In the late 1960s, I was looking to study law, but did not want to study it exclusively, and was not sure whether I wanted to practise law. By chance, I was selected to represent my school at a conference hosted by Kent. I liked the feel of Kent and found the law degree appealing, especially because it required the study of a range of other social sciences. I have never regretted the decision and am very grateful for the education I received, most notably from Adrian Taylor, who left Kent in the mid-70s and from Alan Thompson, who is still there.

What did you find most appealing about reading law at Kent?
I valued – and continue to value – my ‘Kent’ legal education because it did not focus exclusively (or even mainly) on legal principles and black letter law, but on the why and how of law; whom it empowers or disempowers, its social, political and economic effects. In my view, this not only provides an intellectually challenging and enriching higher education, but, though this may seem unlikely, an excellent foundation for professional legal practice After all, at the College, which is another centre of excellence in legal education, we constantly emphasise to our students that only a relatively small proportion of a practising lawyer’s time is spent working on ‘law’. The rest is devoted to figuring out how best to use the law in order to achieve a client’s objectives – be they financial, personal or social. Lawyers often operate as problem-solving consultants and that can be especially true in the corporate sector. Corporate lawyers are transactional designers and engineers, and the law provides only the formal parameters for what’s possible. It’s the starting, not the finishing, point. My legal education at Kent was somewhat disorganised at times, but that made it all the more valuable in the long run because I had to work out a great deal for myself and that, in turn, had a significant impact on my career. It was a key factor attracting me to academic work, for which Kent provided an invaluable intellectual map that, in one way or another, I have followed for the rest of my career in legal education.

How did you end up working as Director at the College of Law at Bloomsbury?
By the time I got the job here, I had been teaching at Kent for 25 years. I went to Kent initially to help Adrian Taylor set up and run the Kent Law Clinic. I then became Head of what is now the Kent Law School, and then from 1993 Pro-Vice-Chancellor. I
discovered somewhat to my surprise that I enjoyed management and leadership roles. I found them challenging, intellectually engaging and ethically interesting. That was why I was very attracted to the job, which I have been doing at the College since 1998. It combines operational responsibility for our largest centre in Bloomsbury, of which I’m the Director, with membership of the College Management Board, which oversees all aspects of the College’s work.

Do you have any other responsibilities outside those related to your duties as Director of the College of Law?
As a member of the Board, I chair the College’s Academic Board and, as such, am responsible for overseeing our academic quality and standards. I also have Board responsibility for our Careers Service – the largest (and best) law-dedicated service of its kind in the country – and for the development and oversight of our extensive, award-winning pro bono programme. We have over 2,500 students doing pro bono every year. I am also in charge of the College’s Social Responsibility programme, which covers (among other things) diversity and outreach. For example, in the College’s London and Birmingham centres, over 35% of students are from (local) minority ethnic communities. They still have greater difficulty than ‘ethnic majority’ students obtaining training contracts and pupillages. Therefore, over the years, the College has given a very high priority to addressing this issue. This is mainly through the Careers Service but also through a variety of specific projects (most recently the Pathways to Law programme), some of which we run in partnership with professional bodies, law firms and other organisations.

What do you look for in applicants to the BPTC and LPC?
Because the College is a charity exclusively devoted to the provision of professional legal education, we have a specific responsibility to open up our services to the widest possible range of qualified students. Students must, of course, meet the basic requirements of the legal profession, namely at least a 2:2 in a law degree, although the vast majority of our students have 2:1s or firsts. Beyond that, we want to ensure that before they embark on BPTCs or LPCs, students are aware of market conditions and employment prospects. I was delighted to see from our latest First Destinations survey that 90% of those who completed the BPTC and LPC in 2008 had managed to obtain training contracts, pupillages or other kinds of ‘law-related’ employment, in many cases, no doubt, through using the Careers Service while they were with

us.
What advice would you give to those students considering doing the BPTC/LPC at the College of Law?
You must be aware of the risks of going to the Bar. Without a 2:1, the chances of securing a pupillage are markedly reduced and even with a 2:1, there is no guarantee of securing one. As a young barrister, life is hard. One third of Bar students get pupillages, and only half of that one-third get tenancies. To give you a sense of proportion, at the College’s Bloomsbury centre, of which I am Director, we have 1,500 full-time or part-time students per year doing the LPC. That’s more than the total number students doing the BPTC in all the providers over the country as a whole. The solicitor profession is almost ten times larger and has expanded rapidly over recent years. It therefore remains easier for LPC students to secure training contracts than BPTC students to secure pupillages. Remember also that it is now possible for solicitors to obtain, with a limited amount of ‘post- LPC’ training and without all of the insecurities involved, the same rights of audience as barristers.

