I have of course been closely watching 'The Barristers' on the Beeb and have to say that I have enjoyed it very much. The series has been successful in getting across the role of the barrister in the legal system, how they go about their work and how tough it is to become a barrister.
I was left stricken, though, by the final episode of the series. In this episode, Kakole Pande - having been awarded tenancy in the previous week - was facing the possibility of having her tenancy revoked just shortly after her first appearance in a Crown Court as defence counsel. The head of Kakole's chambers first told us that having awarded tenancy to some of its pupils, about four old members of the chambers were now having second thoughts. Accordingly, Kakole was summoned back to her Chambers - to face up to, we were told, 30 members - for another interview for a position she had already been told she had. I was shocked. In the end it went just fine for Kakole who was able to vindicate herself in the eyes of the members of chambers that had a problem with her.
Unfortunately, just like we didn't get to see the House of Lords in session during the progression of a case, we didn't get to see the members of chambers who had a problem with Kakole! I'm guessing it was because they didn't want to be shamed on national television. The camera did after all follow Anna, another student, into one of her pupillage interviews.
Now, my feelings could all be premised on a misunderstanding; but, isn't it the case, that once you become a tenant, you have as much right to be in the chambers as any of its former members? Also, what if Kakole did not agree to this last interview? Wasn't she able to?
50-word shorts
2 hours ago
3 comments:
I am told the normal convention is that chambers, as a whole, follows the decision of the tenancy committee over the admission of new tenants. But, nevertheless, all members of chambers can put a new admission to a vote. I do not think the programme suggested it was the older, more established tenants who objected but, rather, the younger ones; presumably, because of the shortage of decent paying criminal work. In any event, this really did not reflect well on those involved, except for Kakole Pande. Something tells me she will be much in demand; to the chagrin of her less upstanding co-tenants.
That is basically as I understood it too. The tenancy committee's decision is usually followed. I was just amazed, though, that having made a decision it was still subject to review.
What we saw did not reflect well at all on the chambers concerned.
Poor Kakole. Subject, like all the other programme participants to the BBC effect i.e. taken on because chambers was filmed heavily but then, when it was realised that her tenancy couldnt be sustained, was prepared to drop her? Would they have accepted her if the Beeb HADN'T been filmed?
Either way, she was treated in a very shabby manner and I was very glad to see her come out of it all smelling of roses.....
Post a Comment