Orlagh Kelly: I'm just so delighted to have you join us on the Briefed podcast. A barrister yourself, you're an elected governing bencher of the Honourable Society of Inner Temple. But very interesting to me is that I now have a guest on my podcast who is also a podcast host — not only a podcast based on advocacy and interviews with incredible barristers and lawyers from around the world, but a little tip is that it's available as part of the British Airways in-flight entertainment. Congratulations — what a brilliant thing to achieve. Bibi, can you tell us a little bit about yourself? Let's start with how and why you wanted to become a barrister.

Bibi Badejo: Well, firstly, thank you very much for having me. When I think about my story, it seems quite straightforward in the sense that I always wanted to be a lawyer. I remember disappointing my mum around seven or eight years old when I said I didn't want to be a doctor — I wanted to be a lawyer. She's been incredibly supportive since, but it was always my dream job. That was what I was working towards at school, at university. I didn't know why I wanted to be a lawyer; it just looked really glamorous. I think Ally McBeal messed that up a bit for me. But there were shows like LA Law, This Life — definitely a Gen X reference. I wanted to be in court, so that's what attracted me to the barrister route and guided me all the way through. I actually do my dream job right now. It makes me very happy.

Orlagh Kelly: You love it. It was the right decision. What do you find rewarding about it? You specialise in complex family law cases — how do you find that rewarding, and would you encourage others to come to the Bar?

Bibi Badejo: Yes, I definitely encourage as many people who want to do it, who are committed to doing it, to come to the Bar. It's not easy — anyone who practises will tell you that. You need to want to do it. I can't imagine anything worse than hating reading and then becoming a barrister and realising you're having to absorb tomes and tomes of work. But what I really love about it is the human element. I'm not really a black letter law kind of person. I love working with people and helping them at their lowest. Usually when they're coming into the family court, it's after a situation that's probably the worst of their life. As a family practitioner, I feel that I make a difference irrespective of which side I'm on. I mainly do public law — I might be acting on behalf of the local authority, parents, or the child. Irrespective of where I'm placed at the Bar, I'm able to make a real difference to the family and how they're going to live their lives from then onwards. I find it fascinating.

Orlagh Kelly: Having practised in that area myself, I'd agree. I'm not particularly interested in the nuances of the law and arguing legislation and case law unless it helps solve a problem for someone — which is why family law was quite a good fit. It is quite a draining area to work in. You're dealing with a lot of very complex matters, people really living through quite often catastrophic points in their lives, all focused around children. How have you managed to navigate that alongside living a balanced life?

Bibi Badejo: From the very beginning I didn't realise the impact, because it's so fast-paced. You get your papers one day before the hearing. You're compartmentalising so much that you're not focusing on the traumatic things you're seeing and how they affect you. But then later you realise there's a drip, drip effect. There are things I'd be surprised to find affect me — separation of siblings, for instance. If I know siblings are never going to see each other again, that really upsets me. If I see a parent who has been in care proceedings before and is in them again, that makes me really sad. Whereas other things where there have been different sorts of abuse, I might not be so affected, because I'm in problem-solving mode — it's a problem I'm trying to find solutions for. However, I do have a therapist I speak to, because I realise it does take its toll. That outlet has made a huge difference to how I process my cases and move on after them.

Orlagh Kelly: I think you and I were called to the Bar at around the same time — I was 2003, you were 2005. The awareness that exists now around mental health simply did not exist back then. We just threw ourselves into any case, any set of facts, any clients in an effort to succeed. Being faced with traumatic facts in a set of papers on any given day is quite difficult. I think it's interesting that you're very open and honest that therapy has been part of your toolkit. That's something our audience might think about — the work is traumatic, it will cause an impact, but there are guardrails and therapeutic interventions that will help, and as lawyers we shouldn't be ashamed of tapping into those resources. Would you agree?

Bibi Badejo: I completely agree. It feels almost like a cliché, but that first step of acknowledging it, realising it's having an impact, and then going to see what resources are out there — I'm really pleased there's a plethora of ways to get support. Psychologists, therapists, doctors — they have the support in place, and they're dealing with equally traumatic and difficult circumstances. It makes sense that we catch up.

Orlagh Kelly: What advice would you give someone who wants to be a courtroom-based lawyer — a barrister still in school? What from your journey would you suggest might help support them on the way?

Bibi Badejo: I don't think I have a traditional answer, because I think you should do what you enjoy. You don't have to go straight from school to a law degree to Bar school to pupillage. The more barristers who have life experience, the better — it's about working with and understanding people, especially when you're questioning witnesses. If you enjoy history, it's fine to do a history degree and then convert. That's absolutely fine. The most important thing is to look at subjects that are analytical: English literature, English language, history, classics — anything that gets you thinking. Getting different experiences is also fundamental to knowing what kind of lawyer you want to be. The experiences you have will give you transferable skills that will very likely make you a better barrister or solicitor.

Orlagh Kelly: People often feel they need to get to 18, do their law degree, get to the Bar and get started — which is a very early age to have made such a big decision and to start dealing with traumatic cases. Going out and doing something different first might really help inform your choices. And of course we're moving into a world where the younger generation are expecting more work-life balance. Do you think that's a good thing, or do you think you need to work very hard to be successful?

