An Interview with Angelica Rokad, 6 Pump Court Chambers

NB: Angelica, what sort of work have you been involved in since start­ing tenancy?

AR: Pupillage was good because I got the opportunity to be involved with lots of different areas so that I wasn’t stuck in just one.

NB: It seems that you began doing criminal work mostly and now you do criminal work the least!

AR: True! You don’t plan it, it just happens. My pupillage was about 70% criminal law in terms of work, and for about six months after becoming a tenant, it remained that way. Then, out of the blue, I had one case which was an employment hearing, and after that my employ­ment practice followed. So it’s changed quite a bit, all by itself.

NB: That move to employment law in the main, is that a move that you encouraged when it started?

AR: Absolutely. I was a volunteer with the Free Representation Unit before pupillage so I had some experience of doing some employment tribunal work. It was something that I already knew about before pupil­lage and it’s something that I encouraged when the opportunity came to me. How it came to me is just pure luck really.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003111597-8

NB: If you think back to Bar School or even in pupillage, employment law wasn’t your destination, then?

AR: No, I didn’t have a destination and that is the truth. It’s the reason why I ended up in the Chambers that I did during pupillage.

NB: You say that employment law is most of your work?

AR: Yes. It really depends on a given month, though. Sometimes, there will be more planning or regulatory work and then maybe some civil instructions which will tip the balance. I think the beauty of it, from my perspective at least, is that I can’t tell you here is the exact percentage or tell you that it doesn’t change month-by-month or that it doesn’t change year-by-year. That’s what it’s like being a common law practitioner - you never know what’s going to happen and turn up in the diary, this year or next year or next month or next week really. I can give you a general indication but that’s as best that I can do, I think.

NB: Yes, I find this at the Bar. Not really knowing exactly what your route is going to be for the next 12 months is partly what makes the job so fun.

AR: Yes. You could never be sort of, so-called, stuck in a rut, as it were. I don’t think that’s ever going to happen, and even if you do feel like it’s going to happen, there always exists the opportunity to move away and do something different and give something else a go. I think that’s the beauty of it. Even if you end up in that position, you will always have the power to try and change something or try something new. I hope that’s right for the rest of my practice as well, but you can ask me the question in ten years’ time!

NB: I wonder if you could give me some examples of the types of cases that you are instructed in right now?

AR: It varies. I am instructed by a local authority to prosecute an unlaw­ful eviction where it is said that the tenants have been harassed by the landlord. That’s in the Crown Court and is a multi-day trial involving several witnesses, including children.

In another case, I am acting for the local authority which is respond­ing to an appeal against a Planning Enforcement Notice. The local authority has served a Notice on an individual and it has gone to a planning inquiry. On the employment side, I have just finished two fully remote trials last week.

NB: What sort of issues arose in those remote trials?

AR: Loads! They couldn’t be more different. The first one went ever so smoothly, and the technology worked. My opponent and I were able to deal with issues outside of the tribunal just to try and simplify the process - for example, which witnesses were going to be called first and how we proposed to show the witnesses the electronic bundle when they couldn’t have a hard copy in front of them. That was wrapped up in two days. The other one couldn’t be further from that experience because we had all sorts of technological issues. We had individuals who couldn’t hear us for half of the day nearly. It meant we had to move off into a telephone conference and only part of the trial finished, the rest is still rumbling on to be dealt with on another occasion. It can be really tricky doing remote trials in that sense.

NB: Are remote trials the future for employment law?

AR: I think so. I am not sure that every single case will be dealt with remotely or that option will exist for all cases forever, but certainly, I can see merit in cases which are purely about legal submissions dealt with remotely or by telephone. I can also certainly see some merit in a one- or two-day case being dealt with remotely, if there are few wit­nesses or the issues are fairly narrow, as opposed to that being dealt with at a physical hearing. If your witnesses are sprung far and wide across the country, then it might even be convenient for the parties to appear via remote link. So, I think that’s here to stay. Absolutely.

NB: What sort of law did those two trials involve?

AR: In both, I was acting for claimants who claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed.

NB: Can I ask you about the areas that people study at Bar School, typically? I have three examples: advice, drafting and advocacy, and I wondered, in those cases that we have talked about or indeed others that you have done, was the experience of Bar School useful?

