Well, that's a kick in my careers teeth!

morbo

I have a primary degree in computer science (B.Sc. (Honours)), and I am studying in the University of Limerick in the LL.B. graduate entry program. It is a two year law course for non-law graduates, which specifically aims to put you into work as a Solicitor or Barrister. Me, I wanted to sit the New York State Bar (NYSB) exam at the end of my time.

Basically, I have done four years of computer science, and will have done two years of law, so I don’t really fancy spending a further three years working for pocket change before I get my name put on the Roll of Solicitors or get called to the bar. There are five other people in my class that are in the same boat.

Well, turns out I am not eligible to sit the NYSB! They require law grads to have a minimum of three years of legal studies, or to be a practicing solicitor or barrister. Unless I can find a solution to this, I have now wasted five years. I still have one year to go. Anyone here sat the NYSB? Or does anyone have any suggestions on how I can drum up about twelve more legal credits?

When I graduate, I will have 69 credits (including the FYP and all extra night classes I can get into); the NYSB requires a minimum of 80 credits. Keep in mind, doing an LL.M. or LL.D. will not suffice. The credits from your primary degree and first law degree are all that is counted.

Any help or info anyone can provide is much appreciated.

Thanks,
W. E. L.

johnnyskeleton

Contact them first, they might make an execption for you. If you explain that it is a two year post grad degree, they might accept it.

A friend of mine doing the exams told me that they accept the BL from Kings Inns, so if you are interested in doing that as an extra year you might want to check that out.

Jo King

I am not even sure that they recognise the Kings Inns course. I have heard it said that some of the Judges on the Irish Supreme Court would not be allowed do the New York bar because they do not have a three year law degree. The best thing would be to try and stretch the LLB course out to three years. There is a site called www.malet.com which has a number of articles on the requirements of the various state bars in the U.S.

morbo

They do recognise the BL from Kings Inn, but the problem is farting about for a year and wasting €30,000 doing the BL, when it's only two days and $400 to sit the NYSB.

Granted, it's €4,000 to do the preparation courses offered here for the NYSB, but whatever way you spin it, it's still only a fraction of the price, and it's an internationally recognised and highly sought after accreditation.

The hell with doing an apprenticeship or devilling for minimum wage! I would like to do the BL, but it's so much money, and I really do not like the idea of moving to Dublin for a year. That alone would be another €20,000.

morbo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Contact them first, they might make an execption for you. If you explain that it is a two year post grad degree, they might accept it.

The head of Friary Law, who is also a fellow of the world institute of arbitration, who serves on; the Irish bar; New York State Bare; and US Supreme Court Bar, and who is a lecturer in Trinity College Dublin took them to court in the US last year in an attempt to get them to allow two year LL.B. students in. They refused to change their stance on the issue.

johnnyskeleton

I meant that you might be able to do the BL as an extra year so as to qualify to do the NY bar.

Jo King has linked a list of the other state bar associations: unless your heart is set on NY, why not try another state? This might also be a back door into the NY bar, i.e. sit the Hicksville state law-talkin' exam and then try to get that qualification accepted so you can sit the NY bar. Also, I think you might be able to get in by working in a law firm in america for a few years.

Also, I might suggest that you look into the NY situation before you invest your money. Can you get a decent job? How much will it pay? How much will it cost to live in NY? Will you be working insane hours at the start? Can you get a green card?

It's probably a better option than Ireland, but I don't think that the stories you hear are all true. If they were, everyone with a law degree and a bit of ambition would be leaving Ireland to work in NY.

If you do go ahead and it works out, let us know. I'd like to know what it is like to work in NY.

Tom Young

Morbo, sounds to me like johnny is right. Check it all out before you withdraw. The reality in my view is that you will be extraordinarily marketable with the skills you've developed already. Many firms hire law grads as in house counsel or paralegals and quite frankly pay high rates. I can cite a few examples. Having legal knowledge is very useful particularly if meshed with another skill or academic foundation.

morbo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I meant that you might be able to do the BL as an extra year so as to qualify to do the NY bar.