Bibi Badejo: I really want to say that you can leave your papers at chambers, but that's not what the job entails. I'm afraid it isn't. I completely understand where this generation is coming from, and there's a little bit of friction between a generation where we had to burn the candle at both ends and a younger group of practitioners coming in and saying: no, I need to sleep, I'd like at least six hours, not two or none, which has happened on a couple of occasions. However, you do need to recognise that this is a job where you have to work really hard, because the stakes are so high. You can't be the person in the courtroom that knows the papers the least. That cannot be you. You've got people's money, their liberty, their family. If you don't do your job properly, they might never see their child again. I would probably say: decide whether you're going to wake up early or go to bed late. Don't do both, which I have done — very unhealthy. Perhaps one of the things my generation didn't do enough was make use of paperwork days. If you're going to court on back-to-back cases, you're definitely going to be working late and at weekends. Taking a couple of clear days to sit down, read, and prepare makes a huge difference — that's probably where the balance comes in.

Orlagh Kelly: I certainly found it interesting, while I was still practising at the Bar and had started Briefed, working with IT professionals and software developers. They would send me an iteration of the technology and say: go through that and tell us where it's not working. I found myself completely bewildered by a process where you give the client a half-baked product that isn't correct. It was only after a period of time that I realised: in your job as a barrister, you can't do a half-baked job the first time round. It has to be perfect every single time. My thought process at three in the morning was: if I don't ask the right questions in the right way, at the right pace to elicit the right answers, this child may not have a relationship with their father. That was what the stakes were. And so you're correct to say you really need to want to do it, and want to do it to the highest degree possible.

Orlagh Kelly: One of the things that comes up quite frequently is the phrase imposter syndrome. Is that something you've come across with your colleagues or juniors in chambers? Is it something you've experienced yourself? And is there a way to handle it?

Bibi Badejo: The short answer is yes to everything you've just asked. I think I have a slightly controversial take, which is that the way we're trained as barristers instils imposter syndrome. For anyone listening who doesn't know: pupillage is 12 months — the first six months you're observing, the second six months you're doing it yourself. You only observe for six months. You don't know enough yet to fully deconstruct what the person you're watching is doing in order to take it on and make it your own. There's so much you're finding out about — phrases, jargon, procedures, working out who the judge is, who the usher is. There's a lot you're taking in. And to think you only do that for six months before you're handling your own cases, where the stakes are high even at a junior level — that leaves you always asking: do I know what I'm doing? It starts from there. Then you get comfortable after a year or two, and then you move up to more complex cases and the cycle begins again. I feel it's inherent for a lot of people because of the way we're trained.

Leslie Thomas KC has said: is it that it's imposter syndrome and we don't feel like we belong at the table — or is it that we're being told we shouldn't be at the table? That framing is very valid. But I come at it from a different angle, which is: sometimes maybe we need to look and think, I might need to do some training and up my skillset. That's what I felt I had to do. I had imposter syndrome because I felt I didn't know what I was doing — but there was also the reality of recognising I didn't have the skills I needed. That prompted me to go on my advocacy training journey, which has changed my practice completely.

Orlagh Kelly: I do want to talk about the advocacy piece — it's super interesting to me. It's quite rare to be in a profession where you stand up to do your day job and someone else in the room is paid to contradict you and tell you you're wrong. So if you were feeling a little bit vulnerable, someone else is going to say: you've interpreted the case law wrong, you've got the facts wrong, your client's wrong.

Bibi Badejo: Exactly. And when I think about cross-examination preparation, I might spend hours thinking about how I'm going to undermine a witness in a particular way — and of course, the other side is doing the same for my client. So it feels quite hostile. And quite often in family law when I've acted for local authorities, I feel like I'm an island. The judge is frustrated with me because something hasn't been done. Three opponents are against me. My client doesn't like the advice I've given them. And I'm on my own.

Orlagh Kelly: I have a colleague who trained with me at Bar school who specialises in crime now. He said he did family for a little while and concluded: I'm not doing family law because everybody hates you. Even your own client hates you. Nobody's ever happy. Nobody's on the same page. You're trying to get the best solution, but the best solution is usually a compromise and it's not what anybody wants. Every day you go to work and everybody hates you.

Bibi Badejo: Exactly. So there's nothing affirming. No one is giving you feedback along the lines of: when you asked that question it was great, I love the way you analysed that and put forward those submissions. No one says that. You might get a thank you at the end, maybe.

Orlagh Kelly: There's no real feedback loop for barristers. The only metrics of success are more cases, more money, taking silk — which can take 20 years — or going to the bench. There are no appraisals, no one-to-ones. Inevitably, we're all also trying not to let people know they're too good, because they're competition. It was one of the things that informed my decision to leave the Bar — the only development options were taking silk or going to the bench, and I didn't want to do either.

Bibi Badejo: No, that's really true.

Orlagh Kelly: So tell me about how you got started with advocacy training and the podcast.