AR: I think negotiation is certainly something that I have encountered at the court door, for example with my opponent or perhaps even nego­tiating with a client. Sometimes you’re trying to present what you think is likely to happen in the most user-friendly way and, whilst that isn’t really negotiation, you are trying to explain your view of what’s going to happen and try to get somebody to understand someone else’s point of view - be it the other side or even the (likely) view of the judge. In terms of advice, advocacy and drafting, I would absolutely say that I do all three. I was in and out of court every day in my second six and even in tenancy, about three or four days out of the working week I was in court. Then there’s also written advocacy which is not to be underesti­mated. For example every time you draft a document, you are not just using your drafting skills, you are applying your advocacy skills in writ­ing. So, in Bar School, you traditionally refer to drafting as starting of legal claims and procedures, but drafting, I think, is much wider in its application in practice.

NB: Do employment judges ask that counsel draft the orders for the judge then to approve or does this come exclusively from the judges?

AR: Usually, practitioners don’t get involved in drafting the order. They might comment on the wording of an order, if, for example, any com­ments are sought by the judge or are particularly important from the perspective of the client. It is usually a collaborative approach between all the parties and in front of the judge.

NB: I often think that the need for, and the importance of, written advocacy can be underestimated. People think of advocacy as being the voice speaking which, of course, it is, but written advocacy can get you 70% of the way there.

AR: I agree. I think at the start of my career I certainly underestimated the power and role of written advocacy. That is probably a common misconception because we all watch legal dramas on television, and nobody films the barrister drafting their closing submissions! But this profession is not only about what you say but how it translates on paper, and if you have got a succinct and clear style of written drafting, your points are almost made for you. I certainly think we both might have experienced instances where you might offer to assist the judge, some­times the judge says: ‘Actually, having read your written submissions, I think I’ve got the point you’re trying to make’.

NB: Those remote cases that we discussed a moment ago, are those typical of your practice so far? It seems, from what you are saying, they probably are?

AR: Yes, they are. I started off in my second six with trials in the Magistrates’ Court. They were my bread and butter. Also during pupil­lage, I did have the chance to go to the Crown Court. In fact, my first actual appearance before a court was at Woolwich Crown Court, with an instruction late the evening before! But I’ve had experience of being a trial advocate in the Crown Court during pupillage and in tenancy. I didn’t get involved in doing planning inquiries as sole counsel during pupillage - I think they would be a bit complex at that stage - but cer­tainly what I have described is typical of my practice as I see it, currently.

NB: What is involved in a planning inquiry?

AR: The ones I usually deal with concern enforcement notices issued by the local authority to respond to a breach of planning law (for example). If you are acting for the local authority, you then would be respond­ing to an appeal made by the individual who has been served with the notice, and the appellant would be arguing that the notice is unsatisfac­tory in some respects and should be quashed, or that notwithstanding the breach of planning law, the inspector should grant permission for the building to stand. However, there are other cases that I have been involved with where I have been led as a junior, which are different because they involve broader issues and aren’t related to an enforcement notice. For example, if planning permission is given for the building of 500 or 1,000 houses, and there many aggrieved residents or perhaps environmental concerns or air quality concerns, then a planning inquiry becomes a much larger (and longer) affair. It depends.

NB: This brings us nicely on to talk about the sorts of people or organi­sations who have largely been your clients. You have talked about local authorities and also individuals in the employment sphere who make an unfair dismissal claim.

AR: Yes. Honestly, I hope I am not doing a disservice by saying it’s broad, because it really is. It would not be unusual for me to have a var­ied day. On Monday, I could be acting on instruction from the Crown Prosecution Servicel; Tuesday, acting on behalf of a private individual having received instructions from a local solicitor’s firm; Wednesday receiving instructions from a local authority, and so on. The beauty of it is that I am not limiting my instructions to one area, or one specific individual or type of public body, or even private body.

NB: Yes. I think that’s probably the key to practice these days, having a broad base, perhaps more so than in previous times. Having a diverse client base is important because in terms of career progression we can’t know whether the amount of work in one area might decrease in time, and if we have focused on that exclusively, we might be in trouble then?

