Government’s pupillage funding ‘too little, too late’, say barristers

By the Editorial Team · Thursday, October 22, 2026

The UK government has launched a matched funding scheme to support 100 additional criminal law pupillages annually by providing up to £12,400 to eligible chambers for the first six months of each pupillage. However, many barristers warn that this funding falls short of established minimum award levels, potentially limiting the scheme’s effectiveness in addressing workforce shortages and promoting diversity.

The UK government’s recent initiative to increase funding for criminal law pupillages has been met with cautious approval from legal professionals, though many barristers have expressed concerns over the adequacy of the financial support. The scheme, announced in September, aims to provide “matched funding” for 100 additional pupillages annually to help train the next generation of criminal barristers. It follows a recommendation by retired judge Lord Leveson in his criminal courts review released in July.

The proposal, which has garnered backing from the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, involves the Ministry of Justice offering between £11,350 and £12,400 to chambers that already provide pupillage funding and take on an extra pupil. These amounts cover the first six months of a pupillage, varying according to location—with the higher figure applicable to London-based chambers.

While the government has allocated £1.5 million each year for this purpose, some chambers argue the funding falls short of the minimum pupillage award levels set by the Bar Standards Board, which are £25,863 for a 12-month pupillage in London and £23,504 outside the capital. Funding for pupils traditionally comes from the self-employed barristers within chambers, with London criminal pupils typically receiving total earnings of around £50,000 over a year. This includes a guaranteed first six months of about £30,000 and potential earnings up to £20,000 in the latter six months, supplemented by the chambers to cover any shortfall.

Several barristers have described the government’s contribution as insufficient. One head of chambers in London noted that while the matched funding scheme was appealing in theory, the actual financial support was “too low” to make taking on an additional pupil viable. Another Midlands-based barrister characterized the offer as “too little, too late,” expressing concerns about fairness and the risk of paying new pupils less than those already in place.

The courts minister, Sarah Sackman, who announced the scheme, highlighted the intention to open up opportunities to talented individuals from diverse backgrounds and regions. However, despite initial enthusiasm, these lingering financial concerns suggest that many chambers may struggle to increase pupillage numbers solely through this funding program. The gap between government support and the total cost borne by chambers remains a notable obstacle in efforts to expand the criminal barrister workforce.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.