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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll