An Interview with Rebecca Titus-Cobb, St John's Buildings Chambers

NB: When did you start tenancy, Rebecca?

RTC: My tenancy started in October 2018 at St John’s Buildings in Manchester, just after my 12 months’ pupillage had finished.

NB: I’d like to begin with looking at what areas of law you’ve been practising in and whether you always wanted to go into those fields?

RTC: I practise in civil law across a fairly broad range of areas includ­ing personal injury, clinical negligence and inquests.

I have always had an interest in cases which raise interesting ethical, medico-legal and moral issues, particularly those cases where the rights and interests of individuals and the state can come into conflict. Before coming to the Bar, my ambition was to do work with a civil liberties or public law element, so I am happy that my practice does incorporate these areas.

I think it is important to recognise that if your interests lie in more niche areas of law, it may be that you develop a practice which is broad but encompasses those specialised fields. Personally, I perhaps do more personal injury work than I may have initially planned to, but I enjoy the work and it complements the other areas of my practice.

NB: Is this where you always intended to be?

RTC: That is a difficult question to answer because I think that there is a gap between expectations of practice areas and the reality of actually working in those practice areas. Once you start pupillage, and actu­ally experience the work, preconceptions about practice areas probably change. When I undertook the GDL and the Bar course, I didn’t neces­sarily understand how the areas which I was interested in would mani­fest in reality and what kind of work would be available to me at an early stage in my career.

NB: You practise in a few different areas of law; how would you describe the split between them all?

RTC: The split has changed during the course of my pupillage and now into tenancy. At the start of pupillage and in my first year of tenancy I was doing a greater percentage of general civil and personal injury work including road traffic cases, accidents at work and public liability cases. This still makes up a large part of my practice. I would say that classic personal injury work still makes up around 50% of my practice, with the other areas, including inquests, clinical negligence and Court of Protection making up the other 50%.

NB: Is road traffic work about people who have just come by injuries in road traffic accidents?

RTC: Yes, it includes those cases where an injury has occurred as a result of a road traffic accident but also those cases where there are no injuries suffered but issues remain as to liability and other losses flowing from the accident. The bulk of small claims cases which you will come across as a junior civil practitioner are where no injury has occurred, but the court is required to resolve issues of fault and/or the quantum (value) of losses. I still do these cases occasionally now, but I am increas­ingly instructed in fast-track and multi-track cases.

NB: What is multi-track work?

RTC: There are three case management tracks in civil claims: the small claims track, the fast track and the multi-track. The small claims track is for the lower value, more straightforward cases, the multi-track for higher value, higher complexity work and the fast track is for the cases in between. The fast track is the standard track for most low-value per­sonal injury cases which would take a day to resolve at trial.

NB: Isn’t it a bit odd that work that where there’s a higher value to the claim should get a different sort of procedure - because cases are all about the same issues aren’t they?

RTC: Not necessarily, the liability and quantum issues which arise in cases higher up the case management tracks are often far more complex and require far more evidence. In personal injury cases on the multi­track, there is often extensive medical evidence, complex issues of breach of duty and causation and various heads of losses claimed. For instance, if someone suffered a catastrophic injury in a road traffic accident, the claim is likely to include damages for personal injury as well as for the provision of losses including medical treatment, care and lost earnings. Therefore, while similar liability issues may arise in a small claim road traffic case, the multi-track case will be far more complex.

The legal and evidential issues arising in higher value claims can be technical, the evidence is generally more extensive and the issues may require a greater degree of scrutiny and assessment. Multi-track cases involve more case management hearings, more preparation and costs are higher. A lot of personal injury cases allocated to the fast track have fixed costs imposed so there may be less scope for counsel’s involvement in case preparation before trial.

NB: Do you do a bit more multi-track now than you did at the start?

RTC: Yes, I do a lot more than I did at the start. Multi-track and fast­track work takes time to build up. It is also more likely that you will be instructed on a discreet piece of work rather than as retained counsel for the entire proceedings, especially at the start of your practice. In my experience, the paperwork starts before court work in the higher value, higher complexity cases. As a junior civil practitioner, your first experi­ence of multi-track work may be drafting a set of particulars of claim or a schedule of loss. Then you may be instructed on an application hearing or a CCMC (Costs and Case Management Conference) hearing.

