Anyone thinking of Kings Inns in 2014?

mcgarnicle · 06-12-2013 5:36pm #1

I know it’s a little early to be starting on this topic but I have a lot of work to do so decided to get the ball rolling early. I graduated back in 2009 and for various reasons I never took my study further. I often weighed up the Inns entrance exam but the thoughts of hitting the books again really didn’t appeal to me at all and I had decided that if I was going to go for the exam I wanted to do it right. I have decided that next year is the year. I have dusted off the old books, nutshells and notes and am working my way through the syllabus and, to my surprise, am enjoying the material far more than I ever did when I studied it the first time.

While the studying is going well for now I know that my knowledge of the law is out-dated and that even the books I am working from are likely a bit behind.

When in college I always got a lot from tutorials and just the general swapping of ideas and opinions that goes with being in a class full of people studying together so I decided to put this beacon up and see if there is anyone of similar mind out there.

If anyone is planning on going for the exam next August then drop a post here. It would be great if a few people could get in on this and we can get some discussion (even a little tutorial group of sorts) going.

Of course it would also be great if anyone reading this post who doesn’t plan on sitting the exam in August but has some info (any major/general changes in the law since 2009 would be a nice start ☺ ) could post their thoughts.

I hope the mods don’t mind if I bump this thread every now and again. I realise that most of those planning on taking the entrance exam are likely still in their undergraduate courses so won’t be checking this stuff out this early but part of the reason for making this post so early is to attract any of the old(er) sods like me (30 this year ☹ ) who are contemplating taking a run at the entrance exam and just want to know that they’re not alone.

hullaballoo · 06-12-2013 6:36pm

mcgarnicle wrote: »

I hope the mods don’t mind if I bump this thread every now and again.

That's fine but no more than once every 48 hours if no one has responded since your last bump.

Bepolite · 06-12-2013 8:17pm

+1 I'm doing the exams in August. I think there is already a KI thread though. Perhaps a merge if the OP does not object?

johnnyskeleton · 06-12-2013 11:04pm

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Of course it would also be great if anyone reading this post who doesn’t plan on sitting the exam in August but has some info (any major/general changes in the law since 2009 would be a nice start ☺ ) could post their thoughts.

1. Check the silly busses here.

2. Focus on knowing the core issues in each subject and understanding them thoroughly. Knowledge of the most up to date case law is only for brownie points, and to be honest focusing on what has changed since 2009 to the detriment of the hundreds of years prior to that is a bit of a fur coat and no knickers approach in my opinion.

3. In constitutional, have a look at the independence of warrants case (damache), the delegation of legislative power case (grace chicken), McCrystal and the other referendum case, the right to die (fleming) and the promissory notes cases (Collins v Minister for Finance, Pringle v Ireland).

4. In evidence, there have been a few cases on the burden/standard of proof such as rostas. There was also alphonsus connolly which is a more specific case on the concept of reasonable doubt. There is another decision on mixed statements (DPP v AD), DPP v Clifford on what a reasonable inference is, McCrea on the right to a solicitor in garda stations, Clarke v Governor of somewhere and Dunne v DPP on hearsay in criminal applications, lavelle v nevin on the admissibility of convictions in civil cases, DPP v McNeill on character evidence, Byrne v DPP on missing evidence.

benway · 07-12-2013 12:44am

Obvious, perhaps, but I'd highly recommend getting the exam papers and having a look at a few to get a feel for where you're at before working through the syllabuses/syllabi.

You do need to be au fait with pretty much the whole syllabus for most of these exams, kitchen sink is thrown in to the mandatory question 1 which carries half of the marks, especially in tort.* Leaving out topics is a dangerous idea, even if you can only manage to skim some of them.

Get yourself copies of one of the grind course manuals, they're stripped back to the essentials that will get you through. If you manage to bring in anything newer or more advanced yourself it's a bonus, but there's more than enough in those manuals alone to get the pass.

The good news is that if you stick to problem questions, there isn't any great depth required, just identify the issue reasonably accurately with an authority or two.

Of course, if you get lucky and find an essay on a pet topic, then great, but in general it seems to be easier to pick up marks on the problem questions.

Above all else, the entrance exams are an endurance test - helps to have good "night before" notes ready as there's a pretty punishing turn around from one exam to the next. You'll be half delirious by the Wednesday, but you just have to push through - and everyone else will be in the same boat.