Bibi Badejo: You might be surprised to know that I hated public speaking from the very beginning — which doesn't make sense if you want to be a barrister. Always in the back of my head: this isn't you, you can't really do this. Then I had one case where I'd really prepared but was completely outmatched by my opponent. She out-strategised me. She was incredible. My client wasn't successful, and I felt absolutely awful. That's where I drew a line in the sand and decided to get some proper help with advocacy. So I went on the Keble course — a week-long residential course in Oxford.

You have to be quite vulnerable. You're doing advocacy exercises and receiving critique, which can feel quite hard to take on board. But the support was strong and I improved hugely. The very next case I did was in front of a circuit judge — I was for the father, who was accused of sexual assault. I put into practice what I'd learned and it was incredible. He was exonerated. The judge was quoting from my cross-examination in his judgment. A complete transformation of how I was perceived and what I was communicating to the court. I got the bug from there. I went on to do training in the States, in Australia, specialist cross-examination workshops. And I also trained as an advocacy trainer shortly after the Keble course, which meant I had to deconstruct what the person in front of me was doing that wasn't effective, think about why that was, how to improve it, and give them a demonstration.

Orlagh Kelly: In that one week, you came out phenomenally different. What were the things that changed?

Bibi Badejo: I didn't really have a grasp of what my case analysis was. I didn't know what I wanted to get from a witness beyond the very obvious. But how do I build a story? How do I match my questions to my case theory and my client's aims? That changed. Also learning techniques for cross-examination and submissions — I could now guide the judge through clearly so they knew exactly where I was going. I was focusing on getting more evidence out, making sure there was a real evidential basis rather than abstract questions that don't mean anything. In summary: sharpening case analysis, working on cross-examination techniques, and storytelling. Huge, huge difference.

Orlagh Kelly: You clearly identified a gap. When did I last do any advocacy training after my Bar exams? I don't think I did any. It wasn't a standard thing. Your advocacy training was just getting on your feet and doing it — and there was no feedback loop.

Bibi Badejo: There was almost no formal feedback available. You could ask the judge or your opponents, but they might not tell you what you want to hear, or it might be too generic. For pupils there are weekends, and for new practitioners too. But post the three-year mark there wasn't much. Keble was once a year for a week — you had to have that week free and be able to afford it. It made things quite difficult. So that's what I wanted to change.

The story starts with the podcast. I was learning so much and my career was changing. I recognised not everybody can take a week and go to Australia. I thought: since I've met all these people, wouldn't it be great to interview them? I was going to write a book. I told my partner, who rolled his eyes and said: you're so boring, do a podcast. So that's what I did. The first season had twelve guests — people who had all taught me something about advocacy. It felt like a fireside chat. My job was to make it as practical as possible. I aimed it at the senior practitioner who doesn't have time, knowing that if I aimed high it would trickle down. That's what's made it a successful podcast. Following on from that, I launched The Advocacy Coach — programmes and workshops, teaching advocacy skills online to people from different jurisdictions. I use actors as well, so it replicates that residential experience but in your own home.

Orlagh Kelly: How do you juggle two businesses plus a podcast alongside a family law practice?

Bibi Badejo: My friends laugh at me because I launched the podcast during my maternity leave. I was pregnant when we recorded the first season, and then my son was born and I just felt I had a lot of space. So I created The Advocacy Coach. When I went back to work, I negotiated with my clerks to work part time — two weeks in court, then two weeks off. In the two weeks off I do my coaching, my podcast recordings and editing. I've been doing two weeks on, two weeks off for the last three years. It means I can do the barrister work I want to do and still devote real time to the business.

Orlagh Kelly: Does the alternating structure also help you process the family law work — giving you a break from it?

Bibi Badejo: Yes. I'm doing more complex cases but not as many of them, and the break does make it a lot easier to process.

Orlagh Kelly: How did you get onto British Airways in-flight entertainment?

Bibi Badejo: It was only meant to be for 18 months and then they were going to pull it. My producer — who is also my partner, the same one who told me to do a podcast instead of writing a book — had been approached by British Airways asking if he had anything interesting. He said: yes, actually, I've been producing this podcast. And it has been quite popular. People who are worried about public speaking and just want to tap into how barristers do it, or who are preparing for meetings and presentations — they listen to it too. I get messages from people who have nothing to do with law. It's still on there a couple of years later, which is wonderful.

Orlagh Kelly: Well done — especially for starting out so boring. And what's next?

Bibi Badejo: More international work — I'd love to work more with arbitration practitioners in Europe. They have a civil jurisdiction and approach cross-examination in a completely different way. The judge asks the questions; it's more inquisitorial. I find that cross-jurisdictional dimension really interesting. I'm also looking at the intersection of tech and AI with advocacy. There's a lot in terms of case management and AI, but what can we do to improve advocacy itself? I'd like to explore that further.

Orlagh Kelly: It sounds very exciting. I'd love to have you back to talk about AI and advocacy when that develops — there's already a great deal in the press about the risks of AI for barristers, and it would be wonderful to hear about how it could actually support and elevate practice. Thank you very much, Bibi.

Bibi Badejo: Yes, please. I loved it. It's been a great conversation. Thank you so much.