Here are 2 fictional examples to show how a selection panel might grade the evidence in your self-assessment using the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework.
Insufficient example 1 (Grade D)
Skill and ability – Personal Qualities
- Adheres to the Bangalore Principles of independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety and equality of treatment, appreciating the importance of high standards of conduct and of maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
- Possesses sufficient resilience for the role and an ability to remain calm in challenging situations.
- Has a practical, common-sense approach to problem solving.
- Shows open-mindedness and self-awareness.
“I was acting for a mother in a complex and challenging case that ran for three years. She showed challenging behaviour and was well known to my firm. I was allocated the case by my Partner after a colleague went off long-term sick. From the outset the mother was aggressive, vocal, suspicious; I had some sympathy as she was angry and distressed that my colleague had ‘abandoned her without warning’. She challenged my ability to do a good job, and I carefully reassured her of my strong grip of her case. I worked with her for several months and I felt we made progress but suddenly I was informed that she had complained about me to another Partner. We were a long way into proceedings, and I didn’t want to leave her in a difficult position, but it didn’t feel professional to blindly continue. I had to consider the pros and cons of continuing to act, in an open-minded way. I calmly spoke with her about the complaint, but she denied it completely. While I tried to work things through with her, she also complained in similar terms to my own Partner and again denied doing so when I asked about it. Reluctantly, I decided to end the retainer because I felt I could not act for her whilst she openly lied to me.”
How the panel assess applications
Here are example notes of how a selection panel might assess the evidence above. They show what can hold a candidate back.
| Sentences from the example | Panel analysis |
| “I was acting for a mother in a complex and challenging case that ran for three years. She showed challenging behaviour and was well known to my firm. I was allocated the case by my Partner after a colleague went off long-term sick. From the outset the mother was aggressive, vocal, suspicious; I had some sympathy as she was angry and distressed that my colleague had ‘abandoned her without warning’.” | This sets out the background to the example, but it could have been much shorter. The candidate does not explain how the case was ‘complex and challenging’ so that sentence adds little. Similarly, the second sentence is not needed as it appears to summarise the third and fourth sentences. The third and fourth sentences are more useful as they highlight key background information and the way the candidate was thinking, but it is not yet clear how this example relates to Personal Qualities. |
| “She challenged my ability to do a good job, and I carefully reassured her of my strong grip of her case. I worked with her for several months and I felt we made progress but suddenly I was informed that she had complained about me to another Partner.” | This sets out what happened and some of the candidate’s actions, but the information on making progress is vague – what progress was made and how? It is not clear which part of Personal Qualities the candidate is trying to evidence. |
| “We were a long way into proceedings, and I didn’t want to leave her in a difficult position, but it didn’t feel professional to blindly continue. I had to consider the pros and cons of continuing to act, in an open-minded way.” | This sets out the candidate’s thought process but again it is unclear which part of Personal Qualities the candidate is trying to evidence – possibly the fourth bullet point as it mentions ‘open-minded’? |
| “I calmly spoke with her about the complaint, but she denied it completely. While I tried to work things through with her, she also complained in similar terms to my own Partner and again denied doing so when I asked about it.” | This part sets out some action taken by the candidate, but again it is unclear which part of Personal Qualities the candidate is trying to evidence – possibly the second bullet point as it mentions ‘calmly’?” |
| “Reluctantly, I decided to end the retainer because I felt I could not act for her whilst she openly lied to me.” | Personal Qualities includes problem solving but the candidate was ultimately unable to solve the problem and work with the client. Again, it is unclear which part of Personal Qualities the candidate is trying to evidence in this final sentence. |
In summary:
- it is not at all clear how this example demonstrates Personal Qualities
- it sets out some of the candidate’s actions and thoughts, but it is difficult to relate these to specific parts of Personal Qualities
- there is too much background information, and this too fails to link to specific parts of Personal Qualities.
- this example would likely be graded as D (insufficient evidence) by the panel.
- the candidate could have achieved a higher grade by choosing an example with a more positive outcome, and by more clearly describing their actions with obvious links to particular parts of Personal Qualities.
Insufficient example 2 (Grade D)
Skill and ability – Communication Skills
- Shows effective active listening skills, seeking to understand a party’s case without prejudgement and with courtesy, sensitivity and appropriate patience.
- Demonstrates clear oral and written communication skills, in language appropriate for the forum and the particular circumstances.
- Adopts an appropriately authoritative approach that: (1) inspires respect and confidence; (2) ensures both fairness, allowing proper participation by the parties, and an appropriate and efficient use of judicial resources.
