Why did you choose to undertake your LLB at Queen Mary?

Queen Mary was one of two options that I had taken. I had offers from LSE in Law and Anthropology and Queen Mary. I knew other people that had studied at Queen Mary and had an enjoyed it. I’ll be honest, I didn’t do huge amounts of research which university I wanted to go to, simply because I wasn’t sure if I wanted to become a barrister or solicitor, or even a lawyer. I did an A-Level in law and enjoyed it but I hadn’t decided my career path yet. I liked Queen Mary because there was just one campus in Mile End. The law department was excellent and happened to be the leading European Law department. I was also quite interested in an English and European Law with the four-year course, with the Erasmus – before we made the disastrous decision to leave the EU! We used to get a bursary and grants to study abroad for a year. I went to Copenhagen because that really appealed to me and I wanted to travel. The course was also supposed to be excellent, and it was. 

​

QMUL is one of the most reputable law schools in the UK.

I had no idea at the time. It sounds really bad, but I mean when you’re eighteen and I was all over the place. I didn’t know what I wanted to do in the long-term. I think that if people that know what they want to do for life when they're  15, then great, but I definitely didn’t.

​

That’s helpful to some students who don’t know what they want to do, especially with all the pressures at 18. 

And I’m still trying to work stuff out. It’s hard to think that at 18 you’re supposed to just know what you want to do for the rest of your life. It’s stressful and puts a lot of pressure on people. I don’t remember being hugely stressed, because I thought things will work out. At one point, I wanted to be a forensic pathologist, and then I changed my mind and wanted to do something different. 

​

What was your experience like at Queen Mary? 

I really liked, I do remember all the extracurricular stuff you could at Queen Mary, like the Mooting, the Debating, the Drama Society. I had never debated before I went to Queen Mary. You could participate in a whole range of recreational activities and clubs and I really liked that.  This is in 2001 and the facilities and the campus were fantastic. they were still developing the campus but the location, near the canal was amazing. I do regret doing a law degree because I  wish I had done a degree in something else and then done the law conversion, which a lot of barristers have done. 

​

Do you remember what the School of Law was like twenty-years ago? 

Yes, I do. I remember a few of the Professors as well. My form tutor was Professor Yelland (previous Head of School of Law, passed in 2008), and then there was Mr Yates (part-time senior lecturer). It did feel a bit weird going from the insulation you have from college to the start independence of a university. I was trying to keep myself organised, and work out where I was going. I recall the law school wasn’t huge and it wasn’t particularly modern, it felt very old fashioned, I remember it feeling a bit stuffy at times. The lecture theatres were fantastic though. It was a different time however, in terms of support and guidance. Not that it was anyone’s fault, but that’s just how it was. You didn’t have anyone showing you the ropes like you do nowadays. There was no scheme of mentors. You just got thrown straight into things. Then you sort of get into it, and you meet people in your class and form group, and everyone kind of chips in and helps everybody else out, and we’re talking about an age without social media as well. 

​

It was quite different! 

Everything is so accessible now. When I look back to 2001, and I think, then when I did my Bar course at BPP. And social media was just starting. Facebook came, and then everything went online. I occasionally do panel talks and lectures and the way that things have evolved has been very interesting but accessibility is really good now. 

​

It’s interesting you talk about support. A lot of students would now say that’s one of the more promising and best parts of QM, the support, especially for mental health and just general student-staff guidance. Then, how this changed for you at BPP.

That leads me on nicely to my next question, on how did you come to the decision of wanted to do the Bar Course?

So, I graduated and took a year out. I had decided by my fourth and final year that I didn’t want to be a solicitor, it just wasn't for me. What always attracted me to the law was the advocacy. That’s it. It was never applications, litigation, finance and accounts. For me, I didn’t want a paper heavy, litigation-based practice. Far more competent and capable people are able to do that much better than I can. I wanted to work independently and I didn’t want to manage anybody to necessarily work in an office. What we did do at Queen Mary was a lot of debating, mooting, and help set up links with Clifford Chance and other law firms as part of the Queen Mary Legal Aid Department (now Legal Advice Centre). That helped cement the way I wanted to approach the legal world. Having experiences like this are important because they can help you figure out what you don’t want as well as what you do. 

​

QMLAC is still running, a lot of law students are involved.

It was quite fun, and I got to chatting and met people at firms and managed to secure myself a paid summer internship at a law firm. These firms will want to get you to apply to them and offer very generous salaries and benefits but I remember even as an intern, seeing the other associates working very long hours and having very little time to do anything else. It made sense then why they had in house gyms, spas and in some cases, on site beds! It really wasn't for me,  I wanted a job where I wanted to dictate how I managed my work/life balance and if that meant working long hours or reduced hours, then that would be dictated by me and at my own pace. This was an early decision for me. So, when I left university, and I had a year out, I had some connections, and I knew a bunch of us were applying to different law schools. I wanted to travel and work. 