There’s no real issue with doing the BL. If you have a BL, you are a practicing barrister in NYSB’s eyes, so they don’t care about your degree. They treat you as a qualified lawyer coming in from another State.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Jo King has linked a list of the other state bar associations: unless your heart is set on NY, why not try another state? This might also be a back door into the NY bar, i.e. sit the Hicksville state law-talkin' exam and then try to get that qualification accepted so you can sit the NY bar. Also, I think you might be able to get in by working in a law firm in america for a few years.

The reason for doing the NYSB is simply, only the NYSB and California State Bar are internationally recognised. To do the Cali Bar, you have to be a practicing lawyer. The Boston Bar isn’t even recognised outside of Boston. Do the NYSB, and you’re set to work anywhere in the US, as it is a multi-state bar exam. Even London and most of Europe will take you without having to sit their local exams.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Also, I might suggest that you look into the NY situation before you invest your money. Can you get a decent job? How much will it pay? How much will it cost to live in NY? Will you be working insane hours at the start? Can you get a green card?

We’re drafting questions to put to the New York State Board of Examiners on the matter, and we are scheduling a meeting with the University and the companies offering the NYSB exam prep course to see if they can help. A green card isn’t an issue. You get your 90 day visa, and go over. You then get a job as a legal professional, and you are fast tracked for a 3 year H-1 work visa by INS. It’s law, of course you’ll be working insane hours! But I don’t mind that. The job opportunities are musch better there too. Say you have an average degrees, you could get a job with the New York Public Defenders office (their DPP if you will). Starting salary for a job with the DPP, €35,000 - €40,000. Starting salary for NYSPD, €60,000 - €75,000.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

It's probably a better option than Ireland, but I don't think that the stories you hear are all true. If they were, everyone with a law degree and a bit of ambition would be leaving Ireland to work in NY.

Every year, over 1,200 people graduate with a law degree in Ireland. Out of the 800 or so that go on to do the FE-1s or the BL, only the top 5% get a high paying, prestigious internship with a big firm. The other 95% work for pittance for about 5 years before they start making any real money. I’m 24. I’ll be 26 when I graduate. Either Irish route means I won’t be an established professional here until I’m 30-35.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

If you do go ahead and it works out, let us know. I'd like to know what it is like to work in NY.

It’s still a full year and a half away, but I’ll definitely be posting the outcome here.

Another reason for doing the NYSB is that I want to go to Harvard, or Yale, or Colombia, or somewhere else to do an LL.M. Last year Duke and Princeton and a few others exhausted their scholarship funds for masters courses on Irish students that were NY qualified. It’s not a prerequisite, but unless you have a 95% average in your law degree, generally the big US universities won’t take you for master’s courses.

mountainyman

morbo wrote:

. Even London and most of Europe will take you without having to sit their local exams.

What does this mean? I smell horse sh1t.

MM

Stirling

Morbo hate to take the wind out of your sails but have to say that I would seriously have to advise you to have a rethink about this.

I know someone who has spoken to the Managing Partner of one of the biggest Law Firms in the country who has himself worked in the US and he reckoned that without an LLM there first in either Harvard or Yale you are completely wasting your time and money. Think about it for a second - if there are 1200 people looking for Law jobs here every year how many more are there looking in the US. Let's face it if there are enough people doing the exams in Ireland for Friary Law to set up then there must be exceptional demand and so I wouldn't be all that confident that jobs are just waiting to be filled.

Law is a long route to qualification and I really don't believe this is going to be the benefit to you that you think it will be

maidhc

morbo wrote:

The other 95% work for pittance for about 5 years before they start making any real money. I’m 24. I’ll be 26 when I graduate. Either Irish route means I won’t be an established professional here until I’m 30-35.

Meh. Its not that bad. Work for one of the big 5 and you sell your soul to the devil for about 10k extra per year, which won't even cover your extra costs if you have to live in dublin.

padser

mountainyman wrote:

What does this mean? I smell horse sh1t.

MM

Nope he is correct, the London firms do recruit Irish undergrads without requiring them to have sat the local exams first.

morbo

mountainyman wrote:

What does this mean? I smell horse sh1t.

