Prime Minister Keir Starmer has appointed David Lammy as Lord Chancellor in the mini-reshuffle

Barrister-turned-politician David Lammy has been appointed Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in Keir Starmer’s latest mini-reshuffle.

The shake-up follows Angela Rayner’s resignation as Deputy Prime Minister on Friday, after it emerged she had underpaid around £40,000 in stamp duty on her £800,000 Hove flat — a failure to seek specialist tax advice which breached the ministerial code.

Lammy — who has also been named Deputy Prime Minister — replaces barrister Shabana Mahmood MP, who held the justice role for just over a year. Mahmood was only the second woman, and the first Muslim, to serve in the position.

The Tottenham MP, previously Foreign Secretary, becomes the tenth Lord Chancellor in a decade. A trained barrister, he was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1994 before completing an LLM at Harvard Law School.

Top of his agenda will likely be the rising prison population and the Crown Court backlog — long-standing challenges that have thwarted his predecessors.

Elsewhere in the reshuffle, Baroness Levitt (Alison Levitt KC) replaces Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede as Labour’s justice spokesperson in the Lords. Called to the bar in 1988, Levitt served as principal legal adviser to Keir Starmer during his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions.

Meanwhile, barrister Ellie Reeves MP has been appointed Solicitor General, succeeding former Slaughter and May lawyer Lucy Rigby, who moves to the Treasury as Economic Secretary.

Strongly discouraged but currently no regulatory prohibition

An independent review has called for a new rule to make it “serious misconduct” for barristers, clerks or chambers’ staff to have sexual relationships with pupils and mini-pupils, in a bid to tackle abuse of power at the bar.

The landmark report, led by Baroness Harriet Harman KC, warns that aspiring barristers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation during the year-long pupillage stage, given the influence chambers hold over tenancy decisions.

“Sexual relationships between pupils and members of chambers or clerks/staff with influence over their careers should be prohibited for the duration of pupillage. This would make it serious misconduct for a barrister, clerk, or chambers’ employee to have a sexual relationship with a pupil, mini-pupil, or anyone undertaking work experience in that chambers,” the report states.

Currently, there is no regulatory prohibition on sexual relationships between pupils and members of chambers or clerks with influence over their careers. The current guidance strongly discourages such relationships due to the obvious risks of coercion and conflicts of interest, but they are not explicitly banned. As a result, the issue is usually left to chambers’ discretion, with policies and enforcement varying widely across the profession.

The prohibition is among a wide-ranging set of recommendations in the Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment at the Bar, published this morning.

Other proposals include:

• A new Commissioner for Conduct to oversee standards across the bar and judiciary.
Making training on bullying and harassment mandatory for all students, barristers, chambers’ employees and Inns staff every three years.

• Requiring chambers to adopt anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies, with consistent procedures for handling complaints.

• Introducing tougher sanctions, with the report stressing that bullying, harassment and sexual harassment should be “career-limiting or career-ending”.

• Extending reforms to cover judicial bullying, with calls for greater accountability in courtrooms, abolition of the JCIO’s three-month complaint time limit, and the use of court recordings to support complaints.

Launching the report, Harman KC said the bar must take action now. “Strong sanctions are needed to send the message that things are going to change, that serious misconduct will not be met with a quiet word or a brief suspension but will be career-limiting or career-ending,” she said.

The review concludes that only radical change will end what it describes as a “culture of denial” at the top of the profession.

Barrister-to-be seeks advice

In our latest Career Conundrum, a pupil barrister asks readers to share their best tips for making their training period run as smoothly as possible.

“Hi Legal Cheek. The email subject sort of it explains it. I am due to start pupillage next month in London and looking for some general advice on dos and don’ts from those who have been through it. Keen to hit the ground running and make a good impression, so any advice (general or otherwise) is most welcome. Thanks.”

If you have a career conundrum, email us at tips@legalcheek.com.

Involved two pupils and mini-pupil

A barrister removed from the profession for multiple instances of sexual misconduct has failed in his attempt to overturn the disbarment.

Robert Michael Kearney, called to the bar in 1996, had been disbarred following a tribunal hearing in December 2024. His misconduct involved two pupils and a mini-pupil.

Kearney brought the matter before the High Court, challenging the sanction on several grounds. He argued that insufficient weight had been given to mitigating evidence, that his rehabilitation had been wrongly categorised as “personal mitigation”, and that the tribunal failed to properly consider the combined impact of multiple sanctions — known as the “totality principle”.

However, Mrs Justice Hill dismissed these arguments. Sitting in Manchester, she ruled that the tribunal had acted appropriately, finding that there was “nothing wrong” with how it assessed Kearney’s rehabilitation efforts and the broader evidence concerning his character.

She continued: “The tribunal, when considering what sanction to impose, was fully entitled to have regard for his pattern of misconduct, and to reflect on the question of why the previous investigations and sanctions had been ineffective in preventing his misconduct towards Pupil A and Pupil B.”

Kearney’s professional conduct had previously drawn sanctions on two occasions. In 2018, he was fined £1,000 for what was described as “disgraceful” behaviour towards a male pupil. A few years later, in 2021, he was suspended for six months and fined £3,000 after making crude sexual remarks to a woman during a mini-pupillage. That suspension was upheld on appeal.

Following a consolidated sanctions hearing in early 2023, Kearney was initially disbarred. He succeeded in having that decision overturned due to apparent bias on the part of the disciplinary panel, which resulted in a fresh hearing — and a second disbarment — in December 2024.

During the latest appeal, Hill J noted that between 2015 and 2020, Kearney had “engaged in ‘multiple examples’ of similar behaviour on different occasions over a period of time, but had continued to commit acts of misconduct despite knowing of the concerns raised about his conduct by his chambers and his regulator”. She found that the tribunal was justified in concluding there was an ongoing risk of reoffending, “particularly if inebriated”.

On the matter of mitigation, she said the tribunal had “specifically acknowledged the strong references” and “clearly afforded them some weight”, but added:

“The tribunal conducted a detailed and careful exercise, identifying and weighing matters relevant to culpability and harm and aggravating and mitigating factors. They gave detailed and clear reasons. Together, these fully explain why the tribunal did not consider that a further period of suspension was the appropriate sanction.”

The tribunal had also considered whether disbarment was too severe, given that his misconduct took place under a previous version of the Sanctions Guidance. Hill J was clear in rejecting this point: “I do not accept that it is necessarily the case… that disbarment would not have followed, given the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct here and the fact that the sanctions guidance is not prescriptive.”

She concluded that disbarment was both appropriate and proportionate:

“For cases within the upper range of seriousness, which both cases were for the reasons the tribunal gave, the Sanctions Guidance made clear disbarment was the ‘indicative sanction’. In those circumstances the sanction of disbarment was not manifestly excessive; nor was it wrong or clearly inappropriate, which is the test applicable to this appeal.”

Kearney’s appeal was dismissed.

From 96% success to less than 50%

The number of aspiring barristers is climbing fast, but new figures from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) reveal a stark divide in pass rates — with some law schools seeing success rates as high as 96%, while others less than 50%.

A total of 2,445 students enrolled on a Bar Training Course between July 2024 and June 2025, an increase from 2,423 in the previous year, according to the regulator’s latest training report. Enrolment numbers vary by law school and location, with BPP London admitting the largest cohort at 442 students, while BPP Bristol enrolled the smallest with just 12.

The BSB report also highlights, as in previous years, that pass rates can vary significantly between providers. Among students from the 2023–24 cohort with a 2:1 undergraduate degree, the highest pass rate was at the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) with 96%, while some law schools achieved pass rate of less than 50%.

Other key stats from the report show that bar course fees currently range from £13,200 to £20,200 for home students, and from £13,200 to £23,700 for overseas students, with three providers charging higher fees for international applicants.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, students with a first-class undergraduate degree are more likely to secure pupillage than those with a 2:1, who in turn are more successful than those with a 2:2.

Mark Neale, BSB director general, said:

“This report forms part of the continuing work of the Bar Standards Board to ensure high standards of training for the Bar. It aims to support students to make informed decisions about their choice of provider and their prospects of success before embarking on the journey to become a barrister.”

Spill the (chambers) tea…

Last week, Legal Cheek launched an open thread exploring solicitor salaries after the training contract — aiming to shed light on an area often shrouded in secrecy.

Over 160 comments later, the thread has become a treasure trove of pay insights from some of the country’s top law firms. That said, a word of caution: the information isn’t verified, so make sure to do your own research too!

But with several baby barristers reaching out to us in response, it’s clear they’re feeling left out, and calling for a dedicated thread of their own.

One young barrister emailed us to say:

“I saw your recent open thread on NQ salaries and bunching. I think it’s a great idea as so many firms are opaque about earnings. Would you be able to create a similar thread for earnings for baby/”junior junior” barristers? Many chambers are also very opaque about the earning potential of their juniors. I would find it helpful to have some transparency for not just current barristers but also students looking at the bar.”

We’re happy to oblige. Whether it’s commercial, civil, family, criminal — or any other area for that matter — if you’ve got the inside scoop on barristers’ earnings at a particular set, share it in the comments below.

Oxbridge grad with Inns of Court scholarship peddling 3OO+ miles from Barsham to Barmouth

An aspiring barrister is taking on a 305-mile cycling challenge across England and Wales in a bid to raise over £12k to cover his living costs during the bar course.

Harry Camp has already set off on his ‘Bar2Bar‘ bike ride, a 305-mile journey from Barsham in Suffolk to Barmouth in Gwynedd, the easternmost and westernmost places in England and Wales beginning with ‘Bar’.

The route pays tribute to both his English-Welsh heritage and the two nations that form the jurisdiction in which he hopes to practise. When he emailed Legal Cheek earlier today, he had reached Leicester and was en route to Staffordshire.

The bar hopeful is no stranger to overcoming obstacles. Raised between working-class communities in Cumbria, Essex and Cambridgeshire, Camp explains how he worked various part-time jobs to support himself through a first-class undergraduate degree at Cambridge and a master’s at Oxford, where his dissertation topped the cohort.

“I am extremely fortunate to come from a deeply supportive family, but that same level of support cannot be offered financially,” Camp explains on his fundraising page, which has already attracted more than £3,500 in donations. “My father is a self-employed carpenter and joiner who left school at 16 and has worked his entire adult life to provide security and stability for his family, weathering some challenging times. My mother was, until her recent retirement, a district nurse and physiotherapist in the NHS.”

His determination to pursue a career at the bar has already won him a prestigious scholarship from Lincoln’s Inn, which will cover the cost of his bar course tuition and part of his rent in London. However, with living costs for the year-long course expected to exceed the scholarship, Camp — who will also be working part-time alongside his studies — is seeking to raise the remaining £12,858 through his cycle challenge and crowdfunding efforts.

Explaining why he has resorted to donning lycra to raise the funds, Camp says he has tried additional scholarships, charities, and even loans, all without success.

“A postgraduate student loan can be obtained for an extended, 12-month version (called an LLM) of my intended eight-month course,” says Camp, who plans to study the bar course at City St George’s, University of London. “However, I am unable to obtain this, as I already used a Postgraduate Student Loan to fund my Masters at Oxford, several years before I decided to become a barrister. One Postgraduate Student Loan is allowed per student, and I do not meet any of the limited exceptions.”

Camp’s CV is very impressive. In addition to his first-class degree from Cambridge and master’s from Oxford, the aspiring barrister has completed a conversion course at The University of Law and undertaken mini-pupillages at some of London’s most elite commercial sets, including Atkin, Erskine, 4 New Square, Maitland, Keating, and One Essex Court. He’s also previously worked as paralegal at US law firm Weil and completed an internship with Magic Circle law firm Clifford Chance.

Camp has also pledged to donate any funds raised beyond his target to The 93% Club, a charity that offers mentorship, career support, and opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In addition, he has committed to making a minimum donation of £15,000 to the diversity charity Bridging the Bar over the course of his career.

Jailed for 16 years

A barrister convicted of rape has been disbarred by a disciplinary tribunal.

James Boyle, who was called to the bar in 1999, was convicted of raping a girl under the age of 16, indecently assaulting a female under 16, and raping a female aged between 16 and 19.

The offences occurred between 1986 and 1988, while Boyle was serving as a police officer and before he became a criminal defence barrister.

Boyle was sentenced to 16 years in prison at Cambridge Crown Court in June 2023.

The tribunal found that the former barrister acted in a manner which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or the profession.

Boyle also failed to report promptly to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) that he had been charged and then convicted.

He was ordered to be disbarred in relation to the criminal convictions, with no further sanction for the failure to report matters to the regulator.

A BSB spokesperson said: “Serious conduct of this nature is incompatible with membership of the bar. The seriousness and impact on the public expectations of the profession is reflected in the decision of the tribunal to disbar Mr Boyle.”

Antitrust artwork

It’s not every day a judge picks up the virtual paintbrush — but Sir Marcus Smith has done just that, adding his own colourful diagram to a hefty legal ruling.

The meaty case in question featured no less than five KCs instructed by firms including Linklaters, Jones Day, Milbank, and Stephenson Harwood. Over almost 280 pages — including three diagrams — the CAT panel ruled unanimously on technical points of law.

Two diagrams, of a more corporate flavour, were submitted by parties to the case. The third, however, was how Sir Marcus Smith J interpreted the situation. Annex 3 at page 222, highlights what is titled “The Tribunal Diagram”:

Notice how the contractual relations are all helpfully expressed by rich colour-coding.

Paragraph 19 provides a little explanation. In response to suggestions Sir Marcus Smith J had dreamt up an approach “not argued by the parties”, the judge cited the diagram as evidence that he had, in fact, been paying very close attention.

At paragraph 255(6) he added, “My concern to understand the operation of the market was evident throughout the hearing (specifically, in the diagram at Annex 3, that was regularly under consideration during the trial).”

There’s a certain vibrancy to the diagram not seen in other efforts littered through the annex, which are more mundane in manner.

Aidan Robertson KC, described by his set Brick Court Chambers as “a leading silk” in competition law, highlighted the unusual annex on LinkedIn. There, Robertson described the drawing as “unprecedented… (so far as I am aware).”

In the comments, one observer noted that Sir Marcus Smith, who was previously a silk at Fountain Court, has a habit of introducing novel touches in his judgments. In another competition case, he included an economic analysis of why free market economies have firms, complete with references to seventeenth-century joint-stock companies.

However, Sir Marcus Smith is not the only judge to bring creativity into legal rulings. Legal Cheek has previously reported on a judge who used emojis to help children understand a family law judgment. More recently, an American judge included a gumbo recipe in the footnotes of a ruling involving Trump’s legal battles with law firms.

Pleaded guilty to assault

The bar disciplinary tribunal has reprimanded an unregistered barrister following a late-night altercation at a Nottingham cocktail bar that led to an assault conviction.

Benedicte Mabika, 25, was at the Wax Bar in Nottingham at 2:45am on 23 December 2023 when she threw a bottle at a woman “who was known to her from school”, hitting her above the eye and “causing a cut which bled”, according to the tribunal’s decision.

Mabika told police she had intended to throw the contents of a drink at the other woman — whom she claimed was threatening her sister — but the bottle slipped from her hand, striking the victim instead. She admitted her actions were reckless.

At Nottingham Magistrates’ Court in July 2024, Mabika pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She was fined £858, ordered to pay £100 in compensation, and faced a £343 victim surcharge and £85 in costs.

Mabika had been called to the bar just a month earlier, in November 2023, and is listed as an unregistered barrister. This means she has passed the bar course but has yet to complete her pupillage.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook states that, “unregistered barristers remain members of the profession and are expected to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. In this context, they remain subject to certain Core Duties and Conduct Rules at all times.”

After Mabika self-reported her conviction to the BSB, a three-person disciplinary panel found she had breached Core Duty 5 and Rule C8 of the BSB Handbook, which require barristers to maintain the trust and confidence of the public and uphold professional integrity.

Despite the seriousness of the incident, the tribunal decided it was a “one-off” and said her culpability was “low to moderate”. There were no previous disciplinary findings, and Mabika had self-reported the conviction and shown “complete remorse and regret”. The only aggravating factor was the criminal conviction itself.

“It was a very foolish and potentially dangerous thing to do,” the tribunal said. “However, we are as confident as we can be that this is a one-off incident and very much out of character.”

They acknowledged the long-term impact the case could have on her ambitions to practise law, adding: “We are confident there is little or no ongoing risk to the public.”

While Ms Mabika avoided a professional fine, she was ordered to pay £500 towards the BSB’s costs and received a formal reprimand.

£3k

A barrister has been fined £3,000 by the Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service after he was reported to be drinking alcohol in his car during a break in a criminal trial.

Dominic Charles D’Souza was representing a client at Snaresbrook Crown Court in North East London when, during a break in proceedings, he consumed alcohol in his car which was parked in the court’s carpark. The tribunal does not disclosed what exactly he drank.

D’Souza withdrew from the case as result of other allegations which were not pursued by the regulator and which the tribunal accepted were false. The jury was discharged and a new trial date was fixed.

D’Souza, a tenant of London’s Goldsmith Chambers, admitted all three charges against him, conceding that he had behaved in a way likely to diminish public trust in his profession, as well as wasting the time of the court and foreseeably interfering with the administration of justice.

The barrister was fined £3,000, £1,000 on each charge, and ordered to pay £2,670 in costs, although the findings and sanction remain open to appeal.

UPDATE: 11 July, 16:23pm: An earlier version of this article stated that Mr D’Souza’s drinking led to his withdrawal from a trial. In fact, his withdrawal followed more serious allegations made against him, which were later found to be false. We are happy to clarify this.

Lack of work-life balance

A new report has found fewer pupil barristers are willing to recommend pupillage, citing increased stress levels as a major concern.

Only a third of pupils would now “definitely” recommend the profession as a career path, the report notes — down from 42% last year. It describes this as a “significant decline” in those willing to recommend the bar to others. However, it’s not all doom and gloom: 90% of pupils still reported a positive experience of pupillage.

A lack of work-life balance, according to over a third of respondents, was the main reason why a career at the bar “was seen to be potentially not viable” in the long term. Pupils in publicly-funded practice areas were more likely than others to cite this reason. Many also highlighted a lack of work-life boundaries.

Other stand out reasons could include stress levels, which 88% respondents described as “moderate” or “high”, plus insufficient pay in some practice areas, last minute workloads, poor scheduling, and high debt. On median working hours, 38% reported 41-50 hours per week, with 41% saying they work more than that.

These findings come from the Pupil Survey 2025, run by the Bar Council. Some 170 responded, amounting to approximately one third of all total pupils (609). All responses were anonymous.

Pupils’ median debt range is a hefty £50-60k so it’s not surprising four in ten cited “some degree of financial hardship”. The median award bracket was £30-39,999 but over half the pupils working in crime take home under £30k. Meanwhile, one quarter of male respondents have pupillage awards of £60k or more — almost double compared to women (13%) — with many offered by sets on the Legal Cheek Chambers Most List.

About 40% earned pupillage in their first application cycle, but 14% reported going through four yearly cycles before gaining the competitive traineeship. A scant 8% described the process as “not very challenging” — compared to 50% calling it “very challenging”. Respondents sought better feedback on rejections, “access to more financial resource”, and improvements to the pupillage gateway.

Stats for bullying, harassment, or discrimination were down compared to previous surveys, though 17% still reported personal experience. In “most cases”, another barrister was responsible — almost one in five said it was their pupil supervisor, with heads of chambers and practice managers also cited.

The report also revealed most pupils criticised the BSB ethics exam, a compulsory three hour test during pupillage, for “its unfairness, being stressful, and for its inconsistent administration”. It probably didn’t help that, according to respondents, it was “unnecessary” and duplicates training from the bar course.

Interestingly, the report notes one in five pupils “were recorded as LGBTQ+” which is “significantly higher” than the general population. Other demographic stats reflected the general population.

Facing rejection online, Thomas Isaac is taking his CV to law firms’ doors

An aspiring lawyer is taking an unconventional approach to securing legal work experience, walking in an ever expanding spiral from his home and handing out CVs to law firms he passes along the way.

Going the extra mile is Thomas Isaac, a City University bar graduate who has been documenting his unique approach step by step (quite literally) on LinkedIn.

In a post last week, Isaac shared that he has been struggling to secure a role to gain experience ahead of pupillage, despite completing the bar course and applying through virtually every online route. “The uncaring barrage of rejections, even if it gets easier, never gets easy,” he explains. “Not knowing whether your CV and cover letter was looked at by a real person, getting no feedback, getting rejected at the final hurdle — it all hurts.”

But Isaac remains undeterred by the challenge that many aspiring lawyers face when trying to secure legal work experience.

The aspiring barrister, who holds a first-class degree in computer science, explains that he has started walking in an ever expanding spiral from his home in South-West London, stopping at every solicitors’ firm along the way to hand out physical copies of his CV and cover letter in person.

Fast forward a week, and Isaac — whose original post attracted over 3,000 likes and hundreds of comments — has recently shared an update with his followers on his job-hunting walkabout.

And there’s good news: on his second 22km spiral, he’s landed a couple of interviews.

“I cannot express enough my gratitude to the legal community for the support I have received,” he says. “Every comment, message, and bit of advice reaffirms my commitment to this career.”

“There will be more updates to come,” Isaac adds.

Apply now

The Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) has launched this year’s mentorship scheme for underrepresented groups, with a record 26 leading commercial chambers involved.

This year, COMBAR’s programme offers around 250 aspiring barristers the chance to receive up to five one-to-one mentoring sessions with barristers from some of the country’s leading commercial sets.

As part of the scheme, participants will be invited to a pupillage interview and application workshop, along with a social event planned for early next year. Last year’s event, held at Gray’s Inn, featured a keynote speech by Mr Justice Henshaw, the Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court, delivered to an audience of around 175 mentees

All participating chambers will cover reasonable travel expenses for their allocated mentees, though sessions can also be held remotely if preferred.

Legal Cheek is also pleased to announce it will once again act as exclusive media partner for the programme, ensuring it reaches as many potential applicants as possible.

The scheme supports applicants from under-represented groups at the bar, especially the commercial bar. COMBAR assesses candidates with realistic prospects of obtaining a pupillage based on their need for mentoring and their potential for a career at the bar.

Alexander Gunning KC, chair of COMBAR, commented:

“The promotion of diversity at the Commercial Bar continues to be one of COMBAR’s core aims. It is vital that the Commercial Bar recruits from the most talented future practitioners, including, in particular, those from backgrounds that have traditionally been under-represented.”

Gunning KC continued: “The Mentoring Scheme is now moving into its fourth year and has assisted over 650 mentees to date. It allows applicants from under-representative backgrounds, who meet the requisite standards, to access one-to-one mentoring with practitioners from one of 26 participating sets. It is an important way of promoting access and demonstrating that the Commercial Bar is open to applicants from all backgrounds. I am delighted that this year’s Scheme can build on the success of previous years and I want to thank all those involved volunteering their time to make this happen.”

Applicants wishing to participate in the scheme must complete COMBAR’s application form and email it to socialmobility@combar.com by Friday 17 October 2025 as a PDF with the naming convention “First Name – Surname”. Applicants will be informed as to whether or not they have been accepted onto the scheme within November 2025.

The participating chambers this year are: 3VB, 4 New Square, 4 Pump Court, 7KBW, 11KBW, 36 Stone, Atkin Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Devereux Chambers, Essex Court Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Henderson Chambers, Keating Chambers, Littleton Chambers, Maitland Chambers, Monckton Chambers, One Essex Court Chambers, Quadrant Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Serle Court, South Square, Twenty Essex, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings.

Find out more about the mentoring scheme in the video below:

Barrister and solicitor escape contempt proceedings

The High Court has issued a stern warning to the legal profession after examining two cases involving “fake” citations, suggesting in its judgment that senior lawyers may bear some responsibility for junior colleagues’ misuse of artificial intelligence (AI).

Legal Cheek reported last month on a case in which a pupil barrister cited five authorities that did not appear to exist. This followed an earlier case involving a solicitor who relied on legal research conducted by his client, which apparently included 18 fictitious cases.

The cases were later brought before Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, to determine whether the conduct in question amounted to contempt of court.

In the first of the two cases, the court held the instructing solicitor and his paralegal at Haringey Law Centre, a charity, were not responsible for the fake cases.

However, the pupil barrister’s conduct was found to have met the threshold for contempt of court — though the court ultimately decided not to initiate proceedings. “This is not a precedent,” Dame Sharp warned, taking into account mitigating factors, including that the barrister had been “criticised in public judgment” and was an “extremely junior” lawyer.

In the second case, it was found that the solicitor had relied on legal research provided by his client — which was the source of the “fake” cases. Although this meant the solicitor did not “know the true position,” Dame Sharp emphasised: “A lawyer is not entitled to rely on their lay client for the accuracy of citations of authority or quotations… It is the lawyer’s professional responsibility to ensure the accuracy.”

Both the barrister and the solicitor referred themselves to their respective regulators for investigation. The High Court also indicated that it would make its own referrals.

Calling on the profession to do more, Dame Sharp also found the guidance for judges, barristers, and solicitors “is insufficient to address the misuse” of AI.

“We would go further”, the judgment reads, calling on those with “individual leadership responsibilities (such as heads of chambers and managing partners)”, along with regulators, to ensure lawyers understand and comply with their “professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using artificial intelligence.”

The judgment concludes with a stark warning: “For the future, in Hamid hearings such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled.”

The judgment also includes an appendix containing cases from across the world with suspected or found misuses of AI.

Read the judgment in full:

Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank

Dressing down

A judge has reportedly given a barrister a dressing down after he appeared in court via video link without any trousers.

The barrister — who, fortunately for his sake, has not been named — left court users at Shrewsbury Crown Court averting their gaze when he appeared on screen wearing what seemed to be underwear or shorts.

According to The Birmingham Mail, when the court clerk connected the video link, it revealed a “chaotic bedroom” and “disruptive noises” that played through the court’s speaker system.

Unimpressed, Recorder Julian Taylor asked the clerk, “Where is he?” to which the clerk responded by asking, “Can you see and hear the court?”

Cue the barrister stepping into view, dressed in traditional legal attire, including a barrister’s gown and wing-collared shirt, but embarrassingly without trousers.

“It looks like you’re not properly dressed,” Recorder Taylor reportedly told the barrister. The bedroom looks most unsatisfactory. These hearings, when conducted remotely, should be treated as though they are in court.”

“I’m not impressed with you appearing in a state of undress,” the judge added.

