BSB rejects call-deferral for pupil barristers
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) today (8 June) rejected controversial proposals by the Bar Council to defer calling junior barristers to the Bar until completion of their formal 12-month training. The BSB rejected the plans after a 12-month consultation amid concerns that allowing individuals to refer to themselves as barristers immediately after completing the Bar Vocational Course (BVC) could be misleading for the general public.
June 08, 2007 at 08:39 AM
2 minute read
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) today (8 June) rejected controversial proposals by the Bar Council to defer calling junior barristers to the Bar until completion of their formal 12-month training.
The BSB rejected the plans after a 12-month consultation amid concerns that allowing individuals to refer to themselves as barristers immediately after completing the Bar Vocational Course (BVC) could be misleading for the general public.
However, the BSB said that the plans were "not an appropriate response" to the risk of misleading the public.
The BSB instead recommends a raft of changes to the present system, including an online register of all qualified barristers. Those undertaking pupillage would be referred to as 'trainee barristers'.
BSB chair Ruth Evans commented: "We found very little evidence that the existing protections in the Bar's Code of Conduct and the criminal law are not sufficient to protect the public from harm. Added to that, deferral of call would not, per se, remove the risk of misdescription."
She added: "[We] also take the view that deferring call could cause significant harm, by making the process of awarding the degree of 'barrister' less fair and transparent and by deterring non-UK students from qualifying as English barristers, with the cultural, academic and economic benefits that this brings."
The news underlines the increasingly strained relationship between the BSB and the Bar Council. Last month, the BSB voiced its opposition to proposals to limit the number of BVC places available as well as rejecting plans to increase the minimum academic requirement for BVC entry to a 2:1 degree.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHSF Defends Bayer on Roundup Class Action as Litigation Comes to an End in Australia
2 minute readNorton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over 'Unreasonable' Ethnicity Score System
3 minute readBirkenstocks: Footwear or Fine Art? German Law Firm SKW Schwarz Steps Up in Court
Freshfields and Quinn Emanuel Face Off in Latest JP Morgan-WeRealize Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge in NYC Mayor's Public Corruption Case Has a Reminder for Advocates
- 2Former US State Dept. Official Joins King & Spalding Investigations Group
- 3Juror No. 3 Challenges Florida Defense Counsel During Closing Argument
- 4Fourth Circuit Seeks More Legal Briefs in Unresolved N.C. Supreme Court Election
- 5iRobot Picks Up Law Firm Partner as New Legal Chief
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250