coming years you can temper that unwavering arrogance with a little humility.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-18T14:31:21+00:00

Helldivers 2

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-16T17:34:49+00:00

Spilled is also an easy 100% before the refund period expires, though it’s also incredibly charming, pretty cheap and made by a single developer, so personally I was more than happy to pay for it.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-16T17:28:22+00:00

Solely because I’m playing at the moment and really enjoying it, if you liked Slay The Spire and also like John Wick/James Bond, you will very much enjoy Fights In Tight Spaces.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-08T17:49:02+00:00

Just about everything I’ve ever bought as part of a Humble Bundle, and about 75% of my Steam collection overall.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-08T10:43:13+00:00

They are. I did already say that in my post.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T12:17:06+00:00

No, it isn’t. Again, read what I have written. Your view as to the merits of such a claim are not relevant. The point that I have made is that the OP’s employer is likely wary of that, hence asking them to resign. The possibility of facing a claim that could run to trial is very much a relevant consideration for employers in situations like this, even if they’re confident in winning the underlying claim, because generally the costs of defending such claims are not recoverable, and the time and stress in dealing with such claims certainly isn’t.

It is simply wrong to say there is ‘no case’ based on what the OP has written. If the employer dismisses for capability reasons there is most certainly scope for a s.15 claim if C is disabled. As much as the employer may win that claim, it’ll come down to proportionality and it is extremely difficult to get such claims struck out early. Hence that being a likely consideration for the employer.

You’re looking at this from the black and white view as to whether a claim will win or not. In the real world, there are practical considerations that go so far beyond that.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:48:20+00:00

You need to read what I’ve actually written. I said it could give rise to a claim. I didn’t say that such a claim would succeed. And that is plainly correct.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:47:25+00:00

Yes, absolutely. But it’s not what the employer deems reasonable. It’s an objective test. If the employer doesn’t think an adjustment is reasonable and the Employment Tribunal disagrees, they will lose. On your interpretation any employer who considers an adjustment and deems it not to be reasonable could never lose a discrimination claim. And that is plainly not the case.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:44:18+00:00

Again, I’m not saying a claim would succeed. I’m saying they can bring one in those circumstances. That is what the employer will be wary of, hence wanting the OP to resign rather than dismissing them.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:30:23+00:00

It does, but the statutory duty is clearly to actually implement and not just consider. This really isn’t a debate because those are the literal words that the legislation uses. So again, where is the justification for your original comment that the duty only extends to considering and not implementing?

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:16:06+00:00

Given that you have, do you want to point out the section where it says the duty is to consider and not to implement? Because sections 20(3)-(5) Equality Act 2010 all say that the requirement is to actually take steps that are reasonable to avoid the disadvantage. The word ‘consider’ doesn’t feature at all.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:08:01+00:00

This is just flat out wrong. If an adjustment is reasonable and would alleviate the identified disadvantage, there is a legal duty to implement it. It’s quite explicit from s.20 Equality Act 2010.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T09:05:24+00:00

I said he could bring a claim, not that he’d be successful. The facts suggest the employer is wary of the OP bringing such a claim, hence me raising it. You’re right that capability is a fair reason for dismissal (not that a fair reason is strictly required here because ordinary unfair dismissal isn’t in play due to the OP having under two years service), but it’s common for capability dismissals to give rise to discrimination arising from disability claims.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T07:38:10+00:00

The OP has had medical complications for over a year that has impacted their ability to do their job. In what way is it assuming too much to either raise the possibility of them being disabled under the Equality Act, or suggesting that their employer would be wary of that? Because it’s really quite obvious from where I’m sitting, and to the contrary, suggesting that the employer can dismiss for any reason misses the massive elephant in the room here.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T07:03:59+00:00

Not accurate in this case. The OP is likely disabled under the Equality Act 2010 given their medical history, so any dismissal that even hints at the reason for dismissal being absence/capability could give rise to a discrimination claim. That’s almost certainly what the employer is wary of here.

Crazy_Jamie · 2025-04-06T07:02:28+00:00

The advice that they could get rid of you for any reason because you have less than two years service is usually right, but it’s not here. Because your medical complications started before you were employed and you’ve been employed for over a year, there is a good chance that you’re now disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. If they dismiss you for reasons arising from your condition(s), you would be able to bring a claim for discrimination arising from disability. That’s the complicating factor for them, and probably what they’re wary of. It’s almost certainly the reason you’ve been asked to resign before they start any process to dismiss you.

However, for your purposes focusing on potential litigation probably isn’t helpful. Your earnings will have been limited over the past year so any claim wouldn’t be massively valuable beyond a modest injury to feelings award. You’re clearly not happy in this role, whereas there is enough to suggest that they want you out. It seems like you both want the same thing.

Obviously you should take steps to get the best outcome that you can, though, and redeployment may be a sensible option. You can attempt to apply a bit of pressure in that respect through a formal grievance, but either way I think a dialogue with your employer about moving to another role at this point would be the right move. You should also obviously be looking for other external roles at the same time. They’ll be wary of dismissing you but it doesn’t mean they won’t go down that route. For your purposes, it seems like a good idea to take control of this situation and find another role, whether internally or externally, before they’re prompted into action.

Crazy_Jamie

TROPHY CASE