*Negligence generally doesn't feature very prominently, but stuff that seems obscure at undergrad level like Rylands, nuisance, passing off, interference with economic interests, animals, etc. tend to come up all the time.

mcgarnicle · 07-12-2013 12:56am

Just like to say thank you to everyone posting so far. Appreciate the advice.

Bepolite, nice to meet someone in the same boat so early on. I have no problem with a merge, whatever is appropriate, I can migrate to the other thread.

Johnny, thanks for that advice, I have taken a look at the silly busses and they look fairly in line with what I would have expected (more or less the same as they were in 09). I certainly wouldn't be focusing on post 09 case law for brownie points, however, I have been fairly comprehensively out of the law loop the last few years so was concerned that any major changes/ important cases might have passed me by.

Benway, yes I have seen the grind course manuals mentioned before and I will try get my hands on a set when I get home (unfortunately I am out of Ireland until March so have to rely on the books and notes I have with me for now).

A quick aside, just a question I am a little curious about. For those of you you who have been through it, how does the degree course compare with the entrance exam itself in terms of difficulty? I have heard/read horror stories about large failure rates and tough multiple choice exams. Not that difficulty will put me off, just curious how people found the course.

mcgarnicle · 07-12-2013 4:56pm

Apologies for all the questions, one other thing that I am a little curious about though.

From reading through the old threads on this topic I've seen it stated that the degree course presumes that you know the law and teaches you the practical barrister skills with that in mind.

As noted earlier, I am fairly rusty on the law in general at this point (having not studied it in a few years) so am wondering are the 5 subjects of the entrance exam sufficient as a foundation to study the other subjects introduced during the degree?

I mean, I have studied all the required subjects before but just wondering if there are any that I should be studying up on apart from the 5 entrance exam subjects?

benway · 07-12-2013 8:12pm

There's more than enough work in getting ready for the five between here and there, tbh.

Beyond that, anything that you need to know at the Inns is in their manuals, and just like in practice if you're asked about an area of law you don't know about, you can always make your excuses and go look it up.

Hippo · 09-12-2013 5:45pm

mcgarnicle wrote: »

A quick aside, just a question I am a little curious about. For those of you you who have been through it, how does the degree course compare with the entrance exam itself in terms of difficulty? I have heard/read horror stories about large failure rates and tough multiple choice exams. Not that difficulty will put me off, just curious how people found the course.

The degree course is very different from any kind of undergrad or entrance exam prep. Lots of advocacy, drafting etc. Knowledge of the basics of substantive law is assumed, anything else you can look up. The MCQ exams - one in Civil and one in Criminal - deal for the most part with procedural issues rather than theoretical ones.

Failure rates are highish for the first sittings, but it seems most get through via the August repeats. The course requires plenty of work, but most of it is pretty interesting. For all its vaunted 'practicality', I'm fairly sure it only bears a passing resemblence to real-life practice in the Law Library.

benway · 09-12-2013 6:27pm

Hippo wrote: »

For all its vaunted 'practicality', I'm fairly sure it only bears a passing resemblence to real-life practice in the Law Library.

There's the right way, the wrong way and the King's Inns way.

Tom Young · 09-12-2013 7:00pm

"and never the twain shall ..."

In fairness, it's enough to get you to the threshold of carrying boxes, photocopying, library skiv'ing and running about.

hullaballoo · 10-12-2013 3:20am

Tom Young wrote: »

"and never the twain shall ..."

In fairness, it's enough to get you to the threshold of carrying boxes, photocopying, library skiv'ing and running about.

Prolix.

Hippo · 10-12-2013 11:28am

hullaballoo wrote: »

Prolix.

An accusation that could rarely be made of a practicing barrister.

LutherBlissett · 11-12-2013 12:42am

And how difficult is it to do well in the King's Inns exams? I had heard you get called in order of exam results, what would the calibre of the students that finish highly be?

Bepolite · 11-12-2013 12:50am

LutherBlissett wrote: »

And how difficult is it to do well in the King's Inns exams? I had heard you get called in order of exam results, what would the calibre of the students that finish highly be?

They've chosen to go into a career that have to pay to do for at least a year, more likely 3 and make less than being on social welfare for 5 years after that. The calibre may be very high but intelligence has less practical application than one might imagine!

