Pupillage
has been a topic of great concern to those formulating education and
qualification policy within the Institute.
At The President’s Forum held by the South East Branch on 17 September
2000, I expressed my own personal view of where I stand on that topic. An
intense debate followed at the meeting which then continued into the Newsletter
of the South East Branch with two interesting articles appearing from Her
Honour Jean Graham Hall and Mr Francis Miller. The Chairman of the Branch, Mr
David Bailey, then asked me to commit my thoughts to paper and in particular
reply to those two articles. My response and comments are as follows:
1. Theoretically
speaking and in general terms, I agree with Her Honour Jean Graham Hall when
she says in describing pupillage that “The ‘one-to-one’ relationship of the
knowledgeable old friend and the enthusiastic but untried newcomer cannot…… be
bettered”?. However, due to time restrictions, all we can show the newcomer
through pupillage is how a preliminary meeting or a hearing can be structured
in one or two arbitration cases. Time is a scarce commodity for the busy
professional and of course, time is money. Disputes leading to arbitration are
unique. Almost always, the facts are unique, the law is different and the
procedural wrangling is immensely varied. The newcomer can only learn how a
very limited number of situations were or could be resolved, or indeed
channelled into more murky waters. Even assuming that the manner with which
this knowledgeable trusted old friend deals with the relevant situation is
admirable, how is this going to help the newcomer in his future career when he
is expected to deal with different situations? This leads me to the conclusion
that we cannot teach ‘judicial capacity' or ‘decision making’ through
pupillage.
2. If
my conclusion in point 1 above is right, then what can we teach through the
present structure of pupillage? Well,
we certainly can show a newcomer how meetings and hearings can be properly
structured. We can show a newcomer how in one or two cases personal competent
supervision can improve his skills. The important question is why do these
cases have to be new cases unfolding for the first time in the eyes of the pupil?
Why can’t they be scenarios from real life, which could easily simulate some
stimulating situations?
3. The
Institute is spreading its wings beyond the shores of the United Kingdom.
Globalisation of the Institute is now a reality with the already existing 16
branches outside the United Kingdom, soon to become 20. Is pupillage the appropriate requirement for
our training and qualifying programme worldwide, even if it were the
appropriate in a confined geographical area? I suggest that in a worldwide context,
it is not. The financial and time constraints imposed by having to follow a
chartered arbitrator around the world are unacceptable to a pupil from a
different country.
4. The
backlog created by the pupillage requirement is unacceptable with over 400 applications
outstanding. Mr Francis Miller called
it “a hinder to success”. Whose
success? He did not elaborate. I suggest that it is a hurdle to both the
Members who are aspiring to become Chartered Members and to the Institute. An innovative solution is badly needed. As Mr Miller explained in his article
published in the last Newsletter of the Branch, pupillage started in 1976 as a
hurdle, continued to be a hurdle as recorded by Mr Kenneth Severn in his Chairman’s
inaugural address in 1979 and remains a hurdle in 2001. It is now perhaps a nearly insurmountable
barrier.
5. Items
2 to 4 above must lead us to the conclusion that the Institute has over-grown
the pupillage requirement. We must
think and innovate, but without sacrificing our standards. I know that our Professional Committee is
taking the first step towards such innovation.
Let us hope and pray that it does come up with the right answer.
Nael G Bunni