If you go to work for a firm in London or another major European/Western country, you have to sit their qualifying exam before you can work there. If you are NY qualified, you can work there without doing their exam. Then, such as in London, after 2 years, you are eligible for a short conversion exam. Much like that QLTT offered by the Irish Law Society for people qualified in a different jurisdiction coming to work here. It's a much easier and faster way of doing things.

Stirling wrote:

Morbo hate to take the wind out of your sails but have to say that I would seriously have to advise you to have a rethink about this.

I know someone who has spoken to the Managing Partner of one of the biggest Law Firms in the country who has himself worked in the US and he reckoned that without an LLM there first in either Harvard or Yale you are completely wasting your time and money. Think about it for a second - if there are 1200 people looking for Law jobs here every year how many more are there looking in the US. Let's face it if there are enough people doing the exams in Ireland for Friary Law to set up then there must be exceptional demand and so I wouldn't be all that confident that jobs are just waiting to be filled.

Law is a long route to qualification and I really don't believe this is going to be the benefit to you that you think it will be.

I'd just like to say, it is extremely rare for an American lawyer to have an LL.M. The do a 4 year undergrad in humanities, then a 3 year JD course in law. By this point, before they ever see the inside of a law firm, they are about $250,000 in debt with student loans. The prospect of forking out another $40,000 to do an LL.M. doesn't really appeal to them. I already stated that the reason I want to do the NYSB is to increase my chances of getting into an LL.M. course in one of the big universities in the US. This is basically to add brand value to me as a commodity. So if and when I do go out looking for work in the US, I will have an LL.M. from the US. And when you go on percentages, Ireland produces far more law graduates than there are places in the country, compared with the US. You have to remember, it's a much longer route for them to get a legal degree. In Ireland you can get your degree and be through Blackhall and qualified by 24. In America, you'd probably just be starting your second year of three in law school. I have researched this are to the death. Trust me, there is no real gamble involved in my decision. I am not a stupid risk taker.

Also, "the Managing Partner of one of the biggest Law Firms in the country who has himself worked in the US." Ever wonder why he's a managing partner and not just an associate or regular partner? Well, it’s probably because he built up a reputation for himself in the US, and came across far more in his daily practice than most people would come across in a year in a two partner firm in Offaly. (Not slagging Offaly, but let's face it, it's not a real business/legal centre!)

maidhc wrote:

Meh. Its not that bad. Work for one of the big 5 and you sell your soul to the devil for about 10k extra per year, which won't even cover your extra costs if you have to live in dublin.

I wouldn't ever want to live or work in Dublin. I cannot stand that city. I’d consider living in Dublin to being akin to having sold my soul. No offence to anyone from Dublin, it's just not for me.

The real problem here is that Irish people only see the big picture within Irish borders. We have the attitude of, “sure I’d never get a job in London or New York in law! Why bother trying.” It is very easy to be a success in another jurisdiction. Irish people just think we have the best we can ever hope for here, as if the rest of the world is a place where only minimum wage jobs are available. I call it J1 syndrome. We go to America for a summer and work construction, or as bag boys, or some other menial existence, for no money and think, “wow, there’s no money to be made here!”

Stirling

morbo wrote:

I wouldn't ever want to live or work in Dublin. I cannot stand that city. I’d consider living in Dublin to being akin to having sold my soul. No offence to anyone from Dublin, it's just not for me.

The real problem here is that Irish people only see the big picture within Irish borders. We have the attitude of, “sure I’d never get a job in London or New York in law! Why bother trying.”

Sorry Morbo but I'm pi**ing myself laughing after that post - only a person from Cork could consider living and or working in Dublin to be selling your soul to an extent to which London or New York is a better option. I only said what I said out of your interest and it is founded on pragmatism and is the reason I went with the Big 5 rather than a narrow mindedness of approach to jurisdiction.

I have my doubts as to the success of your plan but I wish you luck in trying to prove me wrong

morbo

Yes, we Cork men are not fond of Dublin. It's either Cork as the capital, or Éire 31! (That's a unified Ireland, minus Cork. It's a common joke in Cork.) I'm sure you have seen the People Republic of Cork t-shirts going around.

But seriously though, I've lived in Boston, Chicago, New York and London. Dublin doesn't hold a candle to those places. There are scumbags in every city, unfortunately, nobody told ‘Anto’ and his hooded mates they weren't welcome in Dublin city centre!

