Qualifying to be a lawyer is not straightforward nowadays, if it ever was. Quite aside from showing dedication to their often demanding studies, students today face the unenviable task of trying to decipher exactly what on earth all the abbreviated course names stand for. The ‘law degree route’ to qualification involves an LLB or BA, which may be followed by an LLM or a BCL and possibly an LL.D. For my part, I took the ‘non-law degree route’: a BA in Modern Languages followed by a CPE (otherwise known as a GDL). This ‘academic’ stage complete, aspirant solicitors then take the LPC. Barristers-to-be have to complete the BVC at provider schools like BPP or ICSL. Successful candidates are then called to the Bar in a state of frank bewilderment as to which course they did when, and, more importantly, how useful they all were for the pupillage that awaits them at the start of their professional life. The pupillage that awaits those fortunate enough to have obtained one, that is.

I suspect that a significant number of those who sit on pupillage interview panels would openly state that a candidate’s performance on the Bar Vocational Course, or ‘BVC’, is one of the least important factors that are considered in determining applications. Less important, that is, than purely academic credentials gained through school and university examination performance. Less important than participation in traditionally recognised forms of legal training such as mooting or debating. Less important, too, than a candidate’s potential to ‘fit in’ to Chambers. A prevalent belief amongst many practitioners of all levels of seniority is that the inevitably artificial training offered by the BVC can never compare to the real learning-curve experienced during pupillage.

Far be it from one not yet called to the Bar to comment upon these views. It may well be that, in assessing the quality of applicants for pupillage, performance on the BVC is rightly a lesser consideration. Few would disagree, after all, that academic ability is important at the Bar (not least because true academic success comports a certain work ethic), and that there can be no substitute for experiencing real life cases with a pupil-supervisor as a means of training. What prompts this article is not a concern about that but rather about a distinct yet often conflated view: that the BVC is of minimal value to the embryo-barrister, or, worse still, is simply not worthwhile. The fact is clear: although they may not admit it in formal surrounds, many fully-qualified barristers remain of the view that the BVC sooner deserves their disregard than their respect. They are, I think, wrong to do so.

Today’s BVC is very different from old ‘Bar Finals’. There is no particular academic emphasis on the new course. It is fundamentally ‘vocational’. Designed and taught well, a modern BVC will never fully equip the law student for pupillage, (and even less so for a pupillage in a specialised area of the law), but it gives him or her a running start. It covers a wide range of general skills, including civil and criminal litigation, advocacy, conference, negotiation, legal research, opinion writing, drafting, and professional ethics. And contrary to the belief of those out-of-touch, it is hard work.

Even the student with pupillage already secured is ill-advised to take the BVC lightly, because the well-designed ‘mock’ briefs (sometimes actual past cases) throw up many of the issues which typically arise in real life. Although the course is designed primarily for the general practitioner who concentrates substantively on contract, tort and crime, the ‘specialist’ is catered for with options such as Chancery and Public Law. The best BVC providers timetable classes on criminal and civil litigation to precede corresponding classes in advocacy in the same week so that relevant procedure and tests are fresh in the advocate’s memory. Students have the time to learn the skills at a sensible pace and in a sensible order.

The course is not just a question of box-ticking. Students can take a great deal from the BVC into pupillage. Three examples might persuade the reader.

Firstly, it is now common for a student’s performance in an advocacy class to be recorded on DVD, affording him an opportunity to observe his court demeanour which he would otherwise probably never have. As a result, friends of mine have been able to iron out undesirable features of their advocacy before ever appearing in court. The Civil Procedure Rules require the court to make use of technology where appropriate to do so to further justice; the same principle is now rightly applied to Bar training.

Secondly, the practically-based BVC forces students to appreciate the differences between academic law and law in practice, and helps them to bridge that gap. My outstanding recollection of academic contract law is that it comprised a succession of cases about horses (I do myself only a minor disservice). A necessary prelude to the application of law in practice, my study of contractual theory (‘is freedom of contract a good thing’?) nonetheless failed to make me appreciate the significance of contractual remedies in the real world. Working on a typical BVC case, I now ask: what precisely are the terms alleged to have been breached? Is there, in fact, a breach? Are the Defendants entitled to withhold payment entirely under the contract or must they pay now and claim damages later? I feel confident enough now to apply these practical concerns to all cases in which they are pertinent, regardless of whether there is any equine content on the facts.

Thirdly, the requirement on the BVC to study ‘Professional Ethics’ should not be undervalued. In classes last term, I found it interesting how many students, before becoming familiar with the Code of Conduct, would have withdrawn from representing a criminal client they believed was guilty, even if the client had not expressed his guilt to them. It is surely essential that future barristers understand the adversarial underpinning of our justice system before they become vital members of it.

The above granted, there remain justified criticisms of the BVC. The hugely disproportionate fees of the nine month course are a plain disgrace. In central London nearly £12,500 is charged. Even in spite of the availability of Inn scholarships and possible ‘draw-down’ money from chambers’ pupillage awards, the size of the fees does the Bar no credit at a time when it is rightly committed to attracting candidates from all financial backgrounds. To stress that banks are more willing to lend to future barristers (on the basis that barristers, as opposed to many other professionals, will be able to afford to pay off significant debt in the future) is a weak point in defence of the current situation: fewer than one third of those who complete the course end up in pupillage, not to mention with tenancy. In its most up-to-date statistics, The Training Contract and Pupillage Handbook 2007 suggests that out of the 1,745 applicants successfully enrolled on the BVC in the year 2004-5, 598 candidates, at most, commenced pupillage, of which only 544 were taken on as tenants. Even taking account of those who abandon Bar training of their own volition, these figures remain startling.

This ratio of those who are offered a place on the course to the number of places available in pupillage is, in my view, wholly disproportionate. The contrary view holds that to apply the ‘bottleneck of selection’ earlier, narrowing the field of realistic candidates after only their academic lives, is no better in principle. That is not an argument without merit, and on that note it is worth bearing in mind that the BVC can still be a useful qualification for careers other than the Bar, such as in business. But the two-thirds of students who pay some £12,500 for the BVC and for whom no pupillage is available at the end are not all naïve and foolish to waste their money. Most genuinely believe that if they work hard, ‘having a go’ might just bear fruit. Are they to be blamed for trying? With the occasional exception, it is not their fault that insufficient places are available at the end of the road. It is not their fault that they may now be in considerable debt.

At least the increasing availability of places on this valuable course gives students the chance to apply for pupillage with practical training under their belt. However, if people who would otherwise be unable to get pupillage prior to commencing the BVC are realistically to have their chances improved by taking it, the way in which the BVC is regarded by practitioners may need to change. A student’s success on the course should, in my view, be an important factor in pupillage decisions, because it is a serious course from which a great deal can be learned. The Bar should take greater notice of it.

Tom Cross is currently undertaking the BVC at a London provider. He begins pupillage at Francis Taylor Building (formerly 2 Harcourt Buildings) in October 2007, specialising in Public Law.