Your self-assessment is a critical part of your application. It helps the panel understand how you have approached tasks, challenges and decisions in the past. The panel will use this to decide whether you meet the requirements for the role.
Your self-assessment must:
- include specific, detailed examples
- be based on the competency framework
- clearly show what you did, how you did it, and what the result was
You do not need to cover every point in the framework, but you should aim to cover as many as possible.
How to prepare
To complete a strong self-assessment:
- read the competency framework for the role carefully
- think about your experience and how it relates to the competencies
- choose examples that best show how you meet each area
- use SOAR or STAR to structure your examples
SOAR model
We recommend using the SOAR model to structure your examples:
- Situation – briefly explain the context
- Objective – say what you needed to achieve
- Action – describe what you did and how you did it (this is the most important part)
- Result – explain the outcome and what you learned
You can also use the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) model (opens in new tab) which works in a similar way.
Tips on writing your self-assessment
Do:
- choose specific, detailed examples
- use the SOAR or STAR models
- focus on your actions using ‘I’
- be clear, avoid jargon
- match your examples to the competency area
- keep within the word count (250 words per area)
- use examples relevant to the level of the role
Don’t:
- make vague or general statements
- use too many short examples in one area
- include links – these will be ignored
- go over the word limit – extra words will be disregarded
- list past cases without explaining your role or the outcome
- focus only on recent or legal examples – older or non-legal examples are ok if relevant
Choosing the best examples
Each competency covers a different area of the role. Your examples should:
- be directly relevant to the competency area
- show how you handled complex or sensitive situations
- reflect the level of the role you’re applying for
More help with choosing the best examples in your self-assessment.
Examples: strong and weak self-assessments
These examples of good and poor self-assessments are based on the competencies framework. They are designed to help you understand what a strong application looks like.
Competency: Assimilating and Clarifying Information
“I heard a complex 18-day whistleblowing unfair dismissal case. A few days before, I received 26 large bundles without proper pagination or indexing. I skimmed the contents, marked key parts and at the start of the hearing, checked which documents were most relevant.
“To stay on top of the material I created a spreadsheet of key issues against evidence and focussed the Tribunal on those. I asked numerous questions in areas where I identified gaps in the evidence. During panel discussions, we weighed the often conflicting evidence, giving attention to the source, credibility and internal consistency. I repeatedly refocused the members on key issues such as the principal reason for the dismissal.
“In another unfair dismissal claim, I sat alone. The claimant had accepted redundancy from a builders yard due to closure, but the yard continued to operate afterwards. There were very limited written records of key events, processes and conversations. The claimant was in person and the employer’s representative not legally qualified. I explained the process and issues I would focus on at each stage, and kept my questions and explanations jargon-free.
“I adjourned briefly to allow parties to locate documents, which produced new evidence such as a job advert for yard workers dated after the claimant left and emails showing how workers were selected for redundancy. In my ex- tempore judgment I explained how I had weighed the evidence, why I preferred particular pieces of evidence, and why my decision went in favour of the claimant.”
Comments on this example:
- quickly assimilates information to identify essential issues, develops a clear understanding and clarifies uncertainty where necessary
- effectively assimilates and processes large amounts of complex information from multiple sources
- identifies, and ensures the focus remains on, the relevant issues
- critically analyses information and applies appropriate weight to it to reach a reasoned decision
Competency: Assimilating and clarifying information
“My competence in Assimilating and Clarifying Information is demonstrated by the numerous complex cases I have dealt with including [long list of case reference numbers]!
“In [case reference] I represented the parents. Dealing with French and Canadian medical experts by telephone and video link. Assimilating detailed medical information in late night meetings including reports from GOSH, details of experimental treatments, scan results and bloodwork. Short notice consideration of viability following further testing.
“In [case reference] again rep parents, six-week shaken baby case. Police evidence contradicted mother’s account. Medical evidence CT and MRI scans expert reports served 48 hours before as to final examination.
“In [case reference] conflicting expert evidence on causes of injury to child. Long and complex reports, many exhibits, many conflicting points. Clinical notes from hospital inconclusive. Had to decide on weight of each.”
Comments on this example:
The examples are specific but too short, too vague about what the candidate did and how they did it, and the case reference numbers do not help the panel.
Examples: How the panel assess applications
Here are some examples of how selection panels assess self-assessments. They show what makes a strong application and what can hold a candidate back.
The candidate provided strong evidence for Exercising Judgment. They gave an example of having to consider large amounts of evidence and documents. They highlighted the issue and the context and set out what they did.
For Possessing and Building Knowledge, they provided strong evidence with 2 in-depth examples, the first was how they continuously built their knowledge as a lecturer and the second related to training new judges.
For Assimilating and Clarifying Information, they provided outstanding evidence. They provided a complex example relating to an appeal, setting out all the issues and all the different steps they took to ensure understanding. They described what they actually did to clarify expert evidence, narrow down the issues and analyse all the evidence to make a decision.
The candidate provided strong evidence for Working and Communicating with Others with an example of dealing with a sensitive case and the steps they took to ensure a fair hearing.
The candidate provided strong evidence for Managing Work Efficiently. They provided an example of juggling work on a busy list, and how they managed their diary due to their many work and study commitments.
The candidate provided strong evidence of Exercising Judgement and sufficient evidence of the remaining 4 competencies.
For Exercising Judgement, they gave 2 in-depth examples of complex cases, including a Land Registry boundary case and an alleged abuse of process. These clearly evidenced the candidate’s ability to apply the law and their independence of mind.
Examples for the other 4 competencies were more routine and straightforward. For example, for Assimilating and Clarifying Information the candidate described a case as a Tribunal Judge where they had to assimilate several large files and a 40-page breakdown of costs, in order to identify and clarify relevant issues. The candidate’s examples demonstrated sound practice but lacked depth and complexity.
They gave sufficient evidence for Exercising Judgement, with an example of hearing an appeal arising from 2 different decisions over a period of 2 years, with complex inter-dependencies.
Strong evidence was provided for Possessing and Building Knowledge, with an example of building and then applying complex legal knowledge in both new jurisdictions in which they sit as a judge.
Evidence for Assimilating and Clarifying Information was sufficient, with an example of handling a voluminous and disorganised appeal file, where they succeeded in identifying the key documents and relevant issues.
They gave strong evidence of Working and Communicating with Others, with an example of introducing special measures in a hearing with a young Albanian applicant with mental health issues who had not been allowed a Litigation Friend previously.
For Managing Work Efficiently the evidence was sufficient, with a routine description of handling a pressurised list in the Immigration & Asylum Chamber. Overall, their self-assessment contained relevant, specific examples, mainly drawn from their judicial roles, though some were rather routine.