What advice would you give to Kent students intending to apply to the College of Law for the BPTC or LPC?
I would say three things: first, at the point you are making a decision, be sure that you want to practise as a lawyer. Use the University careers service and access the guidance available via the College’s website. Second, think carefully about the kind of lawyer you want to be – whether you want to be a barrister or solicitor, and if the latter of what kind (eg serving what kind of clients, and handling what kind of problems and cases). Make sure you know why. For example, many students seem to be attracted to the Bar because of its tradition and style. But it is a necessarily demanding and unforgiving – and can be pretty insecure – existence. Finally, when you come to choose where you are going to do your LPC or BPTC, look not only at the course, but perhaps more importantly at the quality and range of the other career-related services (eg the Careers Service itself or opportunities to undertake pro bono) on offer. Especially if you are like the vast majority of students and start your GDL, LPC or BPTC without a training contract or pupillage, these services could prove of even greater value than the courses themselves.

What is your opinion of the argument that BPTC/LPC providers should only admit a limited number of students in proportion to the number of jobs available in the legal sector?
I believe in letting as many people who have the ability and motivation to qualify as lawyers to do so – as long as they are fully aware of all the risks. If we fixed limits on LPC or BPTC places, this would almost certainly prevent the very students whom
we’ve been trying to encourage into the professions from obtaining the qualifications they need even to compete for the available jobs. As I have said, 90% of our 2008 graduates managed to obtain jobs that involve the use of the law and in most cases will be doing work, whether or not in a formal training contract or pupillage, which would be excellent preparation for qualified professional practice. In the College’s view, they should be given the opportunity to qualify. That’s why we have been urging the Law Society and, more recently, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to replace the training contract with a more flexible, work-based learning system that would allow all suitably supervised legal work to count towards qualification. We are very hopeful that, following the pilot that is being conducted this year, the SRA will introduce such a system in the near future.

Is the question of social mobility adequately addressed by authorities within the legal profession?
It is being addressed and there is a commitment among professional bodies and big firms, but the question is how you go about addressing it. Those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds have a more difficult time securing training contracts and it would undoubtedly be of great benefit to them if the SRA was to introduce a more flexible, work-based learning path to qualification. More generally though, measures to encourage social mobility must begin well before higher education. That’s why we have committed to the Pathways to Law project.

What are your future ambitions and plans?
When I started my career, I was motivated to provide legal education that is both intellectually engaging, ethically informed and practically empowering. That remains my ambition. However, I firmly believe that, through the kind of education provided by places like the Kent Law School and the College of Law, I am much closer to realising it than I was when I started teaching in 1973. I want to tap into students’ creativity and social responsibility, and to equip them to respond self-confidently to the challenges that the world throws at them.

What is the most valuable piece of advice you would give to law students at Kent?
Know why you want to be a lawyer. Think about the risks. Ask questions and find out what the law is and what it involves you doing. Spend time talking to lawyers. Above all, learn to love uncertainty and remember that it is precisely the parts of the Kent course that you probably find most frustrating that will prove the most valuable and enriching for the rest of your lives

Do you believe that there is any value to postgraduate education, such as an LLM?
It depends on why you are doing it. It can be a very good way to develop specialist knowledge and skills in areas in which you are already practising or hope to do so. However, there is little evidence that an LLM in itself will make it easier for you to obtain a training contract or pupillage. So, before committing to the time and expense of an LLM, make sure you know why you’re doing it and what you expect to get from it.

David A Amaro is in the final year of a Senior Status Law LLB (Hons)

