John Burke
2019 Pegasus Scholar Report
“I think I have a better understanding of the richness of our common law heritage from my visits to England…Observation of other systems is essential to improving any system of justice.”
—Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States
Prior to beginning the Pegasus Scholarship, my only knowledge of London came from depictions in literature, television, and film. In addition to studying the supplied reading material, reports from past scholars, and law-related books such as The Secret Barrister, I also watched as many episodes of Rumpole of the Bailey, Silk, and The Crown as I could fit into the summer. I imagined that London would look like a familiar film set with foggy streetscapes, red telephone booths, gas lampposts, and cobblestone pathways. A bustle of vintage black taxis and red tourist buses would complete the quintessential London backdrop. Perhaps I would interact with characters in smart wardrobe who spoke cleverly in accents which sounded sophisticated and learned.
My Pegasus experience exceeded my highest expectations. While I did encounter many of the locations familiar from pop culture, it was far more meaningful to learn and appreciate the historical significance of these locations and their connection to the London legal community. Over time, my superficial understanding of London was replaced by a more personal appreciation for English traditions and the institutions which facilitate the training of barristers and the administration of justice. I will attempt to catalog my experience below in two ways: by presenting a few familiar scenes from popular culture with information about their greater historical significance and highlighting a few distinctions between the court practices of the UK and the US which I observed during five weeks of study in barristers’ chambers.
A Tour of Legal London
If given years to plan a trip to London, I could not have arranged an itinerary that enjoyed such unparalleled access to members of the bench and bar that the Pegasus Scholarship offers its recipients. In the first week, co-scholar Joel Michel and I toured and dined in each of the four Inns of Court—the Honorable Societies of Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Gray’s Inn, and Lincoln’s Inn. We dined with Temple Bar Scholars, four of whom clerked for the United States Supreme Court. We dined with the leadership team of the American Inns of Court (AIC) and the AIC members who visited as part of the 2019 Amity visit. We spoke with judges at the Central Criminal Court (“the Old Bailey”), the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. We attended the opening of the legal year at Westminster Abbey and spent time with the outgoing British Pegasus Scholars before their trip to the United States.
This year, Pegasus Scholars were invited to join the Temple Bar Scholars to discuss federalism and the role of the United States Supreme Court to Middle Temple students. The event counted as one of the Qualifying Sessions.
In 2019, Middle Temple is celebrating a century of women in law. Dozens of portraits of trail-blazing women adorn the walls. Until 1919, women were excluded from being solicitors, barristers, judges, and even jurors!
Just 24 hours after the Sex Discrimination (Removal) Act was passed in 1919, Helena Normanton resubmitted her once-denied application and was admitted to Middle Temple.
Joel and I frequently ate at formal dining halls, especially at Middle Temple Hall. It has been said more than once that this dining and lecture hall is reminiscent of the fictional Hogwarts dining hall in the Harry Potter film series. One night, Joel and I had the privilege of dining at the High Table, a 29-foot solid oak table given by Queen Elizabeth I who then dined at the table several times.
A longstanding tradition of the Inns of Court is that in addition to completing academic and vocational requirements, students must eat a number of dinners, known as Qualifying Sessions, which are held in the dining and lecture hall. The requirement used to be 24-36 dinners before being called to the bar. Now it is 12. As William Clegg QC, treasurer of Gray’s Inn, quipped in his 2018 autobiography, “it was advisable to start eating before you had left the University because unless you did so, you might, quite literally, be left with too much on your plate!”
The interior of the Temple Church will be familiar to fans of the 2006 film The Da Vinci Code, but its significance spans more than 800 years. It is jointly owned by the Inner Temple and Middle Temple Inns of Court. The Temple church was built by the Knights Templar in 1185. Famous for its round shape, it is a replica of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. It houses 13th- and 14th-century stone effigies including that of William Marshal, hero of the Magna Carta and the inspiration for Lancelot in medieval Arthurian tales.
The interior and exterior of the Royal Courts of Justice (RJC) are familiar from three seasons of Silk and the Emma Thompson film The Children’s Act (2017). I spent more time here than in any other single court. The building is located within walking distance of all four Inns of Court and houses both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The large grey stone edifice was built in the Victorian Gothic style in the 1870s and opened by Queen Victoria in 1882.
The cloistered undercroft below Lincoln’s Inn Chapel has been used in numerous films such as Mr. Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The 17th century vaulted ceilings are immediately recognizable from the big screen, but this undercroft was actually a popular spot for abandoning children, left by widows with the hope that their babies would be rescued and offered a better life. Since at least 1732, children who were left here were given the surname Lincoln.
The Temple Church was heavily damaged by German bombing during World War II and has since been restored and rebuilt.
