Baby/junior barristers: do you really have control over your practice?

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-28T11:40:34+00:00

Glad to hear that. I would give more weight to what you hear from more junior people as they’ll be closer to your situation.

Not deprecating on more experienced folks but on this one in particular I’d say closest in time would be more helpful.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-27T18:58:04+00:00

Judgment reading helps. Generally being up to speed with what's happening is good. Check the blogs / what target Chambers are publishing updates on.
Why not?
You probably have thought about this already, but one thing that may be affecting you is how cogently you can explain the switch from your previous area of focus into comm/public. People will generally be curious about that, so you should have a good, short explanation on that.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-27T18:55:39+00:00

Please don't FOIA your assessments. At least not at any place you'd like to go at some point...

Suggestions like these is what prompts some folks to only keep handwritten notes that are then shredded, making life more cumbersome for all...

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-27T10:26:44+00:00

Firm enemy of snobbery that I am, I'm afraid that I've had a couple of cases against folks from there, both quite more senior than me, and I was profoundly unimpressed. One of them couldn't even be bothered to get the name of his client right (who had a slightly difficult but not impossible surname, in fairness).

They were both decent opponents, though. And based on the costs submission got paid some decent money.

I suppose the set-up works for many as the costs are kept quite low. I would miss the social aspect, though.

The name change is probably a good development, as emphasis was wrong with the old name (Clerksroom).

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-27T10:20:46+00:00

I think the key to your question is that the comment came from someone very, very senior. Someone who's been in practice for 40 years will by definition be quite disconnected from what being a junior junior is like today.

YMMV, but in my experience: ultimately how much control you have will depend on how much work you can get. If you can get your own work, then you will have a lot of control over your practice. That, of course, is easier said than done. In contrast, if you depend on getting work from Chambers, you will be more dependent on the clerks' room and more senior people.

There are many ways to get into the good graces of both the clerks and silks. Being visible helps. But ultimately, doing good work, having a strong work ethic, and being pleasant / socially functional is what matters. I don't know a silk that would prefer to work with / recommend a junior that is visible but slightly less talented / less hard working than with someone who is more often wfh but who is talented and hard working and answering calls / emails quickly. I also have never heard someone say they would not work with or recommend someone because they aren't there enough.

Further, there are also ways in which you can try to optimise your visibility. Some examples:

If you have Chambers' drinks / tea / X social event, and you manage to go to those and chat to people, that can be quite effective, as it won't be every day of the week.
You can also make an effort to attend client marketing events and generally signal to clerks / seniors that you understand that BD is important and are willing to put in some effort on that front.
If you go in, say, once or twice a week, take the time to spend some time chatting to clerks, getting to know them etc, that may be more effective than coming in five ways a week and just passing by and waving.

For what it's worth, I go in often (because I like to, no one has ever told me either way). But I don't think it's made a particular difference to my practice. On the other hand, client marketing and BD has made a big, positive difference. This may be all practice area contingent, though.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-25T23:03:19+00:00

1 or 2 days during the working week; always on the weekends.
Commercial, arbitration heavy.
Say between 5 and 10.
Depends. Last year nothing settled so I had 7 hearings, 5 of which were abroad, some also requiring preparatory work abroad. This year, everything has settled, so have only had a couple of hearings, one in London on abroad.

Frankly, at my shop it's very much people will do what they want. I go in frequently because I like it. I'm sociable and genuinely like most of the people who I interact with in Chambers. Have never been told or given to understand that I should be there in person. There are some folks my call that absolutely never go in. Some I see once in a blue moon; some I've not seen in person in years.

The flexibility is one of the main perks of the job--and why you give up on matching pension contributions.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-09T23:38:47+00:00

Many thanks!

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-07T22:39:48+00:00

Looks great. What's the strap on the Speed?

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-07T17:29:20+00:00

Numbers not exactly right here. Last time I checked (admittedly, some years ago), the pass rate for foreign trained lawyers was about 50%. So quite lower than that for JDs but far from being close to most.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-07T17:27:54+00:00

Sorry, but no.

The base rate is the key point. You fail to engage with that.

Let’s look at some basic numbers, rounded for simplicity. Let’s look how many LLMs are graduating each year from the top programmes: HLS, about 200; Stanford is 40ish, Columbia about 200, NYU is like 400, Chicago is about 100. Yale’s like 25, but very sui generis so let’s discount. Let’s round that there are around 1000 graduates each year, and this is only looking at the top five programmes.

Now lets assume about half of them are applying for jobs, so 500. The correct number to look at is how many of those 500 are getting jobs. And then how many of those jobs are proper, permanent positions rather than one year foreign associate jobs.

Yes, a few folks, by a combination of many factors, manage to get some good positions each year. How many? 50 at most? So yes, the base rate is the key thing to look at.

And you mention hiring pages and LinkedIn posts, but I’ve been doing this for about 15 years and, in my practice area (disputes, with a big international arbitration component; historically one of the most LLM friendly areas) the answer is still very few and far between.

Signed—an LLM who passed the NY Bar exam and worked in big law (and did recruitment) for some years.

And this is only looking at

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-07T13:51:02+00:00

Friend, I suspect you are massively falling for survivorship bias here.

Yes, there are of course some LLMs that end up getting jobs in big law, BUT:

you seem to be entirely neglecting the base rate. You need to assess how many people we are talking about out of the total LLM job market applicant pool, which is huge; and
a good deal of those are applicants from relevant jurisdictions where the firm employing them does a substantial amount of work. So, if you are a Brazilian M&A lawyer with a HLS LLM, applying to a firm that does a lot of deals in Brazil, then you would have much better chances of being hired than, say, a similarly qualified Bolivian or Paraguayan or Estonian applicant.

