BSB delays introduction of written pupillage agreements


Agreements: Plans put on ice

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has delayed plans to require chambers to enter into written agreements with pupils, which were due to come into force in just two months’ time.

The hope was that written agreements would reduce the risk of pupil barristers being subjected to “inappropriate behaviour”.

The Bar Council supported the move, saying it may help to counter “shocking” instances of abusive treatment.

The BSB also proposed to make it compulsory for chambers and other training providers to bring their pupillage recruitment timetables into line with the Pupillage Gateway.

The plan had been that these requirements would be introduced as conditions of chambers or other authorised education and training organisations being able to take pupils.

But in a statement, the BSB said: “We have now decided that, if these proposals are adopted, more time would be needed for implementation.

“We will announce the outcome of the engagement programme and any dates by which implementation would be required in due course.”

In a consultation issued in May, the BSB said the reasons for making written terms compulsory was to help pupil supervisors and pupils “understand their obligations” and to make “the pupillage experience across the Bar” more consistent.

“We also have evidence to suggest that some pupils are at risk of inappropriate behaviours and written terms, with clear policies setting out the course of action to be taken should inappropriate behaviour occur, is a way to address this.”

On recruitment, it is already compulsory for all pupillages to be advertised on the Pupillage Gateway, but training providers do not have to follow its November to May recruiting cycle – leaving the way open for early offers.

The BSB said: “Earlier or later advertisement on the gateway may disadvantage certain applicants who are less likely to be aware that these opportunities exist.

“This potentially excludes candidates from the application phase, which could be a barrier to accessing pupillage opportunities and may disproportionately affect those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.”




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

13 November 2019

The October PII renewal: Why the market changed

Since the abolition of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, the October professional indemnity insurance renewal season has always been a challenge, but this year most law firms saw their premiums go up.

Read More

Loading animation