Joking aside and this is mere supposition (and perhaps wishful thinking on my part) I don;t think it matter much to your career as any effect of going up first will be diluted by the effects of having a good, bad or indifferent master.

Tom Young · 11-12-2013 12:57am

True that. Lack of pragmatism and being obnoxious is a major problem.

johnnyskeleton · 12-12-2013 12:15am

Tom Young wrote: »

True that. Lack of pragmatism and being obnoxious is a major problem.

Hey, I'm sitting right here!

LutherBlissett · 12-12-2013 12:57am

Tom Young, I find that lack of pragmatism and obnoxious idea interesting. It seems (and this isn't directed personally at yourself) that there is a tendency among older barristers to try and turn people off the profession. While it might/ might not be financially feasible for some people, I can't see why older generations are so keen to deter younger people from entering what is basically a free market. Are they scared of being displaced? As to the obnoxious thing, is that prevalent among the younger bar?

johnnyskeleton · 12-12-2013 1:14am

LutherBlissett wrote: »

that there is a tendency among older barristers to try and turn people off the profession. While it might/ might not be financially feasible for some people, I can't see why older generations are so keen to deter younger people from entering what is basically a free market. Are they scared of being displaced?

I don't think anyone wants to deter someone else from becoming a barrister, but certainly it is right to disabuse people of the notion that the bar is the route to easy riches.

NoQuarter · 12-12-2013 10:53pm

Overheard a girl who has been at the bar for 5-6 years the other day saying "ah well I have enough money to get me through Christmas at least". Says it all really.

LegalChef · 23-01-2014 8:31pm

Hi there,

I have also decided to take the plunge and commit to tackling the entrance exams this year.
No more then yourself, it has been several years since I finished the undergrad and worries of being 'out of the loop' are fairly prevalent!
I have managed to get my hands on the manuals from the grinds courses though, and so far they are a great help.

One question I have for those who have sat the exams is what is the standard required like compared to the exams in the undergrad?
For example, how much would one need to focus on remembering specific things like case/judges names along with the principals established?

Needless to say the simple volume of the slyibi for the exams is slightly daunting compared to the undergrad, considering that the mandatory question eliminates any possibility of cherry picking!

NoQuarter · 23-01-2014 8:40pm

LegalChef wrote: »

Hi there,

I have also decided to take the plunge and commit to tackling the entrance exams this year.
No more then yourself, it has been several years since I finished the undergrad and worries of being 'out of the loop' are fairly prevalent!
I have managed to get my hands on the manuals from the grinds courses though, and so far they are a great help.

One question I have for those who have sat the exams is what is the standard required like compared to the exams in the undergrad?
For example, how much would one need to focus on remembering specific things like case/judges names along with the principals established?

Needless to say the simple volume of the slyibi for the exams is slightly daunting compared to the undergrad, considering that the mandatory question eliminates any possibility of cherry picking!

You need to know it to undergrad level. They are marked in and around as hard as undergrad exams are. The difference, as you say, is the volume. No way around it.

LegalChef · 23-01-2014 8:51pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

You need to know it to undergrad level. They are marked in and around as hard as undergrad exams are. The difference, as you say, is the volume. No way around it.

That's reassuring, I had worried they might be marked tougher.
Thanks for the reply!

NoQuarter · 24-01-2014 1:33am

If they are marked harder, it wouldnt be by a huge amount.

another question · 20-02-2014 12:26pm

Sorry for squeezing in here...does anyone have any experience of the Two-Year Diploma offered by the King's Inns, is it really only for those wishing to be barristers or does it have any other educational value/job prospects...

Tom Young · 20-02-2014 12:27pm

Mainly for entry to the Barrister-at-Law degree course. The grade and standard of the law delivered is pretty high (or at least it was).

Cantstandsya · 21-02-2014 1:12pm

Planning on sitting the exam this year but my old college notes etc are fairly out of date at this stage.

Hoping to get my hands on a set of the preparatory manuals for the entrance exam, wondering if anyone could point me towards a fairly recent set?

Apologies if this belongs in Adverts, just thought this thread could be a good place to ask.

Hippo · 21-02-2014 2:20pm

The diploma is pretty good alright; teaching, between lectures and tutorials, is for the most part excellent.

Anyone thinking of Kings Inns in 2014?

Comments