​

To put that all into perspective, you did your LLB from 2001 to 2005 at Queen Mary, spent about two years working and travelling, and then coming back in 2007 to do your Bar course.

Do you remember where that was?

Yes, that’s right. At BPP London.

​

And you tutor there as well?

I occasionally did six or seven years ago. I just don’t have the time or capacity to do so anymore. I definitely want to give back to the law school and my Inn [Lincolns Inn], so I do more panels and talks. I do a lot of work there on advocacy weekends though. If you do want to go to the Bar, you’ll have to join one of the four Inns of Courts. All of the Inns have given away grants to prospective barristers and I would wholeheartedly encourage people to apply. The Bar is very expensive but should be accessible to all and there are many ways in whicj people can access it. 

I also work on my Inn’s advocacy weekends, where pupils attend a series of workshops honing their written and oral advocacy skills. I also do ethic workshops, Civil and Criminal workshops and BPP was really good with developing those skills, because you rarely get the practical advocacy skills during a law degree [unless you join the debating and the mooting societies on your course]. 

​

What advice would you give to those students who are looking to apply for the Bar course, at BPP for example, one of our sponsors, compared to other providers?

So, the Head of the Law School, Charlotte Wanandeya, has become a good friend of mine. She was the teacher when I was there, and I remember it was very good. It’s a really interactive and progressive course. And looking back, BPP are very good at doing the sort of basics with you. The quality for teaching was very good. It was excellent, and had a good quality focus on advocacy, which they put a lot of emphasis on, especially for your second six months of pupillage, when you are ‘on your feet’. The location is fantastic, the facilities are world class, they were superb, and all of the books are included with it as well! They also had an excellent staff-retention ratio – they had been there for years and also practiced alongside teaching. So, they know what they’re doing. It was really good fun, hard, but good. 

​

I think that’s actually a great point. It’s almost like a green flag for a provider who has these teaching staff held to a high standard and who aren’t removed from real life and current practise. I think some students are in a position of being conflicted by which route they should take for the Bar. Either the traditional City Law School route or maybe flirting with the idea of BPP and ULaw. 

I mean in practice it is about how it is taught. Each have different methods, different constructs, different feedback methods all which are really helpful. With proper judicial intervention, which is really important because in practice, your submissions to the judge are very often met with judicial interruptions and interventions. yit's important to remember that judges are very often still practicing barristers and solicitors, so they really can't help themselves. I will often come across a judge that a fellow counsel in another case. 

​

I will move on to the final few questions now which focus more on your arrival at 33 Bedford Row, your practice over the years and the cases that you have worked on.

How was it coming to 33 Bedford Row, because you worked elsewhere before?

I worked as In-House Counsel for many years mainly just doing Crime and Regulatory law. That was partially because I wanted more predictability in terms of income, in terms of practice. But the other part was also because I didn’t want to be going to a Magistrate’s Court in Swindon for a fixed few of £50. I find that because I was a paralegal at this firm years before I became a barrister, I went there and developed my practice as a practicing barrister. It was fantastic because it meant that when they got serious Criminal cases they came to me as their In-House Counsel, and I got to do some really exciting stuff in the early years of my practice, which sometimes Pupils won’t get to do. I did several multi handed GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) cases, violent robberies, sexual offences etc. Then, when I came to 33BR, I started initially doing Crime, but I came with a very clear and strong intention to evolve my practice to a more mixed common law.  I started to prosecute as well as doing Criminal defence and then gradually developing my family and public law practice. 

​

I have been solely practicing in Family and Public Law for about four or five years [with some professional negligence occasionally thrown in]. I rarely practice Crime now, I think I did one Crime case last year as a favour for a barrister, and also to the firm because they are a firm that instruct me frequently in my family matters.  It was a case that needed someone with Family experience, and it was an interesting case. My practice has changed significantly over the last eight years I would say.

 

Why 33 Bedford Row?

I wanted to go to a Common law set, with reputable Family department, but also the ethos and people in chambers is really important. I was very clear about the sort of practice I wanted, one that was flexible and somewhere where I could practice with a good work-life balance. That’s exactly what 33 offers. They have really good competitive rent rates, and they are very financially stable. They really are an excellent set with a really good ethos. Everything is about collaborative working. It’s very supportive. They’re very considerate. They have a real focus on chambers, members well-being and that’s important.

​

It's nice to hear that chamber’s maintain that atmosphere and environment for their tenants. But going into more of your cases, your work included significant amounts of Public Law proceedings. If I’m not wrong, how important would you say Public Law is for a Family barrister? 

