Cath Howells is a barrister at Exchange Chambers, a leading set with offices in Manchester and Liverpool. Cath has been at Exchange since her pupillage in 1989. She remembers: “As a pupil I did quite varied things. A lot of PI, but the scheme in chambers was to see a variety of work. So you see the senior work of your pupil supervisor and other senior members of chambers, including some high-profile criminal cases.”

After watching her seniors at work for six months, Cath was ready for some of her own cases: “I think that towards the end of your first six you feel as if you can’t learn anymore until you get on your feet and do it. And then when you get on your feet you feel that you haven’t been paying attention for the last six months and you haven’t really taken in things that you thought you knew, like where do you sit and whose turn it is to speak – all the practical things stump you.” She did plenty of work, however: “Towards the end of your first six months you see a lot more junior work because that’s what you’ll be doing when you start on your feet, so it’s a mixture of magistrates’ court work and things like motoring court offences. At the end, I was in court almost every day.”

But that was 17 years ago and Cath’s practice has changed, to focus solely on PI and clinical negligence: “I’m in court two or three times a week, either for final or preliminary hearings. I have conferences two or three times a week and lots of paperwork too. The balance of my practice has changed. Also, my work has changed in terms of valuation. Before I could do an advice in a low-value case that would take an hour; now I very rarely assess a case that doesn’t take me a day to do.”

“One day last week,” Cath says, “I had a case management conference in an asbestos case, where I was acting for the defendant. We were sorting out the best way forward for the claimant’s case – what we could and couldn’t agree on. Then I got back and had to do various aspects of paperwork in relation to that. In the afternoon I had a conference on a case with a chap who’s got a severe back injury. There are real issues of whether he’ll ever be able to get back to work.”

In an 18-year career of highs and lows, a particular case stands out to Cath. She remembers: “Last year I was junior to Bill Braithwaite QC in a severe head injury case which lasted for 10 days in London. The claimant was a very promising student who was run over in a road traffic accident. She has a brain injury and is effectively immobile from the neck downwards. She can’t speak anymore and needs to be spoon fed. Her parents have given the past five years of their life to care for her. There were lots of issues about who should look after her and who should pay for her care. We recovered £6.6 million. It was a fabulous result because we could see it really made a difference to her and her family. We had a fantastic relationship that built up with the family because I’d been involved in the case for three years. The judge said the parents deserved a medal for caring for her.”

Such a case really brings home what working as a PI barrister is about. Cath explains: “I think PI gets a bad press because people think that it’s ambulance chasing and you’re making a claim for no good reason. People assume that it’s all very straightforward. It isn’t – the law is developing all the time.”

Cath finds the area very intellectually demanding. She notes: “Over the last 12 months in PI litigation there’s been a big issue as to how you quantify periodical payments, whether they should be earnings linked or retail prices index linked. There are real issues there that you have to work with to try and evaluate the best way to settle a claim. Another developing area is the issue of public funding, so whether the NHS or social services should fund the cost of someone’s care package or whether the defendant should pay. There’s an ethical issue there because you wonder why the state should have to pay if someone is insured. The defendants have been arguing that if there’s public funding available to pay for care then you don’t need care provided by the defendant. I don’t see why taxpayers should pay to provide care to badly injured claimants, or why claimants should be dependent on state funding when there is insurance there to pay for it.”

Although a career at the Bar requires long hours, it’s worth it, argues Cath: “I love winning cases. I enjoy meeting the clients. I travel quite a bit over the whole country to meet people in their own homes, not just in solicitors’ offices. People who’ve had severe spine or brain injuries don’t know what to expect from a barrister and can feel a little in awe. If I can put them at ease, they can open up and talk about what effect an injury has had on their lives. That is incredibly satisfying because then you can work out the best way to help put their lives back together.” The hours can take their toll though: “It is a 24 hour a day commitment. I don’t think anything prepares you for it.”

Cath is on the Exchange pupillage committee. Every year she sees 600 applications for a maximum of three pupillage places. She gives her advice on how to impress: “You have to use the application form as an advocacy exercise. You are using it to persuade someone of your cause. Don’t be too wordy, too clever, or use expressions that you wouldn’t normally use. Instead, use it as a way of demonstrating your skills as an advocate, but also let your personality shine through. You should have done mini-pupillages and advocacy, whether at university or Bar school, mooting or public speaking.”

Finally, Cath says, don’t give up. It’s incredibly competitive but, if you make it through, it’s worth it. PI is one area where you can really see the difference you make to a client: “You get a real thrill from getting a good result, not only in personal recognition for the job that you’ve done, but also for the client. Nothing beats the buzz of getting the right result.”