AR: Absolutely. Especially, you can’t get better experience than work­ing for different clients in different areas that you are interested in. I have always approached it that way. My approach to cases is to think, if I was on the other side what would I say? If I was acting for the claim­ant and not respondent, what would I say? If I was prosecuting and not defending, what would I say? And I think that makes for better advo­cacy because you know what points your opponent is likely to raise and you can deal with them. Also, it just makes the whole experience much more practical because you’re not boxed into a specific area that you may do day in and day out.

NB: What about your case load? What it has been like in tenancy and how has it compared with your second six?

AR: I think it’s important to set this the context of Covid-19, because had I been asked this question beforehand, my answer would have been different. I was always very busy in second six, as I am now. The amount of times that I appear in court haven’t really changed, albeit now, I have more remote hearings than before because of the global pan­demic. In terms of how it’s changed during Covid-19, it’s very difficult to say because there was a period during the first lockdown where all of a sudden cases just weren’t coming through and workload did definitely drop compared to what my workload was like before. If I was to answer the question based on my current experience, I’m advising on at least six to seven cases on sort of a given week or two-week period, whether that means I am going to be in court or whether that means I am doing something in writing. I think it’s very easy when you enter this profes­sion to think: ‘Well I’m in court, so that means I have got one case and if I’m in court two times a week, I have got two cases’. The reality is that you are always doing work for cases that are maybe even months, sometimes years, down the line and you might even be doing work for cases that turn up at 8pm the day before the hearing. In terms of plan­ning the case load, it’s very difficult. You need to be organised. What I think is important to note is that you are always going to be juggling a few balls at the same time. It gets better with practice.

NB: The next question is about the percentage of your time that you typically spend in court or other tribunals versus working at your desk.

AR: If I was to answer this question based on how things stand cur­rently, going in Chambers is a little bit limited given Covid-19. Prior, I would be in court three to four times a week, but I would also go into Chambers after I was in court that day or possibly even on the day that I wasn’t in court, just to do some papers. So, I would be in court three or four times a week and I would be in Chambers doing paperwork three to four, possibly even five, days a week to be honest.

NB: Do you mostly work on papers or documents in Chambers or at home, or could it be both?

AR: Before the pandemic, I was always working in Chambers as opposed to at home, mainly for two reasons. One, I was already out in court probably, so it would be easier to come back to Chambers and finish off the paperwork, put the files back, take the new ones for the next day. Two, Chambers has a collegiate atmosphere, and it is great to be there. Sometimes you walk into Chambers and you would just want to get a specific piece of work done, but very often you go to Chambers to catch up with colleagues, to see how their day was and to share how your day was. And sometimes, you have a question that you know someone in Chambers will be able to help with. It might not even be a legal ques­tion, it might just be a question about tactics. So, in terms of how I spent my time, a lot of the time was in Chambers but since the pandemic, it has been converted to working from home but also having my col­leagues at the touch of a button on my phone.

NB: This is when I would normally ask about the sorts of courts or other tribunals that you attend, but actually we have talked about that already. The Crown Court obviously is a wig and gown job, but I don’t think anything else is that you go to, is it?

AR: No, it would just be the Crown Court actually. If you are going to an Appeal Court, then you would of course have your wig and gown in most cases. I was recently in the High Court, but being virtual and from home, there wasn’t even wigs and gowns then! But everything else I do, there are no wig and gowns.

NB: Do you miss that?

AR: I get to don my wig and gown every time I go to the Crown Court which is a couple of times a month maybe, so, I’d like to say I do still have the option to put it on but sometimes you won’t put it on for a month and you do miss that bit.

NB: What parts of your practice do you find the most interesting and are there any areas that some people may find less exciting?

AR: Across the board I’d like to say that the thing that’s great is you are given a fairly knotty problem, especially in the planning or employ­ment side of my practice. It could be a problem that’s grown worse over a number of months, or a number of years even, and somebody is coming to you to find out what’s the most practical, cost-effective, efficient solution to resolve it. The job can be quite literally working out what the best solution is without having to go to court. It’s great to be involved in a problem where your input helps resolve a thorny issue that’s been dragging on a while. In terms of what’s interesting and what’s not, there are always cases which start simple but then turn very complicated really quickly. I would be lying if on those occasions you don’t have a thought to yourself where you think: ‘I wish I didn’t have to do this!’. The other thing which potential entrants might want to bear in mind is the sheer travelling time. That is an area which I underestimated in terms of how exhausting it can be and in terms of how you plan your life around what you’re doing Monday to Friday or even indeed on the weekend. Possibly also, it’s the not knowing that people may find dif­ficult. You may find out what you’re doing the next day at 6pm, 7pm and 8pm the night before. A couple of months ago I was waiting at the end of the phone at 8pm with my clerk wondering whether or not I was going to go to Manchester the next day. That slowly becomes normal but I certainly think others looking into the profession are a bit shocked at how late in the day your next day can shape up.

