deviling/practising problems - change needed?

stringy · 14-02-2012 2:27pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

An income of 100k is only equivalent to 50K in the public sector when this is taken into account

if that's the case I'm really starting to regret giving up my 55k public sector job for this!!

nuac · 14-02-2012 4:54pm

BornToKill wrote: »

Seriously doubt that. How did you arrive at it?

cost of a privately funded pension equivalent to the PS| pension would account for the difference

Avatargh · 14-02-2012 6:29pm

BornToKill wrote: »

Seriously doubt that. How did you arrive at it?

Consider the value of

(a) pension, (b) holiday pay / entitlements (c) maternity leave (if applicable) (d) light and heat, office space paid for (e) secretarial etc.

That's a pretty reasonable comparator. It gets more "obvious" when you take "high ranking" public service positions and compare the real private cost of obtaining the above benefits. A "high ranking" position on, say, 100k, would need considerable more income in the private sector to secure the value of even the above (a) to (e) benefits.

Tom Young · 14-02-2012 7:45pm

The OPs post seemed to me to be a cry for help in a profession where he/she is a sole trader. That's most unfortunate.

If you've a problem with a Master, particularly in 2nd year, follow JS's advice - drift away.

People who approach the legal profession in a way that a call to the Bar or solicitors roll, should confer on them some entitlement to be wealthy automatically, not to work hard or experience the various economic hardships that exist in other trades or professions are purely delusional.

People who wish to enter the profession should do so with a great degree of caution - particularly if they are in permanent, paid and pensionable jobs at this juncture.

There is a large pool of unemployed lawyers still out there. Even pretty good ones. As for barristers, sitting as one of a pool of 2,500 of the brightest people in the room, does not automatically mean that you're going to be briefed. Being briefed is one thing, getting paid is an entirely different kettle of fish.

There are a couple of phenomena in existence in the legal profession in Ireland at the moment, these are:

1. Unemployment;
2. Under employment;
3. Cost competition;
4. Hyper competition in certain instances e.g., the Bar; and
5. Over supply.

Hard work never killed anyone, nor did a legal education. If you are unsatisfied, take yourself off and try something else. If not, work hard.

The Legal Services Bill will to my mind have the effect of creating a massive amount of business for the insurance industry in Ireland. It will reduce access to justice, confuse the public and create a state of flux that will leave the entire profession in a complete mess for quite some time.

Tom

Tom Young · 14-02-2012 7:48pm

PS: I have some very special and vitriolic comments in relation to the Regulatory model which are best kept to myself for the moment.

Avatargh · 15-02-2012 10:17am

Tom Young wrote: »

The Legal Services Bill will to my mind have the effect of creating a massive amount of business for the insurance industry in Ireland. It will reduce access to justice, confuse the public and create a state of flux that will leave the entire profession in a complete mess for quite some time.

Tom

Probably off topic, but does there come a point where we have to say "we don't care any more. We've given the public the best warning we can, and no-one is listening...so fine...lets see where it all ends up"? Indeed, the new focus on demonstrating precisely what time was spent doing what suits, I would assume, most of us quite well. Generally (especially in the lower Courts), the time spent massively outweighs the fees charged. One impact of the reforms may well be that whereas sensible charging is urged at the highest level (i.e. unexplained briefs not allowed), sensible charging is required at the lowest level (i.e. €200 just won't cut it for a day long debt case in the District). Then it will be precisely the kind of people who need access to justice to secure relatively modest returns who won't be able to afford it - quite like, in a sense, the US model where lawyers seem alright with the basic notion that "you pay for the hours I work, or I don't work". Personally, I'm alright with that (as its sickening to work 10 hours on a case, and have a client fight over paying you more than the €200 certified) but it will be interesting to see the reactions when the "I'm not taking that case without €X up front" becomes standard.

Tom Young · 15-02-2012 1:13pm

Yes, and 28€ or less in criminal matters is 'criminal'.

Kosseegan · 15-02-2012 4:02pm

Avatargh wrote: »

Probably off topic, but does there come a point where we have to say "we don't care any more. We've given the public the best warning we can, and no-one is listening...so fine...lets see where it all ends up"? Indeed, the new focus on demonstrating precisely what time was spent doing what suits, I would assume, most of us quite well. Generally (especially in the lower Courts), the time spent massively outweighs the fees charged. One impact of the reforms may well be that whereas sensible charging is urged at the highest level (i.e. unexplained briefs not allowed), sensible charging is required at the lowest level (i.e. €200 just won't cut it for a day long debt case in the District). Then it will be precisely the kind of people who need access to justice to secure relatively modest returns who won't be able to afford it - quite like, in a sense, the US model where lawyers seem alright with the basic notion that "you pay for the hours I work, or I don't work". Personally, I'm alright with that (as its sickening to work 10 hours on a case, and have a client fight over paying you more than the €200 certified) but it will be interesting to see the reactions when the "I'm not taking that case without €X up front" becomes standard.

Individuals do it all the time. No chance of it becoming standard. There is always someone who will take a brief for a low fee, or a chance of a fee.

BornToKill · 15-02-2012 4:03pm

nuac wrote: »

cost of a privately funded pension equivalent to the PS| pension would account for the difference

Without any intention to derail the thead, let me just say that this a complete misapprehension.

deviling/practising problems - change needed?

Comments