NB: And for your professional development as you go forward then as a barrister in this type of work doing more multi-track cases is the right way to go clearly?

RTC: Yes, definitely. The higher value and the higher complexity work is important. I would also say that diversification is important for prac­tice development. For me, that means doing more clinical negligence, civil liberties and more inquest work.

NB: Clinical negligence, that’s where people have suffered injuries isn’t it?

RTC: Yes, it is where people suffer personal injury potentially as a result of medical negligence. This may be a specific injury which is caused by a negligent act, for instance, where an error is made during surgery. Alternatively, it may be where an illness or disease has developed as a consequence of a failure to diagnose or treat a patient. Some cases also involve ethical issues related to consent. These cases invariably involve consideration of complex expert evidence from medical professionals. Some of the clinical negligence work which I do overlaps with inquest work, for instance where a death has arisen as a result of potentially negligent medical treatment or care.

NB: Do you then go on to act in clinical negligence proceedings for the people that you’ve acted for the inquests?

RTC: Yes, that is generally how the proceedings interrelate. A solicitor may act for the family of a deceased person in a civil claim and may also provide representation for the inquest. It can be hard to get funding for the inquest, sometimes families will be unrepresented at an inquest but have legal representation for a civil claim.

NB: Have you done inquest work that is outside the field of clinical negligence?

RTC: Yes, although most of my inquest practice to date has been in the clinical negligence field. I have acted in other inquests including road traffic collisions, cases where the cause of death was unknown and men­tal health deaths.

NB: So looking at the spread of your work there’s the more multi-track type of personal injury cases and related cases, there’s the inquest work and clinical negligence anything else?

RTC: Yes, I have a background in police law and worked for the inde­pendent Police Complaints Commission (now the Independent Office for Police Conduct) prior to coming to the Bar.

NB: And if we rewind to Rebecca Titus-Cobb at Bar School, if I’d asked you then to imagine what work you would be doing now, what do you think you would have said?

RTC: I definitely would have anticipated that I would have a civil prac­tice in light of my interests and career aims. The starting point for me would have been civil work rather than family or crime. At Bar School and when looking for pupillage, most students are faced with those three general paths or a common law pupillage (though of course there are exceptions to this). I was also offered pupillage during Bar School so I did know what my pupillage would be in and had a general idea of the types of cases which I may do as a junior practitioner. However, I do not think it is until you start pupillage that you fully appreciate how the first few years of practice may look in reality - it is a steep learning curve!

NB: If you have in your mind those sorts of cases that you’ve got on­going right now, what sort of tasks have you had to do involving the skills taught at Bar School for example advice, drafting or advocacy?

RTC: The core vocational modules: conference, advocacy, drafting and advice build foundational skills which I draw upon on a daily basis. For example, one of my recent cases is an appeal against the decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). My client was the victim of a serious assault with a weapon and suf­fered severe physical and psychological injuries. He is appealing the determination of the compensation awarded to him under the CICA scheme.

NB: Is the appeal to a court or tribunal?

RTC: It is to the first tier tribunal.

NB: And if you think about the sort of people or organisations who have mainly been your clients occasionally, it’s the police authority or it could be the individual, but in other cases do you act for the hospi­tal trust in negligence cases as well as for people who are making the claim?

RTC: I represent both claimants and defendants, it is fairly mixed, but I probably do more claimant work, especially in the higher value cases. For defendants, I often act on behalf of insurers and I have also acted for the police and hospital trusts. The majority of my clinical negli­gence work is claimant work, it is more difficult to get instructions from defendants earlier in your practice. I mostly represent bereaved families at inquests.

NB: What percentage of your work time is spent in court or tribunals versus working at your desk?

RTC: I would say probably 50/50 under usual circumstances when I was attending court regularly. More hearings are now remote so it is far more time spent at my desk and less time at court or travelling.

NB: If you think about the courts and tribunals that you attend, we talked inquests which are relatively informal, investigative, hearings before the coroner, and we talked about being in the County Court and occasionally the criminal injuries tribunal. Are there any other types of court or tribunal that you appear before?

RTC: I have been instructed a few times to attend the Crown Court for a noting brief. These have all been related to driving offences, namely death by dangerous driving. I attended on behalf of an insurer, either the insurer of the deceased or one of the drivers. In those circumstances, the insurer requests a complete note of the criminal proceedings as this may inform any future civil claim. The Court of Protection is a distinct court.

