How can a barrister succeed, if a barrister lacked &#39;the depth into law&#39;?
<p>From <a href="https://youtu.be/5ijukgJRii4?t=3m51s" rel="nofollow">the 3 m 51 s juncture</a> of Lord Neuberger's interview at the Cambridge Union of 2015/12/12:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>On the other hand, I do honestly feel, and I am sure some people who read my judgements would agree, that because I didn't have 3 years concentrating on law, <strong>I didn't get quite the depth into law that I might have got if I had read law.</strong> </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Having read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neuberger,_Baron_Neuberger_of_Abbotsbury#Early_life" rel="nofollow">Lord Neuberger's biography</a>, I know that he has a BA in Chemistry, but he converted to law via the CPE instead of studying for an undergraduate degree in law.</p>

<p>But I do not understand the bolded above. If he had less '<strong>depth into law</strong>', then how did he succeed as a barrister, to be appointed: a QC, then a High Court judge, Court of Appeal judge, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Master of the Rolls, and then the President of the UK Supreme Court?<br>
Surely he must have done something right? </p>

<p>The legal system advances practitioners on a number of criteria, not all of which relate to their legal education.</p>

<p>It's essentially the same for all professions - your schooling/education may or may not determine your success in the field. Also relevant would be the social circles you navigate, your achievements post-education, and so on.</p>

<p>If a person wins a race they may say, "I think, and you probably agree, that I could have run faster if I had trained."</p>

<p>That doesn't mean that the winner isn't fast. It doesn't mean that they are not the fastest. It just means they could do even better if...</p>

england-and-wales barristers