Placement in Chambers
Sellisha Lockyer, Scholarship Manager at Inner Temple arranged for Joel and me to shadow barristers at several leading barristers’ chambers. I was assigned to Garden Court Chambers, 4 Paper Buildings, and Foundry Chambers. Observing court proceedings over the next five weeks allowed me to understand how the United Kingdom and the United States rely upon different systems to adjudicate similar legal problems. I was fortunate to observe many proceedings related to my areas of interest: criminal law and child welfare. Overall, I found barristers to be far more collegial than American attorneys. Part of this may be that barristers do not generally work directly for the lay client. Clients hire a solicitor, and the solicitor hires a barrister. Barristers are quite polite to each other. On at least a dozen occasions, I heard barristers say to the court “I’m very grateful to my learned friend.” This must have been the type of civility and professionalism Chief Justice Warren Burger observed in England which motivated him to lead the movement to create the American Inns of Court loosely modeled after the English Inns of Court.
Following closing arguments in a criminal jury trial, the trial judge spent a day “summing up” the evidence. This is a major distinction from the American legal tradition which appears far more protective of the province of the jury as sole factfinder to allow any judicial summarizing of testimony before a verdict is rendered. As in America, UK judges set out for the jury the law on each of the charges and the standard of proof and burden. In the UK, however, he judge goes further by referring to notes made during the trial, reminding the jury of the key points of the case, and highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s argument. It is not unusual for a judge in the UK to state, for example, that “the telephone record evidence contains the same information you heard from witness [so-and-so].” The judge’s summary had the effect of bolstering certain areas of testimony. While it was no doubt helpful to the jury, it was distinctly un-American. In American courts, the role of the jury is treated as sacrosanct. It is more than symbolic that in America, everyone stands as a jury enters or leaves the room. That is not the case in the UK where jurors enter and exit the court with little fanfare.
Another notable difference in criminal trials is that a Defendant’s right to remain silent is much more limited in the UK. An exercise of such a right is one from which a jury may infer consciousness of guilt. In the United States, juries are not informed whether a suspect invoked a constitutional right such as remaining silent or requesting an attorney and are instructed that his silence at trial cannot be factored into the jury’s verdict. In the UK, a Defendant sits in a closed box, reminiscent of the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Even a Defendant who is not incarcerated is placed into the box during court appearances. While we would consider this unduly prejudicial in America, juries are used to seeing this, and expect to, so there is arguably less prejudice than there would be in America. The Defendant does not have any way to communicate with his advocate during the trial, unless he passes a note to the barrister through a court usher.
In addition to observing barristers in court, Garden Court Chambers arranged for me to spend a day with the dedicated legal practitioners at Just For Kids Law, a UK charitable organization which supports children and young people by helping them overcome problems they face regarding housing, issues with police or the criminal courts, immigration status, finding jobs or training, obtaining benefits, and getting support for physical or mental health. The staff at the center provides direct casework and direct legal representation and advice to children and young people (ages 10-25). The center uses evidence from its experience to campaign for wider reform and regularly publishes briefings with the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) detailing England’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Lily Bayrock at JFK Law explained to me that the CRC is a human rights treaty which prescribes standards for education, health care, social services and penal laws, and establishes the right of children to have a say in decisions that affect them. Governments of countries that ratified the treaty are required to appear before the UN periodically to be examined on their progress in implementing the treaty and the status of child rights in their country. 196 countries are part of the treaty. Every UN nation except Somalia, South Sudan, and the United States ratified the treaty. Most American laws, however, are already consistent with the CRC.
During my placement at 4PB, I shadowed barrister JoAnne Brown for a full week to observe a care case hearing from beginning to end. She went out of her way to include me in every way possible, providing me with the “bundle” of case material, inviting me to join case conferencing, and arranging to have me sit next to her client, the child’s guardian. Care cases are usually presided over by either a High Court judge or a judge who is sitting as a High Court judge. The high caliber of the judges is obvious. Findings of fact are extraordinarily detailed. In one care case, 122 paragraphs of draft findings were rendered by the judge after a hearing to determine temporary custody of a child. Impressively, the judge works without the use of a law clerk. In the U.S., it has been my experience that attorneys are often denied motions for written findings at the conclusion of temporary custody hearings. Instead, they must request audio recordings of the hearings which adds cost to the litigation and, more importantly, the time-consuming process means more time where parents and children remain separated.