Could you please give us a brief background to your education?
I attended boarding school and was expected to follow in the footsteps of my father and become an underwriter. I was actually atrocious at school and viewed as having no potential whatsoever. When I left school I joined the army, much to the concern of my parents, where I spent a number of years on the front line in Northern Ireland, the special investigation branch and then became a commander. I never thought I would be a lawyer when I was in the army, but I later developed an interest in law, so I did law at A level and then went to Kings College London and studied law as a mature student, which was fantastic fun. I then went to Bar school, managed to get a funded pupillage and then an LLM in Commercial and Corporate Law at King’s and LSE. Then I had an offer from a large company based in South Africa to be a corporate legal advisor. After a few years, I came back to the UK and joined the CPS. One of the most significant experiences I had at university was being taught by some of the best people in the country. I was taught the value and joy of professional debate and I learnt that you could have a really strong professional debate without an argument and that’s a crucial piece of understanding if you want to be a lawyer.
Has the education you received played a significant role in your professional life?
I would say university has because what I got out of it was a real passion for law. I learnt that the difference between being a good lawyer and an average lawyer is that an average lawyer will read the nutshell or the textbook. The good lawyer will go to
the original source text and that was a valuable lesson. School certainly didn’t have an impact on my work, but what it did do was provide a contrast; I ended up having public school, boarding school and then the real harsh front line service in the army.
That gave me the ability to communicate at any level and feel comfortable with it. Most importantly, it taught me to never ever judge anyone until you know them.
Did you always aspire to work for the CPS?
Not always, I saw an advert on the tube for prosecutors in CPS London. so I decided to apply for it and work there for maybe six months to a year, while I assessed my other options. But I enjoy working for the CPS and that’s why I’m still here ten years later.
What are your main responsibilities as the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS?
I’m responsible and accountable for all the activities of the CPS in the south-east region. This includes toplevel casework decisions to making sure the working environment is safe for people to work in. My three most important responsibilities are providing leadership, decision making and providing a clear direction for my staff. I also have to make sure that we deliver the highest possible service and never accept the status quo.
What was the most challenging case that you had to work on?
In the last couple years, it has probably been the Securitas robbery, a case involving Britain’s biggest cash robbery. There have been some key issues, which I have had to make some big decisions on and the high profile nature of the case has led to a big balance of risk.
What are the main qualities of a good advocate?
Preparation, confidence, courtesy, fearlessness and, very importantly, knowing when to stop arguing.
What kind of activities would you encourage law students to engage in so that they can improve their employability?
If you want to be an advocate, you need to get into mooting, debating and any type of public speaking. You need to get over your stage fright. Work experience is also very important because it enables you to try different roles and to find a job that is right for you. Being happy and comfortable with your job is far more important than the salary you would get.
Are there any opportunities at the CPS for people who do not enjoy advocacy, like aspiring solicitors?
Yes, there are plenty. There are quite a few lawyers who perform business roles because the CPS is a very large and complex organisation that needs to be run. However, if you’re undertaking a legal role in the CPS then you’d be generally geared towards advocacy, as is the case with most of our lawyers.
Do you think it is harder for stateschooled or poorer students to succeed in the legal profession?
Inside the CPS, it really is irrelevant and progression is based on merit rather than backgrounds. Nobody has ever actually asked me, unless it came up in casual conversation, what university I went to. People here are primarily concerned with how you do your job, not where you got your education.
Have you got any advice for students who have just started reading law but haven’t yet decided on which direction to take?
Don’t rush it because you don’t need to. Don’t spend your three years doing a law degree fretting about what you’re going to do with it afterwards. Make the most of your time studying law and get out of it what you naturally want to get out of it. You don’t realise when you’re doing your degree that it’s a one-off opportunity, so you have to maximise what you get out of it. If you put your heart and soul into it, you will enjoy it. The real value of a law degree is critical analysis and thinking, and constructively challenging things – asking why. Don’t worry if you don’t want to go into the legal profession either; a law degree would be valuable in most fields.
What was the highlight of your legal career?
It was when I was appointed as Chief Crown Prosecutor for a small area in Gloucestershire. This is because becoming a CCP enables you to make a difference not just to an individual case but you can bring principles of justice that will impact a lot of people and you’re in a position where you can actually do it.
Do you still have aspirations or goals to accomplish in the next few years?
Dozens. I still want to realise the enormous potential of the CPS in Kent. It’s really rewarding every time you see your organisation taking another step forward. I would like to make more progress on making cohesions between the criminal justice agencies and the other public services, so they have a more holistic approach to preventing crime and disorder, rehabilitation and so forth. I have a particular interest in really moving forward in tackling and combating human trafficking. I think it’s a vile form of human slavery and extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute.