I don’t know whether my clerks will be happy with me sharing this story, but I feel compelled to share it! I had just finished a full-day trial and had literally stepped onto the platform at Euston station, only four stops to home. The next day, I had lined up a paper day as I had a complicated trial to prepare for and I really needed to concentrate on the papers. As I stepped off the train at Euston, I got a call from my clerk to say: ‘You won’t believe it, but one of the jury trials that we thought was not going to happen has been called in by the Crown Court at the last minute and it’s starting 10am tomorrow at Harrow’. It was a planning trial which I hadn’t done before but which I really wanted to have a go at, so it was a bit of a rough choice. I think by that point it was then 7pm. The papers came at 8 or 9pm, and a colleague in Chambers was kind enough to run through it with me. I got home, had dinner, crammed, and then went off to Harrow the next day and started opening the trial at 10am. Going back to the previous question, those are the less exciting possibly less glamor­ous parts of this job. But you muddle through, don’t you. You find a way.

NB: We talked about the case, the planning inquiry where you had been led, I think you said. What sort of tasks have you done when you have been led?

AR: I have been led in quite a few cases. They have all been in planning law. In one, I was led by a silk in Chambers who had a ten-day planning inquiry which centred on whether a huge housing development should be built on an area of land which was designated as a high-risk flood zone, in short whether the appellant should get permission to build these rather large houses on that land. We were acting for the Environment Agency.

NB: What did you actually do as the led junior?

AR: Well, the Environment Agency was an interested party. That meant that was there was a lot of groundwork that was already done between the appellant and the local authority but which the Environment Agency wasn’t privy to. There was a lot of catching up to do! First, we had to collate all the papers from the two years that this case had been run­ning to understand what had happened. I sat down with my leader and summarised the developments that had happened, getting a hold on the timescale and identifying what issues need to be resolved now before we started speaking to our clients. I had a lot to do with the drafting of written closing submissions and cost submissions. I was also able to go out on the site and produced a set of questions that needed to be asked of the relevant individuals. There was a conference with the Environment Agency - several conferences in fact - where the relevant questions needed to be identified, prepared and then summarised for my leader.

NB: Great. Can we look at your expectations about the job, and whether what you have ended up doing has matched what you previ­ously thought it would be. I wonder if you thought that Bar School, for you, prepared you for what your practice is now?

AR: In some respects I think I was very fortunate before starting a Bar course and starting pupillage to have met a few mentors who really took me under their wing. In terms of how it’s adapted since being in practice, I think I underestimated how many different things you would have to do on a given day all at the same time. You are being pulled in all different directions to the point where you’re sitting in a tribunal or you’re in court and during the break, you will be writing up an e-mail or drafting a document in an unrelated area of law for a different solicitor and a different client for the next day, the next week, the next month;l and you will be doing many different things at the same time. I think I underestimated the late instructions that come with the job and some­times you don’t get the luxury of having lots of time to think about a case. What that means is that you’ve got to be very efficient in your practice and you have to identify at the outset whether you can or you can’t commit to an instruction. Sometimes - often really - that means sacrificing a personal commitment that you have. Try and get some very understanding friends and family! That’s an element which I think you have got to have: a very forgiving support network.

NB: I agree. It seems to me there are two parts of practice that when I was at Bar School, I didn’t realise how important they were, and they very much related to what we have been discussing. Firstly, Bar School for me back in 1994 had an element to it called ‘fact management’. They gave you typically a massive bundle of documents and said, here you are, and you had to prepare it for your pupil supervisor, not know­ing anything about it, so you had to familiarise yourself with all the papers and organise them, structure them, and list what you thought your pupil supervisor should be considering first, and that was mas­sive, took me absolutely ages and I didn’t do it very well but that’s such good preparation for what we need to do. Also, the second part of it, which I suppose is the same thing said in another way, is learning how to target your reading and your understanding. I think that whenever you’re faced with a time-pressured case you make sure you’re aware of what you need know first; and if there is something that you don’t need to know right now, you can look at that later.