NB: The Crown Court work obviously is a wig and gown job; do you wear your wig and gown for any other type of occasions?

RTC: Very occasionally you can do as a civil practitioner. Any fast-track or multi-track trial that you attend can be robed so it usually involves you having to take your robes to court and keep them in your bag or in the Advocates’ Room. It is at the judge’s discretion whether or not they robe, they rarely do.

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

RTC: I enjoy legal research and the advisory elements of my practice. My strengths lie in the analytical skills needed to practice at the Bar. I enjoy legal analysis and considering the complex issues in a case, for instance, researching and preparing an Advice or a skeleton argument. For those who thrive on the drama and thrill of advocacy in front of a jury, the prospect of sitting down with case law to read and a complex Advice to prepare may not be as exciting.

The clinical negligence and inquest work which I do can be fairly com­plex and technical, especially on issues of causation, I find this aspect of my practice both intellectually challenging and fulfilling. Getting to the crux of a clinical negligence case and working out the strengths or weaknesses in the claim will often involve sitting down with an expert clinician (usually a consultant) in conference and drilling down into complex issues of medical and legal causation. Similarly, in inquests, the witnesses giving evidence in court will often be expert witnesses such as pathologists or clinicians involved in the deceased’s care (in the case of medical deaths). This requires a forensic style of cross-examination which I enjoy.

NB: Of course a main question for the coroners courts is how the deceased died. I totally understand the causation interest to a civil lawyer.

RTC: Yes, that’s the primary question which the coroner is interested in. In inquests where Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged, the scope is wider and the coroner will consider the circumstances surrounding the death. This usually arises where there has been contact with state agencies before death.

NB: Have you been led yet?

RTC: Not yet, that is something I would like to do.

NB: Can I ask about the extent to which your time in practice has so far matched or differed from expectations when you are doing the Bar course? Students may not always know what to expect in that change from studying law even at a practical level at Bar School to actually practising it. I wondered whether you thought Bar School prepared you for what your practice has become and is becoming?

RTC: At Bar School you probably do not anticipate that the skill set which you will utilise on a day-to-day basis, and the type of tasks that you will undertake depends on the type of practice that you have. For me, I knew that my strengths lay in my analytical skills and written advocacy, so I wanted to develop a paperwork practice as well as a court practice. That was one of the attractions of civil law because, rather than being primarily an advocate in court, I also have the opportunity to do written advocacy and there is a lot of legal analysis involved.

Bar School does prepare you for that to an extent, but I think that understanding can only come from seeing the work that barristers in different practice areas do. It is important to consider your own skill set, what are your strengths and weaknesses, and therefore, what type of work may be better suited to you. There is perhaps a tendency as a student or when seeking pupillage to focus only on the areas of law which interest you, rather than considering the kind of work which you will do day to day and whether that will suit your skill set.

NB: They are all really good points Rebecca, it’s a really good way putting it. I suppose Bar School aims to get you at least to the required minimum standard in all the different skills that it is anticipated bar­risters will need. But when you actually start practising, it’s up to you, isn’t it, as the individual, to make sure that you exploit the skills you’ve learned and make yourself better?

RTC: Exactly. I think it’s about recognising where your interests lie but also what your strengths are. Some people will naturally be more suited to family work because they have the required skill set for that type of work, others may be better placed to practise in commercial law for the same reason.

NB: Were there any subject areas at university or Bar School that you took and, when your practice began, you were glad that you had taken?

RTC: I think the core vocational modules at Bar School are vital to developing the skills which you use on a daily basis. For instance, you need to have a broad understanding of how to draft pleadings or struc­ture an Advice, an appreciation of cross-examination techniques and how to structure oral submissions. The conference module is also an invaluable one. You can quite easily fall into a trap of just treating a con­ference as a conversation with a client, solicitor or an expert. However, the emphasis which the course module places on structure and prepara­tion is key to a successful conference. I still go through the same process which I was taught at Bar School when preparing for a conference or drafting an agenda. There have been times when I’ve not gone through that process and it has not been as effective.

NB: As you made that change from Bar School I suppose through pupil­lage and into tenancy was there any particular change that you have to get used to that was more difficult?

RTC: Probably being in charge of your own time and managing your own workload. The workload is heavy and you will inevitably work long hours including some weekends. However, it can be manageable provided you are strict and work efficiently. In pupillage, there is gener­ally an expectation that you are in Chambers during normal working hours so, while you will work in the evenings, there should be enough time to get the work done. As a tenant, provided you maintain your professional obligations to attend hearings and conferences, the rest of your time is yours to work as you wish. This can make it quite difficult to draw boundaries between work and non-work time and I think it is important to be strict about when you work and when you switch off. I tend to work later in the day and also I work better under pressure so there can be a temptation to take the afternoon off if you finish early or have the morning off on a quiet day. Obviously, flexibility is a huge benefit to the job and if you can, take that time off, just ensure that you will not pay for it later!

NB: One of the last areas and I’m coming to you now is about your developing work life and work-life balance, and it’s suppose first, I won­dered when you’re not in court do you tend to work in Chambers or at home? I’m getting the impression from you that it’s at home mostly - but it’s tricky because we’ve been in coronavirus times?

RTC: Yes, the past few months have been unusual to put it mildly. I think I’ve been to court three or four times in the past in the past few months. During pupillage and in my first year of tenancy, I lived in Manchester city centre very close to Chambers so I spent much more time in Chambers. During pupillage, I was in Chambers every day. After tenancy, you can make those decisions yourself. I still did like to base myself in Chambers quite a lot, if my work was I local to Chambers I would probably go in after court. Under normal circumstances, I prob­ably work from home at least one day a week and generally go into Chambers two or three times a week.

NB: Do you work in the evenings?

RTC: Yes.

NB: In Chambers do you have your own room; is it all about hot desking?

RTC: During pupillage, I shared my supervisor’s room and then when I got tenancy I moved to a room with other junior tenants and one of my co-pupils. We also have a library at Chambers and generally a lot of the junior tenants will congregate there. I usually work a lot from the library because it is a good social space.

NB: How techy or your practice areas? Is it is a job wholly less paper­based now more digital or not?

RTC: As a Chambers, we are fairly progressive and technology driven so we are very much encouraged to utilise the IT services which we have available to us. All case files are contained online and that is how I access my papers for cases. I very rarely get paper files.

NB: What about in the courts and tribunals, are they very techy?

RTC: It varies and seems to have changed a lot in light of the Covid- 19 pandemic with more hearings now taking place remotely. In some regional courts, you may struggle to get a plug, but in others, par­ticularly the main court centres, there are better facilities. Courts are increasingly utilising video platforms, which, while there are undoubt­edly problems at times, is a step in the right direction. More electronic bundles are also used in court hearings.

I was conscious at the start of my practice that I did not want to be too reliant on paper so I have developed working practices which are more tech-friendly, for instance preparing a bookmarked and annotated bundle which can be used as a live working document. I generally use a PDF on my iPad as my bundle in court.

NB: Would you describe practising in your fields of law to be sociable, collegiate or is a lot of time spent by yourself?

RTC: I think it is what you make of it. In civil there is probably not as much time spent in court as in other practice areas. For instance, col­leagues who are family or criminal practitioners will spend a lot of the time at the same courts, and for longer cases, I think that helps build a collegiate atmosphere. In my practice, I probably travel more so that means I spend more time by myself.

NB: Travel is one of the things I wanted to ask about, too?

RTC: I am mostly based in the North West but I can travel across the country. My Chambers have sites in Manchester, Chester, Liverpool and Sheffield, so the work which I get tends to be anywhere across the northern half of England or Wales. My practice is more concentrated in the North West because I practise from the Manchester Chambers and I am clerked from Manchester but I also have been further afield than that. This year, I have been to Ipswich, London and Cumbria. I travel a lot.

NB: Did you expect that?

RTC: I probably didn’t realise how much travel was involved. I think some working practices have changed since the pandemic and will prob­ably not revert back. Some of the hearings which are now happening remotely are unlikely to go back to being in person. I anticipate going forward that I will travel less than I did previously, and incoming pupils and junior barristers may not travel as much as I did in the first few years of practice.

NB: What are typical hours of work - if there is a typical?