The Family Bar is a broad ranging Bar, you can do a range of things. My practice usually comprises of Public Law Proceedings. So, I act for the local authority, a parent or the child in care proceedings. These are often very serious cases because they involve a state's intervention into your Article 8 [the right to family life] rights. So it is fundamental for the state, in this case the application local authority to justify the reason for the intervention sought. I also do matrimonial finance, Trustees of land ownerships or what we call TOLATA (Trusts of Land and Trusts of Appointees Act).  

I have a practice in private child proceedings, which is where parents/interested parties seek child arrangements orders because they are unable to agree. We don't use the term custody at the Family Bar anymore. It’s quite an Americanised term and it gives a restrictive connotation, which is not how these cases need to be. restrict.  Gentler and more neutral language is used such as  ‘caring for in child proceedings’ or ‘welfare’ etc.

I also do Public law work, so next week I’m starting a five-to-six-day final hearing for a child in quite serious Care Proceedings. Then, the week after, I’m doing a Matrimonial Finance case which will probably get very nasty. But you negotiate. The week after that I’m doing Deprivation of Liberty and Forced Marriage Protection applications at the High Court. So, it’s a very broad ranging practice.

​

That’s so interesting, I didn’t know that about custody. I am a non-law student, but it’s interesting how English Law distances from things like that.

Yes, a judge would wince if you said that. It’s considered draconian, old-fashioned. There is a stark difference between family and criminal law, in the sense that it's not necessarily as combative. In Private Child work you can sometimes be negotiating between parents arguing over what time one parent should pick up their child from school and then picking up from mum’s at 4pm on a Saturday. That is tedious, but in proceedings you generally wouldn’t say custody. It’s a holistic, pragmatic and practical approach, because ultimately, it’s about the welfare of the child. In my view, advocacy is not about winning or being unnecessarily aggressive, it's about persuasion and confidence.  You can still be a robust advocate by being conversational and assertive and certainly my style is not to shout or antagonise a witness or get into an argument with them.  the best advocacy is making the witness comfortable with your initial approach. You want them thinking, oh this isn't so bad at all. That leads to them letting down their guard and then you can put your case. 

​

It's counterproductive.

Yes, because you’ve got the judge. You’ve got a jury. You have to bear that in mind. Advocacy varies. Because language is a big thing in Family, you’ve got to be very careful about how you approach things. You’re dealing with people who are having children being removed, you’ve got to show a level of empathy, and understanding. Quite often, you have to wear many different hats, including quite often, a therapists hat for your clients.  You have to listen to your clients because quite often,  you’re  the only one on their side. That takes a long time to realise in practice. I think I saw this on that show The Traitors, one was saying ‘oh I’m a law student, I’m going to be a lawyer. I just have to win because I’m really competitive’. I paraphrase, of course. I just remember thinking; you’re not going to succeed if that’s all you want to do. Because quite often, you won’t win and it's about that, it’s about putting your clients case forward in the best way that you can.

​

The whole myth surrounding lawyers is still so prevalent today. It doesn't matter how many times a barrister will say, they have to be empathetic, understanding, calm and polite whereas you know people still have that stigma of, it's uncaring and it's distant and it's completely unemotional and unempathetic. Yet, every time you speak a tenant, they'll be like, well, that's just not the case, especially for someone in Family.

It's just not going to get you far with that attitude. You can’t have that in chambers when you’re working with people. you have to remember that you're in a Set with other self-employed practitioners where you’re sort of competing for work. fortunately in my chambers, there is plenty of work. You have to work with your  clerks. They will clerk in the fairest possible way. also, it's very important to stay on top of updates and attendance notes. If you don’t send your attendance note, communicate with your solicitors, then that’s on you and there may be a reluctance in them instructing you again. . You can’t then blame somebody else for getting work. It is competitive, but it it’s competitive because its lucrative. If you have that sort of a negative attitude, then you will crash and burn very quickly. When you have a case; you go to court and do the best that you can for your client because that’s your job. If I’m dealing with a case of a client who is particularly sensitive or has cognitive issues, you have to be prepared to deal with it emotionally and ensure that if they need support, then you recognise that and ask for it. 

​

It's a shame that you have people who are willing to abandon humane qualities for the legal profession because they think that is what is right. When in reality, that might actually be the key to being a good barrister and an advocate in court. 