AR: I entirely agree with you. Managing your time and managing your time with other people is really, really important. I think those pres­sures are even more live when you are dealing directly with your client. The majority of the time, you have your client with you. It’s their case, and they want to make sure that you, as their representative, have all the relevant facts that they think might be relevant. There has to be an element of managing the amount of facts which you can deal with at a given point in time. You could ask a thousand questions of your client and get a thousand different good answers which might be relevant to what you need to do, but you need to know what the right questions are to ask, and you need to know when an answer that demands a bit more of an enquiry. I think that this is a skill that you only really develop once you are in practice. It is really hard to teach somebody that.

NB: Were there any subject areas at university or Bar School that you took and then later when you started practice, you were very glad that you did?

AR: Well my university made all its students take part in a moot in the first year. All of them. I am very grateful for that because in all honesty if I hadn’t done that moot I don’t think I would be doing this job. It’s the first chance I got to try and do something comparable in a student setting. At Bar School, I had the opportunity to do an advanced civil module. It was just an enhancement on the ordinary civil module which Bar students take. That module was really helpful because when you start at Bar School, you are given these huge practitioner textbooks that you have never seen before and you think to yourself: ‘What on earth am I meant to do with this?’. It’s only when you have a look at a prob­lem back in real life and you must identify what the relevant paragraph might be in this huge textbook that you start to do the work which you would do in practice. So, I think the more practise I had at that, the bet­ter. That was certainly something I got from the advanced civil course, yes.

NB: I know one option I took at Bar School was the course dealing with drug trafficking. In all honesty, I really struggled with the concepts of that at Bar School because it seemed so opposite to the main features of criminal law. I didn’t do very well but, looking back, the fact that I did so badly with it then meant that when I later came to do it in practice, I came to understand it more, in particular the different thinking required. I probably had to get it so wrong first in order to get it right later.

AR: Yes. That makes perfect sense. One example of the things I did in my second six was driving disqualification hearings in the Magistrates’ Court where you know somebody has effectively become a totter - in that they get so many points on their driving licence that they end up at risk of being disqualified for a given period of time. The first time that you do it, it’s really, really hard because you have to know where do you look? Where do you start? You have been given somebody’s per­sonal facts. What’s relevant? What’s not? Everybody who you probably represent in one of those cases says, I am at risk of losing my job, my livelihood, if I am banned from driving. That sounds very compelling the first time that you hear it, but then you delve a little bit deeper and you realise that what the law says is - in summary, those things don’t always amount to a reason not to disqualify you. And so the first time you do it, it’s really tough, but then you do more of those cases over time and you just learn more and more so it doesn’t faze you as it might have done before.

NB: Can we talk about the most difficult changes that you have got used to? We have talked about this in a sense because there are the other parts of the job that aren’t law, like the travelling.

AR: The things that I have found very tough especially during second six when I had not only my own cases that I was doing as a pupil, but also I did have requests from my supervisors to do jobs and tasks for them and possibly other members of Chambers as well. It was very difficult and I did the best that I could. It doesn’t stop when you’re in tenancy because you might not have your supervisor and you won’t do work for other members of Chambers, but you will have to deal with the task of managing your own practice and developing clients and pro­moting yourself. That’s really tricky at the start. You will always have many, many other things that you need to do at the same time. I am one of those people that has a ‘to do’ lists and I write them down on a piece of paper and then I get to cross them off when I do it and no matter how hard I try, there will always be something left outstanding and it will grow the next day! It’s very hard knowing that you will not have a complete checklist at the end of a day, on a Friday or even the working week. At the end of the day, you might have even more tasks than those that you crossed off. Everybody at the Bar is very supportive, though, in making sure that you are not too overwhelmed and there’s always someone at the end of the phone if you need them. So, there is access and there is support available, you have just to be very strict with yourself as well.