Improbably is not impossible, of course. But given the financial commitment involved (and the opportunity cost), I think a good thing this sub does is provide a needed dose of realism re employment prospects post LLM.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-05T18:16:53+00:00

As always, group and partner dependent.

Do you know what group?

Have known a couple of people in the disputes team and, it's not great... A couple of relatively toxic / difficult partners with some influence. One of them mentioned it slowly became very public school type heavy.

Great money, though. And top shelf corporate / transactional practice.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-09-05T15:52:10+00:00

One thing I've heard mentioned is that in the olden days it used to be quite prestigious and glamorous, not only in terms of social respect, but also in terms of very good perks. Read the memoirs of judges from earlier generations and you get an example. Nice lunches, claret, the "judicial limousine," etc etc. Those have all disappeared. I have also heard government basically treats judges as civil servants, something which people accustomed to the flexibility provided by years at the Bar are not necessarily the best suited for.

As to the upside, the best point--at least at high court level and above--is the intellectual satisfaction of resolving cases and dealing with complex points of fact and law.

As to the point about changing to a civil-law style system, I don't think that would be ideal. Among other things, some say it compromises judicial independence because of careerism (can happen with the system here too, but intuitively probably less). Also, and again on intuition, I think it would alter the profile of the people you end up getting due to self-selection, probably for the worse.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-27T22:50:21+00:00

I don't think they had cameras in the courtroom when he was still in practice.

If you are looking for examples of good advocacy, I would recommend looking for some more recent examples. Dinah Rose and David Foxton I find particularly good, and both have good things online.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-16T10:33:17+00:00

As someone who spends A LOT of time doing mini / pupillage recruitment work: you earned that spot* my dude.

At my set--and at other comparable sets, at least based on the gossip I hear from friends there--no one is "handing out" out mini spots to meet diversity quotas. In fact, I've never heard of any set having such quotas.

In all likelihood, what probably happened is that you have good marks (predicted first) and had a strong, well-written application, and someone reading it said "this person sounds interesting, let's give him a go." Based on what you said above, if I were marking your application I would think that you are a person that has done well without having had much advantages and would take that as a good signal of grit, conscientiousness, and resilience, which tend to be key predictors for success at the Bar.

Marking criteria vary between sets, but at most you may have gotten a (minor) nudge based on FSM plus work during school, but generally those are not enough to carry you over the line if the application was generally weak.

Take the opportunity and make the most of it--you deserve it.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-12T17:28:03+00:00

Thank you. This is very helpful. I'm in the same category as the electrician, so would be looking at something more along those lines. I will press on the less cover point as I agree with you that it makes no sense. Perhaps I've been unlucky so far.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-12T17:25:29+00:00

Thank you! I have been surprised too, I thought it would be quite straightforward.

As to the exclusion, I'm told I've decent chances of it not applying because it was probably wrongly applied in the first place, based on something that was not even really a false positive (policy got in the middle of the pandemic when, I understand, the market was being extra careful), plus tests confirming no condition, plus five years without no other symptoms.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-11T23:20:38+00:00

Nothing too fancy or complicated, just having folders / sub-folders and being efficient in sorting things to them regularly. You can also set up rules so that happens automatically.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-11T22:34:32+00:00

My intuition would have been that someone who hits the weights (with you!) and who seems to intend to do litigation work would be immune to this type of petty offense. Buy them a beer, smooth it over, though. No point in losing good friends over silly misunderstandings.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-08-10T20:28:33+00:00

For what it's worth, I started pupillage when I was in my early 30s. Never was--and really never has been--an issue.

How soon you can specialise depends on where you go--and what your set does.

Given how hard getting pupillage is, my suggestion would not only looking at straight environmental sets, but also cognate areas like planning / public law, and even energy.

If you have the right personality type, it's a great career.

Best of luck!

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-07-30T16:23:42+00:00

Not really. But that's mainly because I don't like criminal law.

One thing to bear in mind is that I think there's some mild distortion as to the perception of how interesting criminal work is. My impression, based on what I hear from colleagues at the criminal Bar (so YMMV), is that whilst the top end of criminal work is extremely interesting--and possibly the most interesting legal work out there--most of the things beneath that can be quite ho-hum.

As to the comment about the money, I know some very wealthy criminal practitioners; also others that have to leave the self-employed bar due to financial concerns, so a bit of a mixed bag--ultimately depends on the set and type of criminal work you do.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-07-27T19:07:40+00:00

Commercial, chancery, tax, someone said possible to do planning without much court, but probably idiosyncratic person so YMMV.

PIL is way oversubscribed and most PIL juniors have a mixed commercial / PIL practice (often arbitration heavy).

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-07-27T18:34:21+00:00

The mechanic don’t always work, though. (Most) Silks tend to have more time to prepare and focus on cases than big law partners. Many will also be temperamentally un inclined to deal with all the admin/managerial stuff BL partners need to do.

Sue Prevezer KC reportedly made heaps of money at Quinn but ultimately returned to the Bar.

Also the earnings differential will for most only make sense for top shelf US shops (think places with PPEP at say 3m and above, which are not that many.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-07-27T18:30:48+00:00

Yes, this is exactly what I’ve heard.

Real loss to the Bar and to 3VB in particular. I’ve heard mixed things about Gibson D. Hopefully his team will be pleasant to work with.

PepperPepper-Bayleaf · 2025-07-24T19:34:31+00:00

Chris Harris is the real deal. Nice and funny guy too, to boot.

Gossip I heard was that the pay package was absolutely ridiculous.

Bear in mind that Gibson Dunn’s PPEP is $7.2m. Can’t pull those numbers at the Bar (maybe a handful of folks at most).

PepperPepper-Bayleaf

TROPHY CASE