header-logo header-logo

10 April 2024
Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Training & education , Education
printer mail-detail

Change to barrister training is ‘wrong approach’

The Bar Council has opposed its regulator’s proposals to reduce the academic standards required for the Bar

In January, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) launched its ‘Consultation on proposed amendments to the definition of academic legal training and related exemptions’, suggesting four potential reforms by September 2025.

In a stiff rebuke this week, however, the Bar Council opposed three of these reforms: removing the requirement for a minimum 2:2 degree, giving authorised education and training organisations the power to decide whether applicants are academically competent, and removing the requirement for certain applicants to obtain a Certificate of Academic Standing.

Sam Townend KC, Chair of the Bar Council, said the majority of the BSB’s proposed reforms ‘would lower standards, make the assessment of academic standards equivalent to degrees more difficult, and transfer decisions away from the BSB (the regulator formally tasked with the job) to the training providers, who are not accountable and who have a clear financial interest in maximising the number of students taking up Bar training.

‘There are already thousands taking the roughly 20 Bar training courses, but only a little over 600 pupillage places. The clear intent of the regulator’s intended reform is to increase yet further the numbers taking Bar training courses, inevitably ramping up further the numbers of students who will have paid the high level of fees but be disappointed in not obtaining a pupillage. We think this is the wrong approach.’

The Bar Council said it was neutral about the fourth proposal, amending the definition of academic legal training so as to remove prescriptive detail.

According to the BSB, there were 2,360 enrolments on the 2023 Bar training course. Only 638 pupillages were advertised through the Pupillage Gateway.

Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Training & education , Education
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll