Podcast 50: Timothy Dutton QC, Chairman of The Bar

Today I am talking to Timothy Dutton QC, Chairman of The Bar. Timothy Dutton QC was born in 1957 and was called to the Bar in 1979. He took silk in 1998. He practices in General Commercial, Public, Regulatory and Administrative Law, Professional Negligence and Disciplinary including sports.

In his inaugural speech, Timothy Dutton said:

“My job is to promote the Bar and our system not just at home but internationally. All of us are operating in an international market with English law as an attractive option in commercial disputes. In criminal law there is an increasingly international aspect to the work, and in family also. I intend to promote the values and skills of the Bar as advocates, arbitrators and mediators abroad.”

Bar Council Chairman’s Blog

***

We discuss the impact of The Legal Services Act 2007 on The Bar – Direct Access – VHCC contracts – The Lord Neuberger Report – Timothy Dutton’s vision for his year as Chariman of The Bar.
Listen to podcast 50: Timothy Dutton QC

6 thoughts on “Podcast 50: Timothy Dutton QC, Chairman of The Bar

  1. Pingback: Charon interviews Timothy Dutton QC (Bar … « law.librarians

  2. Yes… I enjoyed doing this podcast – Tim Dutton was very direct with his views and, within a fairly short interview, covered a lot of ground.

    It is good to see representatives of the profession using blogs and other media to communicate.

  3. Perhaps something that incensed me about this podcast was Timoth Dutton’s reponse to whether or not you need a 2:1.
    It should be set in stone, that unless in exceptional circumstances you will need a 2:1 to get on the BVC, and also to gain pupillage.

    3 people last year gained a pupillage with a 2:2, if the bar were to set clear standards at a 2:1, for entry then it would save a lot of people the bother of enrolling onto the expensive and (some poeple call it useless) BVC who do not have a hope, whether or not they are good advocates may be debatable, but if you are on the pupillage committe at a chambers and someone has got a 2:2, and have to sift through 400 other forms, it is obvious that those with a 2:2 will be put in the pile called “reject” unless as previously stated they have exceptional circumstances.

    The need for a 2:1 is great (so I hear) to gain a pupillage, also people who gain a 2:1 may not gain a pupillage for other reasons, as you currently need a CV several pages long, for someone to have a decent look at you. Even gaining a mini pupillage at chambers has become increasingly hard, and thats just trying to test the water!

    The BVC however does need some regulation, some providers I have heard are absolutely awful and I have been told that a particular BVC provider shouldn’t be touched with a bargepole. Regulation for all those that provide a LLB degree would be extremly difficult, as it would be impossible really to set a standard as courses are taught very differently, depending on who is lecturing you.

    Does it really matter about which university you go to get your LLB? If you don’t get it from Oxbridge then everyone else is practically in the same boat, that is clutching to some hope that they may one day practice at the bar.

    Just some thoughts..

  4. just pay bpp an extra 2k and you too can have a llb!

    i spent my first life in a profession with a pre-entry closed shop and am now entering another. as one who meets the arbitrary 2:1 criterion it is high time that the profession realised it is not the only or necessarily the best measure of whether someone can be a good advocate. it is also a measure of indirect discrimination against all kinds of people the profession needs. if it opens up, it will get better. chambers need to stop being so rigid – i don’t blame the service providers (tho someone at one inn came out with the ‘well they just want to take the money’ and from such a privileged institution that phrase rang a little hollow – and in a capitalist sytem they are entitled to).
    those 3 who got pupillage beat the numbers – good for them – that might equate to winning a case they ‘should’ have lost. everyone has to beat the numbers to get into this profession and everyone is entitled to try. i’m too old (hasn’t been said but it’s there everywhere) but i know i can wipe the court floor with other advocates of whatever age given a chance and the training.
    we can all be so much more imaginative about what we do and our preconceptions (aren’t older people meant to be more set in their ways?)
    consilio tv can do live mock trials for students to impress potential employers. it’s one easy way – make them do it differently. one student at my college has jsut achieved his aim of getting the governing body to adopt an active policy encouraging diversity – he has changed thingsd for the better. it also seesm he was pushing at a door that was at least unlocked and the administration were (i’ve heard) keen to learn how they could better reflect the needs of a changing community – good for them.
    barristers are meant to be intelligent, flexible improvisors who can think imaginatively. we should be able to take hold of our profession and give positive sugestions to ove it forward. if we get crap laws, it’s our fault if we don’t make them change for the better. and it’s not as if many barristers have the excuse that they just have to get their heads down and earn a living.
    take responsibility.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>