The Group v Mentor Debate

For many aspirant pupils, a recurring dilemma arises in the application process: should one prioritise joining a particular Group, or should one aim to work under a specific mentor? This is often treated as a binary choice. In reality, it is far more nuanced and less predictable.

The underlying assumption is that one’s mentor or Group will determine the trajectory of one’s early career. While both can and do play an important role, neither offers guarantees.

Some mentors may not take an active interest in a junior’s development. Similarly, some Groups may not have an established culture of supporting new members through mentorship, training, or referrals.

Conversely, unexpected support and career-defining opportunities may arise entirely outside of either structure. Thus, the assumption that work will flow directly from a mentor or Group does not always hold.

While there are juniors whose careers are meaningfully advanced by these networks, others must build their practices through alternate paths, whether through visibility in high-profile matters, referrals from attorneys, or simply being in the right place at the right time.

Informal networks, moments of chance, and a mix of hard work and opportunity often shape practice in ways that cannot easily be anticipated when applying for pupillage. Thinking of it only as a Group v mentor issue may be evidence of an availability heuristic (so best avoided).

That said, when forced to choose, many would advise prioritising the mentor over the Group. A mentor bears immediate responsibility for a pupil’s training. They are the daily point of contact, and a committed mentor can help a pupil build confidence, develop technical skills, and navigate the early uncertainties of practice.

A Group, while important, may not offer the same level of engagement during the formative months of pupillage. Nevertheless, a Group with a strong culture of support, particularly one where work flows from seniors to juniors and where professional development is actively encouraged, can provide a powerful long-term foundation.

Factors such as the balance of Silks and senior juniors, and a sense of collegiality and inclusion, can influence the opportunities available within a Group over time.

The key is to be honest about what matters more: close mentorship or broader institutional affiliation. Ideally, a pupil would secure both in one place; but, where that is not possible, applicants should reflect carefully on their needs, goals, and what they are prepared to live with. And what they can bring to their early careers in their own right.

It is also worth noting that many aspects of success in practice (work allocation, client relationships, and peer support) remain influenced by structural inequalities, including race, gender, and class.

Entry into well-established networks can provide a considerable career boost, but such access is still unevenly distributed. Ultimately, aspiring advocates should be wary of expecting a perfect fit.

A less-than-ideal mentor or Group does not necessarily preclude growth, and a less prestigious or well-known environment may still offer what is needed. As with much else in the profession, success is often shaped by a combination of preparation, persistence, and unpredictability.

My advice: don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.