Recorder Taylor went on to stress the importance of adhering to the court dress code and appearing before the court “in the correct manner”.

Responding to the dressing down, the barrister said that he understood and that the delayed calling of the case was down to WiFi issues. “I’ve been on the link for over an hour,” he replied. “I apologise unreservedly.”

Controversial BSB rule dropped after backlash

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has abandoned plans to a new rule that would impact a positive duty on to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity, and inclusion”.

The bar regulator conducted a public consultation last year which sought views on proposals to address the barriers to equality of opportunity within the profession.

Much of the feedback centred on the proposed amendment to Core Duty 8, which would change it from a clear duty not to discriminate to a duty to advance or promote equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).

The Bar Council strongly opposed the move at the time, arguing that its lack of clarity would make it difficult to enforce and could ultimately undermine commitment to EDI initiatives

Under the existing rules, barristers are required not to “discriminate unlawfully against any person”.

In a statement yesterday, the BSB said it “recognises how important this consultation has been and has considered a range of different options, including changes to the rules and how we use our full regulatory toolkit”.

The regulator went on to confirm that it will “not be moving forward at this time with the proposals” and will instead focus on measuring progress towards outcomes and working with stakeholders to support the bar in advancing diversity and inclusion.

Mark Neale, director general of the BSB, said:

“The challenge here is a practical one, not an ideological one: to ensure that merit, not background, determines success at the bar. Despite progress, there is still unequal opportunity to join and progress at the bar for female barristers, barristers from minoritised backgrounds and disabled barristers. At root, this requires a change of culture. Such a change requires the support and active collaboration of the profession. We are committed to working constructively to make progress in areas like this where we have shared objectives.”

The decision to abandon the new rule was welcomed by the Bar Council chair Barbara Mills KC.

“The proposals were not only impractical to implement, but they would also have been open to costly legal challenge that would hinder progress on EDI initiatives,” she said. “We therefore welcome the BSB’s reflection on our concerns and the decision not to change but to maintain the current core duty — a clear and definitive duty not to discriminate. This is the right decision, and we’re pleased that the BSB has genuinely listened to feedback from the bar.”

As the number of non-barristers on the bench falls to its lowest point in a decade, what is holding solicitors back?

Solicitors are joining the judiciary in the lowest numbers seen in a generation. In recently published advice, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) highlighted the ongoing underrepresentation of solicitors within the judiciary and offered guidance for those applying for judicial roles.

According to the July 2024 Judicial Diversity Forum Report, in 2023-24, 52% of applicants for legally qualified judicial roles were solicitors, while 29% were barristers.

Although solicitors made up just over half of applicants, given the size of the pool of eligible solicitors, this proportion is strikingly low. As of 2023, there were more than 160,000 practicing solicitors in England & Wales, compared to only 17,000 barristers.

Furthermore, solicitors only made up 32% of recommendations for appointment in 2023-24, compared to barristers, who made up 40%, meaning that being a solicitor more than halves the odds of successfully applying for the bench, compared to barristers.

While representation of women and ethnic minorities has increased in the judiciary, representation of non-barristers among judges it at its lowest point in a decade, having consistently fallen since 2014.

Why are solicitors less likely to apply for judicial roles?

Research compiled for the Ministry of Justice by the National Centre for Social Research (NCSR) in 2023, shows that solicitors were likely to ‘self-select out’ of the judicial appointment process, believing that there was a preference to appoint senior barristers to these roles.

The NCSR also found that solicitors were deterred from considering judicial positions because of a perceived hierarchy within the legal profession, barristers being considered the most elite, and that solicitors are less confident in their skills and experience, compared with their peers at the Bar.

An interview with two solicitor-judges published by the Law Society, mentions relative distance from the courts as a factor affecting solicitors’ confidence applying for judicial roles. Recorder Ayesha Siddiqi said, “It can feel daunting to apply for a judicial appointment if you don’t come from a litigation background.” While High Court judge Karen Ridge commented, “Perhaps solicitors don’t have the same networks as barristers, who sometimes have the advantage of seeing colleagues take on part-time judicial roles.”

The barriers to appointment

A lack of experience at court can also hinder solicitors who do apply from securing judicial roles. Ridge offers this advice to solicitors, “If you’re thinking of a judicial career, I’d encourage you to consider applying for both fee-paid tribunal and deputy district judge appointments. You can then acquire judicial skills which may assist in your application for more senior roles.”

This echoes the advice given by the JAC, which claims, “Not being prepared or fully understanding the role of a judge is a common mistake candidates make,” and continues by advising that candidates “at a minimum” should “sit in with judges to get a broader understanding of the role” and “observe a public hearing to see how a judge manages a courtroom”.

For top solicitors working in demanding commercial firms, taking on a part time judicial role – or even taking time out to visit court – may seem almost impossible.

The difficulties of preparing for a judicial appointment while working as a solicitor in private practice have been emphasised by figures including Paul Richmond, chair of the Northern Circuit District Judges Association. Speaking in 2021, Richmond pointed out:

“Firms of solicitors are becoming less keen on senior figures taking time out, several days a month, to serve as deputy district judges … Keeping them in the office is a way to stop them becoming full-time members of the judiciary.”

Back in 2009, Sir Igor Judge, then the Lord Chief Justice, also laid some responsibility with law firms. “Before any individual can become a full-time judge, he or she must take on part-time judicial responsibilities,” he wrote in the Law Society Gazette, before pointing to a “reluctance” from senior lawyers “to allow their younger partners time away from the office to gain judicial experience as part-time judges” as an obstacle that prevents solicitors from gaining this experience.

Support for solicitor candidates for judicial roles

Combatting the ongoing issue of diversity on the bench, the JAC runs support schemes for judicial candidates such as the Targeted Outreach programme which helps candidates from underrepresented groups, including solicitors, prepare for the process.

Commenting on the representation of solicitors in the judiciary, Law Society of England and Wales president Richard Atkinson said:

“There is still much work to do to address the fact that the judiciary in England and Wales does not reflect a diverse and inclusive profession. We are committed to seeing an increase in successful solicitor appointments. We continue to work with the Judicial Diversity Forum (JDF) partners to support initiatives which seek to improve diversity and help eligible solicitors demonstrate their breadth of unique, transferable and invaluable experience during the selection process”

A JAC spokesperson said: “The judiciary benefits from having people from different professional backgrounds, which is why we work together with applicants, the professions and the judiciary to help prepare talented candidates for these roles. We would encourage anyone who is interested to take a look at the range of materials on our website.”

Legal Cheek’s annual conference gathered together key figures from across the profession to discuss GenZ, SQE, apprenticeships, skills gaps and more

Yesterday, LegalEdCon 2025 returned to Kings Place in London for talks exploring the hottest topics in legal education and training.

