Adeel Mohammadi, Esquire

2022 Temple Bar Scholar Report

I could not have asked for a better introduction to the UK legal system than the one I received during my month in London as a Temple Bar Scholar. Never having studied the UK legal system in any formal way—unless, of course, if you count watching the BBC television show “Silk”—I am especially grateful to our many generous hosts who took time to explain the structure and practice of law in their home jurisdiction, which has notable differences when compared to the US legal system in which I have been trained. Principal amongst them is that the practice of law in the UK is split between two types of lawyers: barristers, who are primarily courtroom advocates, and solicitors, whose work is predominantly client-facing. As an aspiring American litigator, I was especially interested in the work of the many talented barristers with whom I had the great privilege to meet as a Temple Bar Scholar.  

A previous Scholar had described the program to me as the English legal world’s equivalent of an all-access backstage pass at a concert. My experiences over the course of the month certainly did not disappoint. Our first week in London was dedicated to meeting with leading members of the English bench and bar. That first Monday, we were honored to be invited to attend a religious service at Westminster Abbey to mark the opening of the legal year. As someone interested in law and religion, it was a useful reminder that the US and the UK have taken divergent approaches to religious establishment. And it was not lost on us that for the first time in seventy years, the service was conducted in the name of the King and not the Queen, whose funeral was held in the same stunning venue two weeks prior.  Soon after attending the opening of the legal year, we also had the privilege of meeting with various judicial officials, including the President of the UK Supreme Court, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls, and the Chancellor of the High Court, each of whom candidly discussed institutional issues concerning the UK courts and the bar.  

In addition, during that first week, we were invited to visit and dine in each of the four English Inns of Court. The Inns—on which the American Inns of Court are modeled—are professional associations responsible for training English barristers. Their physical campuses also comprise the heart of legal London, with many barristers’ chambers located within one of the Inns. I was especially eager to visit Lincoln’s Inn, where my great-grandfather trained as a barrister more than a century ago; I am grateful to the librarian of Lincoln’s Inn, who tracked down my great-grandfather’s original admission papers for me to see.

For the second and third weeks of the program, I had the opportunity to see firsthand the work of barristers through mini-pupilages at two prominent commercial chambers: South Square Chambers and Atkin Chambers. At South Square, my host, Georgina Peters, arranged for me to observe her colleagues during a trial before the English High Court involving an unlawful preference claim brought by the liquidator of an insolvent company. And at Atkin, my host, Robert Clay, invited me to observe him as he participated in a trial before the Technology and Construction Court involving a construction-related dispute. Observing both trials, I was struck by the pronounced emphasis on oral advocacy, especially as compared with the US federal trial courts with which I am familiar through my year clerking at a federal district court. Based on my observations and discussions with barristers, I learned that in English civil trials (almost all of which are bench trials and not jury trials), it is normal for barristers to conduct lengthy opening and closing statements, which often extend uninterrupted for full days.  I also learned that, without the use of pre-trial depositions, witness cross-examinations in English civil trials are often lengthy and that, almost without exception, counsel refrain from raising objections to questions posed by opposing counsel during cross-examination.

I spent my last week in London at the UK Supreme Court, where I had the privilege of sitting with Lord Philip Sales, a Justice of the Supreme Court who generously welcomed me into his chambers for the week. I learned that members of that Court actually sit on two distinct adjudicative bodies with completely separate dockets: the UK Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases and for criminal cases from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), which is the final court of appeal for British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies, as well as several Commonwealth countries that have elected to retain the JCPC as their final appellate authority. Thus, for example, the week that I was visiting, the JCPC heard a final appeal involving a land dispute from Trinidad and Tobago. I was interested to note that the flag of Trinidad and Tobago—and not the UK—was ceremonially displayed in the courtroom during that particular JCPC sitting.

Also during my week at the Supreme Court, I sat in on a fascinating appeal from Northern Ireland involving, inter alia, the question of whether certain procedural obligations created by the European Convention on Human Rights applied in a particular case involving the state investigation of a 1988 bombing by the Irish Republican Army. This case represented an interesting intersection of domestic and international law, since—because of the UK Parliament’s instruction to read domestic legislation in a way that is “compatible” with the European Convention—relevant precedents included both judgments of the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. I was again struck by the emphasis on oral advocacy in the UK, this time at the appellate level, with arguments spanning two days in that particular case.

In closing, I wish to express my deep gratitude to our many generous UK hosts, the leadership of the American Inns of Court (and especially to the indefatigable Cindy Dennis), and my fellow Temple Bar and Pegasus Scholars. Each of them made my experience in London extremely rewarding, and I am grateful to have had this unique, immersive opportunity to learn about the UK legal system.