“I represented a 14 year-old girl who, alongside her friend, was accused of manslaughter in luring a homeless man to a park where he met a violent death. The cause of death was blunt force head and brain trauma, which was allegedly inflicted by a group of the girl’s friends. The case was high profile as it had received extensive local and national press coverage.
“At pre-trial conference, attended by the solicitor, the mother, the girl and I, tensions were running high. The child’s mother was deeply distressed and weeping, and was clearly horrified by the accusations against her daughter. The child herself was defiant, swearing and unwilling to engage with me at all. She was shouting loudly that it was a stitch-up and she had been nice, not violent, to the homeless man and she wasn’t even friends with the others. I wanted to persuade the child to speak with me in a calm manner and build her confidence in me. I patiently explained my role and what the court would be deciding, but she continued to shout over me. I remained courteous and explained why she needed to listen. After around 20 minutes of trying, I suggested that we take a 10 minute break. I asked the solicitor why he had not warned me of her behaviour earlier and we discussed strategies. Her bad behaviour continued after the break and I decided that it was most appropriate to leave the solicitor to conclude the meeting. After a second similar meeting and discussion with me, the solicitor made the case to change barrister as he felt there was no other option. He did not blame me and thanked me for my patience and sensitivity under difficult circumstances.”
How the panel assess applications
Here are example notes of how a selection panel might assess the evidence above. They show what can hold a candidate back.
| Sentences from the example | Panel analysis |
| “I represented a 14 year-old girl who, alongside her friend, was accused of manslaughter in luring a homeless man to a park where he met a violent death. The cause of death was blunt force head and brain trauma, which was allegedly inflicted by a group of the girl’s friends. The case was high profile as it had received extensive local and national press coverage. At pre-trial conference, attended by the solicitor, the mother, the girl and me, tensions were running high. The child’s mother was deeply distressed and weeping, and was clearly horrified by the accusations against her daughter. The child herself was defiant, swearing and unwilling to engage with me at all. She was shouting loudly that it was a stitch-up and she had been nice, not violent, to the homeless man and she wasn’t even friends with the others.” | This sets out the background to the example, but it is much too long. It would be better to see the evidence of the candidate’s actions much sooner, as actions form the main part of what is graded. The candidate implies it was a challenging case by mentioning the type of case and age of the defendant, plus the media coverage, but it would be better to be explicit about the challenge or complexity. |
| “I wanted to persuade the child to speak with me in a calm manner and build her confidence in me.” | This sets out the candidate’s objective, which is helpful and shows a structured approach to answering the question (SOAR model). |
| “I patiently explained my role and what the court would be deciding, but she continued to shout over me. I remained courteous and explained why she needed to listen. After around 20 minutes of trying, I suggested that we take a 10 minute break. I asked the solicitor why he had not warned me of her behaviour earlier and we discussed strategies. Her bad behaviour continued after the break and I decided that it was most appropriate to leave the solicitor to conclude the meeting.” | This part of the answer goes some way to demonstrating the first bullet point about listening with courtesy and patience. However, as the only part of the answer that deals with the candidate’s actions, it lacks depth and complexity. It does not explain the candidate’s thinking or the options that the candidate considered before deciding to walk away. It does not show that the candidate’s actions made a positive difference. |
| “After a second similar meeting and discussion with me, the solicitor made the case to change barrister as he felt there was no other option. He did not blame me and thanked me for my patience and sensitivity under difficult circumstances.” | This part is about a decision and feedback by the solicitor, not the candidate, so it adds little to the candidate’s evidence. It also confirms that this case was not a success for the candidate, and does not show what they learned from it. It also appears to provide negative evidence of the third bullet point in Legal Skills, as the candidate did not inspire respect and confidence. |
In summary:
- this example is relevant to Communication Skills but it only covers part of the first bullet point
- there is too much background/contextual information at the start
- it sets out some of the candidate’s actions, but says little about their thinking or how the candidate made a difference
- this example is not well-chosen, as the candidate ultimately ended up being replaced by someone else, rather than successfully handling the difficult situation
- this example would likely be graded as D (insufficient evidence) by the panel
- the candidate could have achieved a higher grade by describing their thoughts and actions in more detail, by covering more of the bullet points with positive evidence and/or by choosing a different example with a better outcome
Note: The examples above are just to help you understand how a panel would find (or fail to find) evidence in what a candidate presents. Copying these examples and changing a few words to make them personal to you will not guarantee a high grade. It is much better to create your own examples from scratch, using these tips.
More help with examples of a strong self-assessment.