Nearly 300 delegates gathered to hear the latest industry insights from leading experts in the legal field. This year’s conference featured sessions on a variety of topics, including the practical developments in the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) regime, diversity, intergenerational workplaces, the science behind learning, and solicitor apprenticeships.

Thom Brooks returned with insights and laughs for the keynote session, continuing his analogy between the SQE and Brexit. His emphasis on reform and improvement to better the SQE for students, providers, and firms capped off the fascinating and poignant themes covered over the day.

Session 1: Mind the gap: tackling workplace readiness

The speakers:

• Morette Jackson, Director of Business Development at The University of Law (chair)
• Joanna Stevens, Senior Early Talent Manager at Charles Russell Speechlys
• Ellis Johnstone, Early Talent Development Lead at Clifford Chance

ULaw’s Morette Jackson, Director of Business Development, kicked off LegalEdCon 2025 by chairing a session focused on workplace readiness. The session asked important questions about how equipped incoming trainee solicitors are for life at a law firm. Jackson spoke about her experience in education before turning to a survey conducted by Legal Cheek. The survey statistics and comments led to a rich discussion with graduate recruiters Joanna Stevens of Charles Russell Speechlys and Ellis Johnstone of Clifford Chance about how their firms are tackling workplace readiness, accounting for the SQE, Covid graduates and generational differences.

Jackson left the lecturn to join her co-speakers on stage for a roundtable Q&A. Joanna Stevens discussed how Charles Russell Speechlys build workplace readiness using their business school. Stevens added that LPC graduates were not required to take SQE2 when joining the firm, but flagged that SQE resits have been disruptive. Apprentices, meanwhile, were praised for their enthusiasm, drive, proactivity, and good exam results — and more exposure to workplace norms.

As Ellis Johnstone said, “law firms now have four generations under one roof”. He noted that some trainees in Clifford Chance’s pipeline had never in their lives taken an exam in-person thanks to Covid, coursework and hybrid working — requiring new pastoral strategies from Johnstone and his team. He noted that setting expectations was key to bridging generational divides.

You can read more about the Legal Cheek workplace-readiness survey here.

Session 2: The psychology of learning

The speakers:

• Alisa Gray, Director of Learning at BARBRI (chair)
• Roy Morgan, Training & Design Specialist at BARBRI
• Sue Elabor, Organisational Psychologist at Blueprint For All

Alisa Gray, Director of Learning at BARBRI, chaired the psychology of learning session. This dynamic discussion explored how neuroscience and psychology are shaping modern legal education. Joined by BARBRI colleague Roy Morgan and Sue Elabor of social justice charity Blueprint for All, the panel explained how learning actually works — and how legal educators can make what they’re teaching stick. Gray, a qualified lawyer turned organisational psychologist, introduced the session by challenging attendees to think of learning as “rewiring the brain”.

Roy Morgan reflected on how digital learning has put “everyone in the front row” of the class. He described BARBRI’s use of guessing, spaced repetition, and chunking knowledge in bite-sized pieces to foster long-term knowledge — crucial for SQE prep, but also for lifelong learning.

Sue Elabor emphasised context, particularly for students from socially mobile backgrounds. She highlighted how MCQs can disadvantage learners unfamiliar with culturally-loaded scenarios, and that psychological safety — the ability to make mistakes without fear — is key to encouraging growth. On fostering learning mindsets across age groups and generations, she said: you certainly can teach an old dog new tricks as long as the attitude is right.

The panellists explored attention spans, busting the myth that they’re getting shorter. Instead, they stressed the need to make content engaging and relevant. The session closed with a call for science-informed teaching to improve educational outcomes. Morgan reminded the audience: “it’s not about what we teach — it’s what learners actually take in.”

Session 3: Gen Z: expectations and realities

The speakers:

• Charlotte Wanendeya, Head of Law at BPP (chair)
• Richard Macklin, Former Global Vice Chair at Dentons
• Charlie Moore, Senior Paralegal at Kingsley Napley
• Lou Lecomte, Solicitor Apprentice at TLT
• Colin Shaw, Head of Learning and Development (EMEA) at Norton Rose Fulbright

Charlotte Wanendeya, Head of Law at BPP, chaired a conversation featuring representatives from four generations of legal professionals: Baby Boomer Richard Macklin, Gen Xers Colin Shaw and Wanendeya herself, Millennial Lou Lecomte, and Gen Z Charlie Moore. The panel tackled evolving attitudes towards mental health, hybrid working, pay expectations, and AI.

Moore called for mental health support to be embedded into the culture of law firms, especially to support those from lower-income backgrounds. Lecomte agreed, adding that as well as mental health, Millennials value career transparency and direction. Macklin reflected on a past where anxiety and his recently-diagnosed ADHD were not spoken about, urging law firms to combine support with self-care: “Law is a tough job. Like athletes, lawyers need to stay fit and supported.”

On hybrid working, the panel agreed that firms must adapt to new learning models and embrace change. Shaw said post-pandemic realities call for intentional support and digital inclusion. Though learning “by osmosis” was still important, Macklin stressed that “availability” trumps physical presence.

The discussion also explored salaries. Moore challenged the “golden handcuff” model, saying Gen Z prioritised meaningful work over hierarchy — which Lecomte echoed. Wanendeya noted that fewer of today’s young lawyers are seeking partnership at their firms as ideas of success have changed, meaning law firm models may have to evolve. Macklin pointed out that junior lawyer salaries are much higher than they have ever been in the past, making law a difficult but a well-remunerated job. This seemed to cut to the biggest generational split.

The speakers emphasised interpersonal skills, critical thinking, and collaboration across generations — including in the ways they use tech. Macklin closed by warning: “If you’re not using GenAI in your work today, I’d be worried” but noted that emotional intelligence is a horizontal — not vertical — spectrum, and that every generation has something to learn from the others.

Lunch and networking

Session 4: The SQE unfiltered

The speakers:

• Caroline Lister, Director of Client Partnerships at BPP
• Professor Joanna Ballard, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Academic at The University of Law
• Jonathan Worrell, Director of Business Development at BARBRI
• Daisy Mortimer, Senior Future Talent Manager at Stephenson Harwood
• George McNeilly, Early Talent Partner at DWF
• Julie Swan, Director of Education and Training at the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
• Danielle Viall, General Counsel at Legal Services Board (LSB)

Chaired by Legal Cheek publisher Alex Aldridge, the first session after lunch promised to “air” the big questions on the SQE in an unfiltered roundtable. The session covered everything from data (or lack thereof), shifts in law firm recruitment, and how training providers view on the SQE’s benefits and drawbacks.

Some pertinent questions were put to the SRA’s director of education and training Julie Swann on topics including promised data on provider pass-rates, diversity issues and an overall lack confidence in the SQE. Danielle Viall from the LSB in particular mentioned the “red” rating they gave the SRA when it failed to publish SQE data in full.