When the local authority (i.e. government) initiates a care case in the UK, a parent is provided with a list of solicitors from which to select. The solicitor will reach out to barristers’ chambers and often request a specific barrister. If the preferred barrister is unavailable, the clerk in the barrister’s chambers will suggest another qualified barrister. Solicitors in care cases undergo specialized training to serve on a panel, whereas barristers are not subject to this requirement. The barrister often has no interaction with a parent until the day of court. A child is appointed a guardian (i.e. a social worker) by the local authority. The guardian acts in the best interest of the child and gives instructions to a barrister. If the guardian comes to a view that differs from the child’s “wishes and feelings,” however, then the barrister will take instruction directly from the child. This differs from the U.S. where parents are assigned a specific attorney without any choice in the selection. In the U.S., a child is not appointed a best interest guardian by the petitioning government agency. Instead, the court appoints an attorney who pursues the child’s goals with zealous advocacy. Generally, the attorney will not substitute the wishes of a child unless the child lacks capacity to take a position.
Royal Treatment
In addition to the placements in barristers’ chambers, my Pegasus Scholarship experience was enriched by planned trips to Parliament where we engaged with the Rt. Hon. Lord Woolf and the Rt. Hon. Baroness Butler-Sloss. At the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, we observed oral arguments and conferred on separate occasions with Lady Hale and Lady Black. We also toured the High Court and Courts of Appeal in London and Belfast as well as the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, Scotland.
The Pegasus Scholarship provides an opportunity for the adventurous to explore London independently. My free nights were spent seeing Hamilton, attending an Evening of Theater with Sir Ian McKellen, touring Churchill’s War Rooms, enjoying dinner on the River Thames, visiting St. Paul’s Cathedral, exploring castles in Edinburgh and St. Andrews, walking through the Titanic Museum and Kensington Palace. Pegasus Scholars from prior years have remarked that they received offers to have dinner with legal professionals, and this year was no exception to that tradition. I was humbled to receive a generous offer to dine with John Ryder QC. I met the leading defense barrister a month earlier in Washington, D.C. during the American Inns of Court’s 2019 National Advocacy Training Program (NATP). He is known in the legal community for his outstanding ability and superb tactical skill and even outside the legal community from the British television docudrama The Trial: A Murder in the Family. I observed him in court and also enjoyed a tasty chateaubriand with béarnaise and claret at the exclusive Travellers Club, the quintessential English gentleman’s club. It reminded me of the fictional Diogenes Club in Sherlock Holmes. These and other experiences from the Pegasus Scholarship motivate me to take a greater interest in the principles and creed of the American Inns of Court, borrowed from the English tradition and use them to become a more effective legal advocate.
Thank You
I wish to thank Judge Barbara Savitt Pearson and Jo Sidhu QC for recommending me for the Pegasus Scholarship Trust Exchange Program. I am also indebted to the following individuals: Libby Bingham from the American Inns of Court for creating such a positive experience with the National Advocacy Training Program (NATP) that I was inspired to learn more from British barristers, Lisa Sharp and members of the Pegasus Scholarship selection committee for affording me this opportunity, co-scholar Joel Michel who taught me by his example how discipline and faith are components of a life well lived, the barristers’ chambers which hosted Joel and me, Christa Richmond from Middle Temple whose hospitality and warm welcomes never ceased, and Cindy Dennis for her diligent efforts to open doors of opportunity to Joel and me. Thank you!
The two individuals who recommended me for the Pegasus Scholarship were both in London at the same event. Judge Barbara Savitt Pearson and Jo Sidhu QC were at Lincoln’s Inn for an evening with scholars.
Seeing the coat of arms for the Inner Temple, the iconic Pegasus symbol, adorning buildings throughout the Temple area was a constant reminder of the scholarship’s origin and the privilege that the scholarship provides.
Joel and I were humbled to take tea in chambers with Lady Black, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. She asked us about our legal careers and read over our resumes.
Part of the scholarship took us to Belfast Northern Ireland and Edinburgh, Scotland. Pictured is a photo from an independent excursion I took to explore St. Andrews Castle.
A humbling dinner invitation came from John Ryder QC, a leading defense barrister featured in the 2017 British docudrama series The Trial: A Murder in the Family. We had a formal dinner of chateaubriand in the exclusive Travellers Club.
I attended a stage performance by actor Sir Ian McKellen and met him after the show. The classically trained Shakespearean actor is most known for his roles in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Mr. Holmes, the X-Men series, The Da Vinci Code, The Good Liar, and Cats.
John J. Burke, Esquire, is a lawyer who has had his own practice in Salem, Massachusetts, since 2018. Inspired by his own experience as a child in the foster care system, with his first experience before a judge as a teenager advocating for himself, Burke now specializes in child welfare, termination of parental rights, and juvenile delinquency proceedings. Before opening his practice, he served as an assistant district attorney in the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts. He was a judicial intern for Associate Justice Elspeth B. Cypher of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, a student prosecutor in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, and a superior court intern at the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office. Burke earned an undergraduate degree cum laude at Emerson College, followed by a master’s of political science and a master’s of public administration at Suffolk University in Boston. He earned his law degree from Suffolk University Law School. He is a member of the Boston American Inn of Court.