NB: We are coming on to your work life, how it’s developed, your work-life balance and whether you tend to work in Chambers or at home.

AR: I work usually in Chambers, we have what’s called the junior library. Members of Chambers who are sort of around my call but who don’t have our own room sit there. We do have a very large area there with a desk that you can drop into as and when you need to after court. That has been so helpful because often it will be those members of Chambers who will have experience of the question that you are trying to get to the bottom of.

NB: How techy are the practice areas that you work in?

AR: I’d like to say that I’m quite good. Before the pandemic, I would be one of those people who would print out the bundle, I would high­light it, I would flag up different areas with a post-it note and I’d have everything in a hard copy because inevitably somebody will turn up at the hearing and perhaps they are missing a page or perhaps they have forgotten their witness statement or perhaps the bundle hasn’t made its way to the court and you can assist. Because of the pandemic, though, things have moved more remote. When I did my first fully remote trial, it was the first time I actually used a bundle electronically so I hadn’t printed off anything. I think any budding barrister could take from this pandemic that that’s an element of remote technology that’s here to stay.

NB: How would you describe your typical hours of work?

AR: How long is a piece of string! It really is one of those questions. I know this sounds not very believable really, but honestly, you could have a day where you think: ‘I’m going to court and I’ll be there all day and then I’ll finish, go home, have some dinner and it’s the weekend’. And something might happen that’s entirely unrelated to what you do which is perhaps there wasn’t enough time to hear the case that you have prepared, or that somebody didn’t turn up who was a crucial witness and then what happens is your case goes short and what you thought was going to be whole day in court, ends up being maybe even an hour, if that. Or vice versa, you could end up in court for a lot longer than what you expected - that’s more usual than finishing early! In terms of actual hours though, if I was to sort of average it all up, I generally aim to be in court by 9am if I have got a 10am hearing. That will involve me often travelling before getting into court at 9am which often means I am up by at least 7am. Things have changed with the pandemic but generally, that’s how it is with travel. I would generally expect to finish court around 4.30, possibly 5pm, depending if that’s a full day. Even if it’s a half day, I end up going back to Chambers, having lunch with some colleagues or lunch on the way there. I generally aim to leave Chambers about 6pm, and I tend to do a couple of hours’ work at home. There will always be those days when sometimes I’m leaving Chambers at, say, 11pm or later. Maybe some weekend work - it’s dif­ficult to predict.

NB: Do you do a lot of travelling?

AR: Absolutely. My practice is spread over the South East so it’s not uncommon for me to catch the fast train from Kings Cross, St Pancras to Folkestone, to Maidstone, to Canterbury. It can be an hour and a half travelling there in the morning, an hour and a half travelling back in the evening, then there will also be the travel I have got to factor in to go to Chambers. Then you have got to come back from Chambers so, overall, at least four hours I’d say travelling in a day.

NB: What were your expectations of the travelling before you started?

AR: I did all my mini-pupillages in London and I lived in London. I wasn’t expecting it to be so tiring, but it is, especially when you have been travelling for four to five hours a day, five days a week. There is an element of just, you know, sitting down on a Friday and not actually wanting to do anything - just have dinner and go to bed and that’s just perfect really, an ideal world!

NB: Wellbeing is a real thing now with the Bar Council but certainly it wasn’t always. How do you find sort of work-life balance in the areas that you work in?

AR: It’s something which I hadn’t actually factored in. As I have gone into tenancy and developed my own practice, I am managing my work­load with my clerks. I will not take a case on if I feel I can’t commit to it because of the hours I am already doing or perhaps there will be those occasions where you have got this brilliant case you would really enjoy doing, but you have got a really important personal occasion to commit to and you have simply just got to be there for that day. I have become more responsible and honest with my clerks now. I would really encour­age people to have an eye on that. It’s really difficult when you’re starting out because you might think to yourself: ‘I have got to do the best I can, I have got to do as many cases as I can, I want to be busy, I want to be working with my colleagues and doing exciting cases’. That’s great and it’s what everybody aims to do as well, but there will come a point in time where you think, actually, I want to go on holiday and I need a break. You will always be doing something even if it’s replying to an e-mail about a case that’s happening a month off (even when you’re on holiday) because somebody needs the answer to their question and you are trial counsel.