Law firm representatives explained how taking on SQE trainees has changed their day-to-day work. George McNeilly from DWF mentioned how the firm works closely with law schools to support neurodiverse candidates and those with protected characteristics. Daisy Mortimer of Stephenson Harwood said disruptions due to SQE failures — which are much more common than failures on the LPC — have impacted the recruitment pipeline for firms. She recalled having to tell departments that they wouldn’t have an incoming trainee on very short notice.

ULaw’s Joanna Ballard celebrated the diversity in courses available to candidates but noted that the introduction of the SQE has made it necessary to design entirely new platforms and systems. Jonathan Worrell mentioned that BARBRI offers client-firms live data to review their future-trainees’ ongoing attainment and offer targeted coaching. The SQE has fallen short for self-funding students suggested BPP’s Caroline Lister, who noted this may limit the diversity of firm trainee intakes.

Questions from audience members covered the impact of the SQE on neurodiverse candidates, praised the SQE’s “earn while you learn” qualifying work experience and the SQE access and reinvestment fund.

Session 5: Diversity meets politics

The speakers:

• Giles Proctor, CEO & Head of School at The College of Legal Practice
• Tom Wicksteed, Early Careers Manager at Mishcon de Reya
• Amia Tahir, Solicitor Apprentice at Dentons
• Danielle Lobel-Weiss, Partner at Lee & Thompson

Legal Cheek publisher Alex Aldridge chaired a discussion on how government policy is shaping law firm strategy — particularly around DEI and the uncertainty surrounding funding for Level 7 solicitor apprenticeships.

Giles Proctor, CEO & Head of School at the College of Legal Practice, noted the current uncertainty around apprenticeships but stressed that education providers were preparing for all outcomes. Tom Wicksteed clarified that for certain firms — who only offer school leaver apprenticeships — level 7 funding cuts are not a stressor.

On DEI and President Trump, there was discussion about how government policy can cause seismic shifts for both legal education, graduate recruitment, and law firm strategy.

Solicitor apprentice Amia Tahir shared her inspiring story of choosing a solicitor apprenticeship at Dentons over an offer from the University of Cambridge, praising the apprenticeship model for enabling students from disadvantaged backgrounds to “earn while they learn.” She told the audience that she is now the most highly educated person in her family and earns more than friends still at law school: “I’ve broken the cycle.”

Lee & Thompson partner Danielle Lobel-Weiss celebrated how apprenticeship schemes were enhancing DEI and facilitating on-the-job training for boutique firms. However, she acknowledged that some partners underestimate what apprenticeships involve.

Concerns remained about the need for better outreach programmes to help apprenticeship candidates understand the culture of law firms. Nevertheless, the panel agreed the apprenticeship standard is as high as that for training contract candidates and firms who had not yet adopted the scheme were strongly encouraged too.

Keynote – The SQE is like Brexit: seven years on from his prophetic talk at the inaugural LegalEdCon, Thom Brooks returns with a plan to reform the SQE

The speaker:

• Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University

Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University, returned to LegalEdCon for a follow-up to his SQE “TEDtalk” — from all the way back in 2018, at the inaugural conference. A self-proclaimed big Legal Cheek fan, Thom brought great energy to wrap up the conference.

“It struck me in 2018 that things going on with Brexit and with the SQE were similar,” Brooks said, before catching the crowd up on his thoughts. To much chuckling from the audience, he recalled that back then “folks were told the SQE would create better candidates, be a cheaper route to qualification, and be more inclusive — with the data to back it up.”

Drawing an analogy with Brexit, Brooks suggested a lot was said about the SQE — but not a lot that explained what the SQE actually was: “SQE means…SQE,” he said, in his best Theresa May impression.

Picking up on key themes from across LegalEdCon 2025 — diversity, data (or lack thereof), and attainment gaps — Brooks did not hold back in his assessment of these exams. He then asked the pressing question — is it time to stop bashing the SQE?

Brooks set out ten “good ideas” he had drawn from advisory board which included law firms, academics, and recent SQE-takers. These ideas included SQE1 exemptions for law graduates, more northern test centres (or “at least one within 2 hours of Durham!”) and greater transparency on pass-rate data. The delegates, from regulators to academics to law firm recruiters, were hastily taking notes.

Brooks’ funny yet insightful keynote speech made for an outstanding finish to a fascinating LegalEdCon 2025.

Tom Connelly, Legal Cheek‘s editor, brought the conference to a close by thanking the speakers, delegates and headline sponsors BARBRI, BPP University Law School and The University of Law, as well as silver sponsor The College of Legal Practice and additional sponsors Oxford University Press, The National Association of Licensed Paralegals, The Food Chain and Support Through Court.

Who won what: revealed

Last night, the legal community gathered to honour the achievements of the nation’s top trainee-rated firms and chambers at the annual Legal Cheek Awards ceremony.

This year’s Legal Cheek Awards, headline sponsored by BARBRI, BPP University Law School and The University of Law, as well as additional sponsor The College of Legal Practice was held at the Battlebridge Suite of Kings Place London.

More than 250 guests from the UK’s premier law firms and barristers’ chambers attended the much-anticipated ceremony, alongside esteemed academics and prominent industry figures.

While enjoying some fizz and canapés, guests heard welcome addresses from Lucie Allen, chief growth officer at BARBRI; Jonny Hurst, head of outreach and student engagement at BPP University Law School; and Morette Jackson, director of business development at The University of Law.

Legal Cheek‘s Annabelle Oliver and Lydia Fontes, the hosts of this year’s Awards, were joined by award sponsors, as well as Legal Cheek previous winners and top industry figures, to reveal the winners across the 26 categories featured in this year’s ceremony.

The winners of our firms and chambers awards were determined by the results of our annual trainee and junior lawyer and barrister surveys, which included responses from over 2,000 lawyers across the country.

Our Sixth Formers’ Choice for Solicitor Apprenticeships Award was determined by a survey of registrants for Legal Cheek‘s January sixth former virtual event series, where Year 12 and 13 students were asked: ‘Which firm would be your first choice for a solicitor apprenticeship?’

Our Best Use of Social Media and Best Journal Contribution Awards are decided by independent judging panels.