What is the most important advantage of working for the CPS that is not enjoyed by lawyers in the private sector?
You are driven by the fact that you’re delivering something to the public, not just the individual, but the public in a very wide sense and you’re doing it independently. Also, the sheer variety of work and the variety of what you do on a daily basis. It’s enormously exciting. For more information on the Crown Prosecution Service and Roger Coe-Salazar, visit: www.cps.gov.uk/local/ southeast/kent.html
Shalini Ranjan is in the third year of a Law LLB

The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 states that judges must formally retire at 70. However, as the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, confirmed the names of the 12 justices filling the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Pannick contends that ‘there is a very strong case for increasing the retirement age for Supreme Court justices’. Therefore, it is questionable whether the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 is, in effect, nothing more than a blatant form of statutorily enforced age discrimination. Moreover, with the retirement in April 2009 of Lord Hoffmann, who is rightly considered to be one of the most cerebral and distinguished judges of his generation, it is arguable that the Act has had a further negative impact upon English law: it has forced into retirement those judges who are ‘still fresh in mind and body and well short of their sell-by date’. Consequently, in light of these criticisms, it is advocated that the mandatory judicial retirement age should be raised by ten years.
Justice for all?
The argument for increasing the mandatory retirement age for senior members of the judiciary is simple. Those individuals who are appointed to the highest ranks of the English judiciary are, clearly, recognised as the ‘cream’ of their profession. As Pannick argues, the most senior judges (particularly the Law Lords) have served for lengthy periods in the High Court and Court of Appeal and, in the time taken to reach the top, have amassed a considerable wealth of experience. Therefore, owing to the experience gained by senior judges, it seems ridiculous that we should be prepared to dispose of ‘judicial resources of such quality’, merely because the individual concerned has reached 70 years of age. As Pannick notes, standards of judicial administration have improved considerably since 1708, when an almost 90-year-old Salathiel Lovell was appointed Baron of the Court of Exchequer. While Lovell’s advanced age meant that he was of little help to his colleagues, it is contended that many of the fears expressed by Lester concerning the difficulties of ‘removing a senior judge whose powers are failing’, are potentially allayed by the fact that there is widespread support for a fixed judicial retirement age. Moreover, in light of the difficulties faced in trying to remove a judge from office against his will, it is unlikely that the approach adopted by the US Supreme Court, which does not have a mandatory retirement age for its justices, will ever be pursued by any subsequent legislation. Having accepted that there should be a recognised judicial retirement age, the next key question is to ascertain exactly what that retirement age should be. Pannick has proposed that the judicial retirement age should be nraised from 70 to 75. While this is a potentially welcome move, the author contends that it does not go far enough and would still lead to the premature end of the judicial careers of ‘some men and women who continue to have a valuable contribution to make’. Furthermore, Pannick’s suggestion that we should increase the judicial retirement age by five years has already been criticised by Lord Bridge of Harwich, who in 1995 (when still serving as a supplementary panel member) expressed his anger at what he saw as ‘the statutory presumption of judicial incompetence at 75’. Moreover, it can be argued that, upon his forcible retirement, Lord Bridge was at the height of his intellectual powers and, for those judges of Lord Bridge’s standing, it is contended that Pannick’s suggestion to increase the retirement age by five years is unsatisfactory. Indeed, the fact that Lord Bridge graduated with a degree in mathematics from the Open University at the age of 86 clearly demonstrates that his Lordship was still capable of exercising the functions of judicial office far beyond the limit envisaged by Pannick.
Familiarity breeds contempt
Upon his retirement from the US Supreme Court in 1932 at 90, Oliver Wendell Holmes observed that old judges ‘are more likely to hate at sight any analysis to which they are not accustomed’. While there may be some modicum of truth in this statement, it is arguable that this comment is equally applicable to any judge, regardless of age. Moreover, it is clear that in those instances in which a claimant or defendant can clearly demonstrate judicial bias, the possibility of an appeal against the decision by the ‘aged’ judge remains an effective safeguard. Similarly, the composition of society has changed drastically since 1932 – particularly in Europe. The population of the UK is ageing and in 2008, the number of people of pensionable age was, for the first time, greater than the number of those under-16 years of age. Moreover, it can be argued that this statistic indirectly supports the notion to increase the judicial retirement age beyond 70. Holmes appears to suggest that older judges are more likely to be biased against modern ways of thinking, and, by analogy, those younger parties who appear before them.
However, in the case of England, it can be argued that the reverse of Holmes’ position may be closer to the truth: it is possible that some younger judges may be more likely to react negatively to an increasing number of older litigants. In this respect, it is arguable that an increased number of older judges would perform a valuable function in administering justice to a more elderly population. Clearly, the current judicial retirement age of 70 is too low. As Pannick notes, the 1993 Act (and the almost identical Judicial Pensions Act 1959, on which it was based) would have robbed us of judges such as Lords Reid, Wilberforce and Bingham ‘whose intellectual force, constitutional perspective and good sense’, were all adeptly exercised in the House of Lords when they were all over 70 years of age. Consequently, while it is accepted that there must be a judicial retirement age, the author contends that the current limit should be raised by ten years. This would bring the Act in line with 21st-century perceptions of the elderly and allow leading judges such as Lord Hoffmann to continue in office without being ‘prematurely retired’. The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 is discriminatory and unfairly forces competent judges into premature retirement. As Pannick argues, many members of the English judiciary did much of their best work after 70 and, therefore, it would be a ‘great detriment’ to our legal system if the current judicial retirement age is not increased.