NB: Can we come to the topic of diversity? Have there been any experi­ences or do you have any observations about diversity at the Bar? Sex equality, race equality, social mobility and any other topic that you think touches on any of those.

AR: Speaking from personal experience, I had no lawyers as family members or friends. Nobody in my family, especially when I was grow­ing up, knew any barristers at all and, as I said, the only reason I am doing what I’m doing now is because my university made all students take a moot as part of their assessment and that’s where it all started for me.

In terms of social mobility, I am of the view that it’s still very dif­ficult to enter this profession, to even get an idea of what it’s like at the Bar, to see if it’s the right profession for you before you commit to it - mainly because of the financial burden of entering the profession in the first place. I was really lucky to get a scholarship from my Inn, Middle Temple. I am very grateful for that. I think it is a topic which it deserves continual coverage because I don’t think the Bar has got there yet in terms of social mobility.

My story isn’t even the most difficult story that you hear. There are many more individuals who are at the Bar who have given up a lot to be where they are. There are great initiatives around, for example the scholarship scheme that I have mentioned from the Inn and individual Chambers in the way that they approach recruitment, for example. I am of the view that unless and until we sort out the big money question, how it is we fund the Bar and how it is we get here, then it will never be resolved.

NB: Have you experienced yourself any issues with sex equality that you want to talk about? Let me give you an example I came across just yesterday on Twitter about a barrister who was a young lady barrister appearing before a judge who she respected and liked - but who called her ‘young lady’ throughout the hearing, and that’s neither acceptable nor professional on any level.

AR: No, absolutely. That is really poor, and there is an appropriate term to be used for any representatives that are gender neutral which is ‘counsel’. The fact that we hear real live stories as of today just goes to show that it’s still an issue that crops up. I personally haven’t had a comparable story or an example to give but that really is not to say that those issues aren’t there.

NB: Often students do ask about what sort of income progression through the early years they might expect if they came into any particu­lar area of law. Can you help with that?

AR: First of all, it will depend on the area that your pupillage is in and even the type of work within that area that your Chambers might do. So, for example, if I take the area of crime, that may involve legally aided work. But even from there, you could have a criminal set which practises in private appellate work or acting for private individuals and then that’s different to legally aided work. Everything depends on the type of work that you might do within that area and who your clients are.

NB: Well, I wonder whether we can approach in a more general way which is kind of somebody practising mainly in employment law, let’s say five years into tenancy. Is there a sort of idea that can be given about the sort of income that they might expect?

AR: I don’t know because sometimes even in employment, for example, you may be acting for a claimant, and if so, you are just maybe dealing with somebody who has been unfairly dismissed from work who is trust­ing you with their savings or a source of savings from another individual perhaps, often family members. You might not have the same level of access to resources or funds than the respondent does. You might have a client that has an insurance policy or legal expenses cover, but you have also got to factor in that there are policy limits to every cover, the money isn’t endless, it’s not out there for general consumption, it’s there for specific reason. The other thing which I think is important is that parties are always trying to resolve their differences, or they should be as best they can. The worst-case outcome for them or sometimes, is the fact that they are going to trial over this matter which could be resolved more amicably.

NB: How do you see the future? At this stage of your career do you have got any thoughts at all about what the future will be like?

AR: It’s important to emphasise that the pandemic has really changed how I thought my year would pan out and even the years going for­wards. I never thought at the start of this year I would ever do a trial over remote technology, I just didn’t even think that was possible, quite frankly. Things have changed but this profession is adaptable.

NB: When you’re my age, which is 50 (say it quietly), assuming that you haven’t made it onto the bench by then, do you think you will still be practising in this field?

AR: I would like to say so. I hope so. It’s been great. There are always those days where you think: ‘I’m so tired, I don’t want to do this right now’. But it’s all on you so you find the time to do it anyway. Despite all the hard times, there has never been a day where I think that I want to do something else. If you stop enjoying it, then that’s the sort of trigger point to maybe thinking that you won’t be doing this work forever but certainly, my experience so far, whilst it’s not all been what it looks on TV, I’m very happy to have made it here and very happy to stay. I still hope I am here in, whenever it is, 20, 30 and 40 years. You can ask me that question again and I wonder whether I’ve had one too many sleep­less nights by then!

8