So who won what? Read on to find out…

Best law firm for training 2025: Mills & Reeve

Highly commended: Accutrainee, Charles Russell Speechlys, Farrer & Co, Forsters, Michelmores, Shoosmiths, Stevens & Bolton, Travers Smith, Winckworth Sherwood

Best law firm for quality of work 2025: Harbottle & Lewis

Highly commended: Accutrainee, Fried Frank, Hill Dickinson, Lewis Silkin, Michelmores, Ropes & Gray, Shoosmiths, TLT, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best law firm for peer support 2025: Bristows

Highly commended: Burges Salmon, Farrer & Co, Lewis Silkin, Michelmores, Osborne Clarke, Shoosmiths, Stevens & Bolton, TLT, Winckworth Sherwood

Best law firm for partner approachability 2025: Ashfords

Highly commended: Accutrainee, Ashfords, Bristows, Farrer & Co, Harbottle & Lewis, Haynes Boone, K&L Gates, Mills & Reeve, Morrison Foerster, Shoosmiths

Best law firm for work/life balance 2025: Russell-Cooke

Highly commended: Ashfords, Bevan Brittan, Birketts, Brabners, Farrer & Co, Howard Kennedy, Russell-Cooke, RWK Goodman, Stevens & Bolton, Trowers & Hamlins

Best law firm for legal tech 2025: A&O Shearman

Highly commended: Addleshaw Goddard, CMS, Dentons, Orrick, Osborne Clarke, Shoosmiths, Stevens & Bolton, TLT, Travers Smith

Best law firm for perks 2025: Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Highly commended: A&O Shearman, Brabners, Clifford Chance, Freshfields, Goodwin Procter, Harbottle & Lewis, Travers Smith, Weil Gotshal & Manges, White & Case

Best law firm office 2025: Dechert

Highly commended: Baker McKenzie, Freshfields, Goodwin Procter, Kingsley Napley, Lewis Silkin, Michelmores, Milbank, Stevens & Bolton, Vinson & Elkins

Best law firm for social life 2025: Burges Salmon

Highly commended: Bates Wells, Farrer & Co, Forsters, Osborne Clarke, Stevens & Bolton, Walker Morris, Wedlake Bell, White & Case, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best law firm for eco-friendliness 2025: Brabners

Highly commended: Bates Wells, Burges Salmon, Lewis Silkin, Michelmores, Osborne Clarke, Shoosmiths, Taylor Wessing, TLT, Travers Smith

Best law firm for international secondments 2025: Clifford Chance

Highly commended: A&O Shearman, Ashurst, Baker McKenzie, Freshfields, HFW, Slaughter and May, Trowers & Hamlins, Watson Farley & Williams, White & Case

Best law firm for client secondments 2025: RPC

Highly commended: Baker McKenzie, Bird & Bird, Bristows, Clifford Chance, Dentons, DLA Piper, DWF, Walker Morris, Womble Bond Dickinson

Most admired law firm 2025: Freshfields

Highly commended: A&O Shearman, Addleshaw Goddard, Bird & Bird, Burges Salmon, Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith Freehills, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Osborne Clarke

Sixth formers’ choice award for solicitor apprenticeships 2025: White & Case

Highly commended: A&O Shearman, Freshfields, Linklaters, Mishcon de Reya, Osborne Clarke, Simmons & Simmons, Slaughter and May, Taylor Wessing, Travers Smith

The winner of this award is determined by a survey of registrants for Legal Cheek‘s January sixth former virtual event series, where Year 12 and 13 students were asked: ‘Which firm would be your first choice for a solicitor apprenticeship?’

The Legal Cheek firm of the year 2025: Stevens & Bolton

Highly commended: Brabners, Farrer & Co, Lewis Silkin, Michelmores, Osborne Clarke, Shoosmiths, TLT, Wiggin, Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Best use of social media 2025: Aqeel Asif (@akkydoeslaw)

The winner of this category was decided by an independent judging panel, made up of Mary-Grace Olu (Magic circle trainee solicitor and last year’s winner pictured below) and Patrick McCann (former director of learning at a magic circle firm).

Highly commended: University of Liverpool graduate and future trainee at Debevoise & Plimpton, Victoria Hawley a.k.a. @tori.lawabroad (TikTok); Freshfields trainee Liberty Miles (YouTube); Charles Russell Speechlys early talent team (TikTok); Future trainee at CMS, Adam Khattak a.k.a. @futuretraineelawyer (TikTok)

Best Legal Cheek Journal contribution 2025: “Deepfakes and the law: navigating the blurred lines of reality in the digital age” by Raksha Sunder, student at the University of Essex

This award is sponsored by LPC Law.

Highly commended: The legal grey area of mining the moon by future trainee solicitor at A&O Shearman Declan Peters; The legal lessons of Barbenheimer by first-year law student at the University of Manchester Shinelle Leo; The cryptocurrency dilemma: Should volatile digital assets receive legal recognition as property? by University of Oxford BCL student Niranjana Ramkumar; Unmasking the legal challenges of cosmetic injections by University of Exeter student Nicole Barros Vardanega

The winner of this category was decided by an independent judging panel, made up of The Right Hon Lord Hermer KC (The Attorney General for England and Wales) and Holly Corder (recruitment manager at LPC Law).

Campus ambassador of the year 2025: Manya Pejavar Rao (University of Nottingham)

This award is sponsored by Travers Smith.

Highly commended: Casey Gilbody (University of Lincoln), Kieran Boyd (University of Southampton), Marc Giorell Tuazon (The University of Law), William King (University of Lincoln)

Best chambers for training 2025: XXIV Old Buildings

Highly commended: 7KBW, Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Devereux Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Keating Chambers, Monckton Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Wilberforce Chambers

Best chambers for quality of work 2025: Wilberforce Chambers

Highly commended: 7KBW, Blackstone Chambers, Brick Court Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Landmark Chambers, Monckton Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Serle Court, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for colleague supportiveness 2025: Gatehouse Chambers

Highly commended: 4 Pump Court, 5 Essex Chambers, Cornerstone Barristers, Monckton Chambers, Outer Temple Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Ten Old Square, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for facilities 2025: 7BR

Highly commended: 39 Essex Chambers, 4 New Square Chambers, 42BR Barristers, 5 Essex Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Crown Office Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, No5 Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers

Best chambers for work/life balance 2025: 11KBW

Highly commended: Atkin Chambers, Cornerstone Barristers, Gatehouse Chambers, Pump Court Tax Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Selborne Chambers, Serle Court, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for social life 2025: Erskine Chambers

Highly commended: Blackstone Chambers, Falcon Chambers, Gough Square Chambers, Gray’s Inn Tax Chambers, Keating Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Selborne Chambers, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Best chambers for legal tech 2025: Atkin Chambers

Highly commended: 39 Essex Chambers, 3VB, 4 New Square Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Monckton Chambers, Twenty Essex, Wilberforce Chambers

The Legal Cheek chambers of the year 2025: 5 Essex Chambers

Highly commended: Atkin Chambers, Blackstone Chambers, Cornerstone Barristers, Falcon Chambers, Fountain Court Chambers, Gatehouse Chambers, Radcliffe Chambers, Wilberforce Chambers, XXIV Old Buildings

Congratulations to this year’s winners!