It is right. I’ve dealt with horrendous cases before over the years, and don’t get me wrong there is and has to be a level of detachment. I can separate the two, I can work on such cases all day and then go home and switch off. It doesn’t mean you’re emotionless.  in fact, this area of the law is full of emotion and empathy. I’ve represented people who would be considered completely heinous in society, rapists, child sex offenders etc. I’ve had to cross examine victims of abuse. But you leave that at the door because it’s not my job to prove anything if you’re defending. It’s my job to put my client’s case forward and that’s it. I’m here to do the job because I believe in the justice system. I believe everyone has the right to have a fair trial. There have been many occasions where I’ve advised my clients to plead guilty because the evidence might be overwhelming, and it would be better for them.  So, it’s a myth that you lie on behalf of your clients, or you have no empathy for anyone. But I am also an officer of the court, and I cannot lie to the court, it's enshrined in our Code of Ethics. 

Justice doesn’t mean it has to be an acquittal. Justice to me means that you have a non-biased tribunal and fair process. It doesn’t mean ‘I have to win’. Ultimately, when there’s a Crime I don’t ask my clients if they did it. That has never been a question I have asked. I just said, ‘this is the evidence’. I’m not here for anything else.

​

This is very insightful, in understanding the intricacies of a Family case from a Family barrister and its complexities beyond the law. The fact that it has a human form almost. But we’re almost running out of time, and I only have two questions left, they are both concluding. Congratulations first of all, for being listed as one of nineteen barristers from 33 Bedford Row in Legal 500 for 2025. 

Thank you.

​

They described you as being ‘skilful with vulnerable and challenging clients. She is very reliable, flexible, and dependable’. Is this fulfilling?

That’s very kind and I’m obviously very flattered. Barristers have, and certainly I have, and I'm not alone, and I say that and hopefully it will give people some sort of comfort, the worst case of impostor syndrome. Whatever sort of doubt you feel, we feel it all the time. Judges feel it, I feel it and it's very, very kind that somebody has said those words about me, and I'm very flattered. I'm grateful. 

​

I try and focus on every day to make sure that I know my brief inside out, back to front. I still talk to myself when I'm going through questions to check my intonation/phrasing of questions etc. I don't write questions, I write topics, and it's lovely to hear that. Because as a barrister, you don’t often take a step back and think about the work that you do, and the long-term implications of that on someone’s life. Especially when you are part of drafting orders that will then go into final hearings, or you will have a record of judgement, and your name is enshrined in the record of judgement. It's very overwhelming and in some cases you might be part of a process to change the law. I had a recent case where we've gone to the Court of Appeal and there may be a change in law and that's really exciting. And to be part of that is incredible and very fulfilling and life affirming. But that doesn't mean that it doesn’t come with doubts. Sometimes a brief lands on my desk at six in the evening, my clerks will ping me something and I look over it an think, okay, this case is not simple. It's actually really complex and we've got to deal with X, Y and Z.

​

Then there are some cases where you get a 3000-page bundle the night before. It can get really overwhelming. You must sometimes just take a step back, breathe, and go, actually, I am good enough and I just have to have faith in myself, so it's very lovely that that's been said and it's important to me that my that my solicitors see that I care about our clients. I do sometimes get very challenging and dysregulated clients. Sometimes people will shout and and swear but it is part of the job and there is very little that fazes me. I just try and remain calm. The best professional advice I was ever given was by somebody at my chambers, who is an incredible lawyer. She said that I must always remember that in many cases, I will be the only person that my client has in their ‘corner’ and I owe them a duty to just let their voice be heard and to just follow your instructions. That resonated with me and just stuck and it's the reason why if my client doesn't want to follow my advice, then I don’t force them. I have done my duty of advising them but ultimately, if they are competent to do so, they make the decision of whether to follow the advice. I don’t have so much of an ego that I will take it personally. If they don’t want to follow the advice, I record it clearly in my note and then I ensure that I out their case forward within the parameters of the law.  

​

I can tell that from the way we've been speaking for the past hour that you're very passionate about your career and your role. From the experience that you have had over the past 15 to 20 years, it shows in the glowing reviews. I did have one more question, but I don't if you're going to be able to answer it just yet:

Are you motivated to perhaps divert your career trajectory to another practice area, or in any other professional direction, or are you happy with where you are now?

I'm totally open to it because from having a purely Criminal practice to now having a purely finite Family practice, which is great, I like to try different things because I think skills that you learn as a barrister are transferable. They certainly have been in Family and Crime, Civil and Family, because you’re dealing with various different clients.

​

As for a different career, I have a lot of hobbies. I like doing loads of different things. I'm quite creative. I will make things. I will build things. I will bake. I'll cook, but all those things are hobbies for a reason, I don’t want a career in them. being a barrister is the career I would choose every time. I might apply to be a Judge at some point, maybe before I retire, and then just sit as a Judge as part of my retirement plan!

 

Being a barrister is the best job in the world, and I do it because I really think that.  You do it because you are committing to the bar, you're committing for life. And that’s fine with me. 

​

​

- Interview completed February 2025. (c) Queen Mary Bar Society