RTC: I tend to work later in the day as I am more of a night owl than an early bird. Under normal circumstances, my typical hours of work would usually involve me leaving home to travel to court at around 7.30am or 8am to get to court for 9:00/9:30. I would probably be in court for a few hours or to the early afternoon but that does vary case to case. I would then either go to Chambers for a few hours or back home. I generally have a few hours off late afternoon or early evening and then possibly work from say 8pm to midnight to prepare for the following day.

NB: Wellbeing is an important focus of the Bar Council now, but it wasn’t always. When I was called to the Bar in 1994, wellbeing wasn’t on anybody’s radar at all. How do you find the work-life balance in your fields of law?

RTC: One misconception which I had at Bar School and even at the start of pupillage was that I would not be able to ask for time off or that there would be an expectation on me to work all hours of the day, seven days a week. While the expectations do vary from Chambers to Chambers, my experience has been very positive. I have no issue with asking for time off or for preparation or paperwork days. In fact, that is encouraged in my Chambers. There has been a couple of times where I’ve felt overwhelmed or where I was working beyond the lim­its of my capacity, but I had help from my clerks to navigate through those busier times. I hope that is the situation at other Chambers as well. There appears to be a cultural change underway at the Bar which recognises that the work-life balance needs to be better, and there is a big focus on promoting wellbeing. However, you do have to actively manage this yourself, it is important to check in with yourself, look at how busy you are and whether you are coping. It can be easy to keep going at a fast pace and not recognise when you are overstretched or overburdened.

NB: It is having that self-awareness isn’t it, which can be difficult sometimes?

RTC: I would say in my experience that I work best when I’m busy and I like to work under pressure. The reality of my practice is that I am busy and I do work a lot, however, it is important to recognise when it gets too much. In this job there is a tendency to keep pushing forward, so it’s important to be self-aware.

NB: Diversity, we are keen to know about experiences of sex equal­ity, race equality, social mobility, other areas that you consider touch on the issue of diversity at the Bar. Do you have any experience or observations?

RTC: This is a hugely important issue and one which many barristers, myself included, are extremely passionate about. It is important that the Bar represents a diverse cross-section of society and that no person, irrespective of background, feels excluded from a career at the Bar.

Gratefully, there seems to be increased awareness and attention being given to the issue of diversity at the Bar, but of course much more still needs to be done. There are a number of new initiatives which have been recently set up to encourage access to the Bar, including Bridging the Bar, which my Chambers is involved in. The Bar Council have done a lot of active campaigning including the ‘I am the Bar’ campaign.

I come from a state school background and am the first lawyer in my family. The Bar was a complete unknown to me, and I think it is important that those who have an interest are able to experience and understand what the life entails. Initiatives like Bridging the Bar are crucial to this. One element that has helped me personally was the availability of funding through the Inns of Court and at Bar School. I would have struggled to put myself through Bar School without this, such matters are invaluable to increasing social mobility and access to the Bar.

Unfortunately, many barristers still experience overt and latent types of discrimination at the Bar I think we have to be realistic that that does exist. We all need to do what we can to address the underlying issues and challenge discrimination and unconscious bias.

NB: Is there something that you can say about income progression in the early years of practice?

RTC: In my experience, income progresses quite quickly with a civil practice. I was very concerned at the start of pupillage that I wouldn’t be paid because I was told things can get tied up with insurers and it can be slow. That wasn’t really my experience, I have always had enough to get by. However, income does vary month to month and that is something to be to be aware of particularly at the start of your career where you are probably living month to month and maybe you haven’t had the time to build up savings. My advice to junior practitioners would be don’t get too excited if you have a really great month because in all likelihood, the next month might not be the same.

NB: The last thing is just about the future, if you have any thoughts about the future of the Bar in the areas that you work in or generally?

RTC: In the area that I work in there is a lot of change on the horizon and this is likely to disproportionately impact upon the junior bar. In particular, there are incoming changes to the costs regimes for low-level personal injury work and there may be less ‘bread and butter’ type work available. Any barrister going into civil law needs to be aware of and plan for those changes. In my practice group, we have all been discuss­ing how we overcome the issues and what type of work we need to be looking at to fill the gaps. I think there is a need to recognise the issues and be prepared to diversify. This means being creative and looking at other practice areas that may complement the more traditional areas of personal injury work.