Ben Slight has just completed a taught LLM in Medical Law and Ethics

Damning research
The Panel initially gathered information from organisations such as the Sutton Trust, which had released some damning figures regarding entry to the top professions. Notably, the legal profession was singled out as the most elitist. The figures revealed that 82% of all barristers graduated from Oxbridge, as did 78% of judges and 53% of the top solicitors. In addition to this, 70% of all judges had attended independent fee-paying schools, as had 68% of barristers and 55% of all top solicitors. The figures clearly highlighted the role that educational background play in securing a place within the higher echelons of the legal profession. But more significant is the role of money: one can surmise from the figures that those who could afford an expensive education went on to occupy the best positions in the legal profession.
What then are the prospects for the rest of the masses; that is, students who attend state schools and do not go to Oxford or Cambridge, and those who come from less privileged backgrounds? The answer to this question is not easily determined. On the dismal end of things, the Milburn Report singled out the legal profession as ‘the most exclusive’ of all the top professions, a statement that suggests that a law graduate would find it harder to acquire a job within the profession than graduates in other fields of study. Also, consider the tormenting reality of student debt. An average university graduate is said to have debts of at least £14,161. But most law students proceed to study for another year at the LPC or BPTC stages and these courses will lead them to incur additional debt arising from course fees and accommodation.

Stiff competition
Furthermore, aspiring barristers have to go through the immensely challenging and competitive stages of finding pupillage and then tenancy. Places are very limited for pupillage and, even if you acquire one, there is no guarantee of getting a tenancy, a
fact that contributes to the uncertainty of a career in the legal profession.

Poverty of aspiration?
Accordingly, it is tremendously important for us as law students to fully appreciate what difficulties lie ahead of us and what we can do to reduce the impact of such difficulties. Lord Neuberger in his speech at The Times/Herbert Smith Advocacy Competition (which required students to investigate the existence of a ‘class ceiling’ in the legal profession and whether it was breakable or there for good) conceded that there are some barriers that make it difficult to enter the legal profession. But he also argued that ‘poverty of aspiration’ is ‘the greatest general barrier to opportunity and entry into the professions’. By this, his Lordship suggested that developing abilities at home or in the classroom and encouraging students to have aspiration was a significant step to countering the difficulties of entry into the professions. In his Lordship’s view, ‘merit and merit alone’ should ultimately be enough to counter the difficulties of entry into the legal profession.

Encouraging signs
Indeed, much has been said about the elitism and exclusivity of the legal profession and much more about what is being done to eradicate it. However, there are numerous encouraging indications of a more open and inclusive profession and signs that things are changing. Not least of these is the fact that admissions to the LPC and BPTC stages are not restricted (see our interview with Richard de Friend, Director, College of Law, on p4) nor are there any plans to restrict such access. There is further evidence from prominent members of the profession that suggests the ‘class ceiling’ could be a myth in organisations such as the CPS (see our interview with Roger Coe-Salazar, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Kent and the south-east on p9). Further consolation can be taken from the fact that while the law has been highlighted as an exclusive profession, other fields, such as journalism and medicine, have also been subject to similar indictments, a suggestion perhaps that the more rewarding the profession, the harder it is to join. In conclusion, university student debts will invariably be incurred whether you are reading law or studying beauty therapy. Similarly, stiff competition for jobs in the legal profession ought to be expected due to the demand for such places, the quality of the applicants and the prestige associated with being an accomplished legal professional. Instead of burying our heads in the sand and worrying about the elitism of the legal profession, perhaps we as law students should take the advice littered across this issue of The Argument. We should develop our abilities to a standard that would rival students from other universities, have high aspirations and seize all the opportunities available to us here at Kent. This includes fully utilising our careers advisory service, participating in mooting competitions and undertaking work placements and mini-pupillages as much as possible. If it is true that a ‘class ceiling’ exists in the legal profession then it must also be true that it can be broken, as long as we persist in knocking on it with our sharpened abilities, aspirations and merits.

Walker Syachalinga is in the third year of a Law LLB