Inns of Courts’ role in barrister training defended by Bar Council

The role of the Inns of Court in the education and training of aspiring barristers has been strongly defended by the Bar Council after it was revealed that joining an inn could be no longer compulsory under Bar Standards Board (BSB) plans to overhaul the training of barristers.

The Bar Council believes that compulsory membership of an Inn of Court helps to create a level playing field for those at the early stages of entry to the barristers’ profession. It argues that through Inn dining sessions, workshops and other events where prospective pupils meet and form professional relationships with senior members of the profession, everyone has equal opportunities to get ahead. As Legal Futures reports, the barristers’ body warns that reducing the role of Inns in education and training would “disadvantage those with the least social capital” (ie, those lacking family connections or connections established by being part of a network of people who attended the same elite private schools).

The Bar Council also moved to defend the minimum 12-month period for pupillages, arguing that the standardised structure enables chambers to establish common ideas on best practice and provides necessary predictability for aspiring pupils.

Commenting on the role of the Inns of Court, the Bar Council said: “Joining an Inn should be a leveller. It does not matter whether you are the child of a judge, or have never met a barrister before in your life – you can join an Inn and you will have the same opportunity to meet barristers and judges, as well as to meet your own peer group. We agree with the BSB’s suggestion that if membership of an Inn were made optional, it is likely to be those most in need of what the Inns can offer who would be the most likely to choose not to join, because they feel socially different, or are nervous because they will not be part of a group of friends who will be joining together.

“We do not believe that the benefits provided by Inn membership could be effectively replicated by any other institution, because there are no other institutions that can currently offer repeated contact both with practising members of the profession of a range of seniority, and with judges.”