A Narrowing Gateway
In 2016, Sir Terence Etherton, then Master of the Rolls, drew attention to what he described as an over-supply of law graduates who, having spent substantial sums on academic and vocational training, were nevertheless unable to enter practice. His concern was not simply that the profession was competitive. It was that the structure of legal education risked encouraging large numbers of capable people to incur significant cost without any realistic route into the profession.
Since the 2021/22 Pupillage Gateway cycle, the number of candidates who submitted at least one application has risen from 2,782 to 3,912 – an increase of approximately 40.6%. Over the same period, the number of advertised pupillage positions rose from 578 to 683 – an increase of approximately 18.2%. In the 2024/25 cycle, 3,912 candidates were competing for 683 advertised vacancies. On paper, that produces a crude ratio of around 5.7 candidates per vacancy.
But that figure is of limited assistance. It assumes a level of interchangeability that simply does not exist. An aspiring criminal barrister in Newcastle is not necessarily competing for the same opportunities as a commercial applicant in London. Nor does each chambers attract the same volume, profile or calibre of applications. The headline ratio therefore understates the intensity of competition in some areas while overstating it in others. In any event, I note with concern the widening gap between the number of pupillage applicants and the relatively stagnant pool of available pupillages, and (in lieu of substantive reform) this picture will likely become far bleaker.
The 2015 Criminal Justice, Advocacy and the Bar report warned that many students were being encouraged to undertake an extremely expensive course despite having little chance of securing pupillage. It described that position, particularly for students likely to incur debt, as “worse than irresponsible”. A decade later, the question is whether the system has meaningfully answered that criticism. In my opinion, it has not.
The Rising Cost of Excellence
One can, of course, make the rather trite observation that pupillage has never been easy to secure. Nor should it be. It is right to expect that, in a career where people’s liberty, livelihoods and families are on the line, successful candidates should be of a high calibre. But the problem is not selectivity per se – it is where the selectivity occurs.
At present, pupillage operates as the only meaningful filter as to who can enter the profession. In the vast majority of cases, this stage comes after candidates have already invested substantial time and money in the route to qualification. The minimum academic requirement for Bar training – a 2:2, although in practice most students will have achieved at least a 2:1 – remains modest when compared with the standards actually applied by many pupillage committees. There is also no profession-wide cap on Bar course numbers linked to the availability of pupillage. The Bar Standards Board’s most recent provider statistics recorded 2,445 students enrolled on Bar training courses between July 2024 and June 2025, with home student fees ranging from £13,200 to £20,200 and overseas fees rising as high as £23,700.
As the number of highly qualified applicants increases, the goalposts inevitably shift. A first-class degree, once a powerful differentiator, may no longer be enough. A distinction on the Bar course may no longer be enough. Mini-pupillages, legal work experience, or mooting may no longer be enough. In this environment, how does an applicant stand out?
I have asked this question of numerous barristers, including heads of chambers and members of pupillage committees. Their answers have been uncomfortably honest. Most have acknowledged that educational pedigree is an important factor. This is reflected in the continued disproportionate representation of Oxford and Cambridge graduates among pupils. The Bar Council’s 2026 pupil survey, while based on a 30% response rate, found that 29% of respondents had attended Oxford or Cambridge and a further 35% had attended a Russell Group university. Others have suggested – and in one case required – postgraduate study from a well-regarded university; again, requiring additional cost.
The Gatekeepers: Who Decides Who Becomes a Barrister?
That may be rational from the perspective of individual applicants and chambers. Pupillage is formally a training year, but in practice it is also an extended recruitment process. Chambers invest significant time, money and reputational capital in pupils. It is entirely understandable that they recruit candidates whom they believe are likely to become successful tenants. At the commercial Bar in particular, intellectual pedigree can also form part of a barrister’s marketability to sophisticated professional and lay clients. But systemically, it is regressive (more on that in another article.)
This is not a criticism of chambers per se. One should not overlook the work many chambers have done to improve recruitment. Contextual recruitment, blind marking, structured interviews, social mobility schemes and outreach programmes are all important developments. They should be encouraged. But they do not remove the central structural issue. Chambers and other Authorised Education and Training Organisations are not merely selecting future members of their own institutions. Because pupillage remains the mandatory gateway to practice, they are deciding who becomes a barrister at all.
That matters beyond the individual applicant. The Bar remains an important source of the senior judiciary. Decisions made at pupillage stage therefore shape not only chambers’ future membership, but also the future pool from which a significant part of the judiciary will be drawn.
It is easy to assume that the current system has always existed. It has not. Mandatory 12-month pupillage was introduced only in 1959. Before 1975, pupils could still be charged for their training. A prescribed minimum level of pupillage funding did not arrive until 2003. The route to the Bar has changed repeatedly in response to professional, economic and social realities. There is no reason to treat the present model as immutable. Perhaps the time has come to ask whether it should do so again.
A Better System is Possible
One possibility is to reconsider the sequencing of the Bar course and pupillage. At present, many applicants undertake Bar training before they have secured pupillage. The Bar Council’s own guidance notes that pupillage is the final practical stage of training and that it can be started up to five years after completion of Bar training. The 2024/25 Gateway report also records that more than half of applicants applied before completing the vocational component of training
That sequencing deserves serious scrutiny. Should students be allowed – or at least encouraged – to spend vast sums on the Bar course before securing pupillage? Or should the profession move towards a model in which candidates ordinarily obtain pupillage, or at least pass through a more meaningful pre-course selection process, before undertaking the most expensive stage of training?
The question then arises whether there is any good reason to preserve the current system. Beyond an aptitude for civil and criminal procedure, what does completion of the Bar course prove that undergraduate study does not? Realistic pupillage applicants will usually have demonstrated some commitment to the profession through mini-pupillages, and some advocacy skills through mooting or advocacy competitions.
Perhaps the Bar course shows dedication, in that the candidate has put their money where their mouth is. But, again, that is a very expensive datapoint. Assuming 100 applicants for the same place in chambers, each having completed the Bar course, that represents well over £1mn spent for a nominally useful piece of information, with the vast majority of that money going to commercial providers. Is it fair to place that financial burden upon applicants? By shifting vocational training to after securing pupillage, the profession would reduce the number of students paying for an expensive qualification that may never lead to practice.
Moreover, it would create a more natural cap on vocational training numbers. Providers would be training a cohort with a realistic route into the profession, rather than a much larger group competing for a much smaller number of pupillages. Consequently, this could improve the quality and focus of Bar training by allowing for more focused, personal instruction. If the course were taken closer to the start of pupillage, knowledge and skills would be fresher. It might also reduce duplication between Bar course advocacy training and advocacy training delivered during pupillage.
Changes of this kind would force the profession to confront where responsibility should lie. At present, the candidate bears much of the cost of proving their seriousness. A better system might place more responsibility on chambers, providers, Inns and regulators to identify potential earlier, fund it properly, and ensure that training is connected to realistic professional opportunity. This is not an argument for lowering standards. Quite the opposite. The Bar should remain demanding. Pupillage should remain selective. But a system can be selective without being wasteful; rigorous without being opaque; competitive without asking large numbers of candidates to incur substantial cost for a qualification that may never be usable.
As mentioned in an earlier article, I have been conducting research into the operation of the current pupillage system. I thought it would be useful to share some preliminary findings and initial reflections. Practitioners, pupils and aspiring barristers who would like to contribute to that research are very welcome to contact me via LinkedIn.
Jared Higgins, 2026
Founder, PupillagePulse