Despite what everyone thinks, New York, Chicago, London and Boston are all very safe cities. And besides, I'm from the north side of Cork City, and I've been living and studying in Limerick for 5 years. I'd feel safer in Washington Heights in Harlem than Limerick City!

It's make a name for yourself in a big city, and then come home to retire in Cork at 50. That's my plan! It's not a very feasible plan, but I can dream damn it!

Stirling

I did Law in UCC before moving to the fake capital so I know where you're coming from alright but I'm from Kerry so don't share in the same dislike of the place

morbo

Well, if you are from Kerry, chances are you were born in Cork. Like the vast majority of Kerry people. So therefore, you are one of us! Having no hospital in Kerry is a sneaky way for Cork to slowly expand West Cork into Kerry.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

The real problem here is that Irish people only see the big picture within Irish borders. We have the attitude of, “sure I’d never get a job in London or New York in law! Why bother trying.” It is very easy to be a success in another jurisdiction. Irish people just think we have the best we can ever hope for here, as if the rest of the world is a place where only minimum wage jobs are available. I call it J1 syndrome. We go to America for a summer and work construction, or as bag boys, or some other menial existence, for no money and think, “wow, there’s no money to be made here!”

I have worked in Washington DC as a legal intern, and while I enjoyed it was just as happy to get home.

My ideal situation is to finish my apprenticeship, pass my AITI exams, and set up a small practice asap. From doing a research LLM last year I hope to pick up bits of niche work along the way. It may not work out, but one can hope!

morbo

maidhc wrote:

I have worked in Washington DC as a legal intern, and while I enjoyed it was just as happy to get home.

My ideal situation is to finish my apprenticeship, pass my AITI exams, and set up a small practice asap. From doing a research LLM last year I hope to pick up bits of niche work along the way. It may not work out, but one can hope!

I love Cork. Don't get me wrong. But I have no problem in living away from home. I don't get home sick or anything like that. I really don't care where I am in the world. I just want to live and work in the US legal system for the learning experience. It is the legal capital of the world, really. The idea is to get a good base, and come home and open a business here, like you want to. There are three of us in the class that wish to go into business together in Ireland, but not before we get our experience abroad.

As for doing the AITI exams, one of the people in the group wants to go down that road, as his base is economics, and he's into taxation law. That's not for me though. I’m all about international trade, WTO, commercial law, company law, contracts and such. The other guy is into criminal justice. As you can see, all the areas we are interested in are massive areas of law in the States. Maybe I'll even come back to Ireland to open and office on behalf of a US or EU multi-national? Now there’s a dream for ya!

And best of luck with the exams.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

I’m all about international trade, WTO, commercial law, company law, contracts and such. .

You did international trade in UCC? When I did I think I was the only native english speaker.

I have no lofty ideas about law. I'm in for the money. Thats why I am doing the AITI exams. A few of us decided in the pub one night last year they would be worth having a go at. Sad, but true.

Right now I'm doing conveyancing and probate. Its boring, but you have to begin somewhere.

morbo

There’s allot of money to be made in conveyance. I’m not exactly out to save the world; I want to retire as soon as possible. To do that, I’ll need a fortune! 6 years of college so far and 65 seems an awfully long way away! I want out at about 40 (unless I make it onto the bench, then I’ll hang around to give out the maximum sentence possible in every case, and brutalise the criminals!). Then I’m just going to sit back and have a few kids so I can torment them. You know, to give me something to do until I die.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

There’s allot of money to be made in conveyance. I’m not exactly out to save the world; I want to retire as soon as possible. To do that, I’ll need a fortune! 6 years of college so far and 65 seems an awfully long way away! I want out at about 40

Not a hope.

You wouldn't consider doing the FE-1s? You can stay in Cork, and depending on your training solicitor it won't cost anything.

You will end up conveyancing and being a general dogsbody for a few years though.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

It's make a name for yourself in a big city, and then come home to retire in Cork at 50. That's my plan! It's not a very feasible plan, but I can dream damn it!

My opinion is that it sounds like you are doing this for the right reasons. If you want to go to america long term, then it makes sense. Any nay-saying on my part comes from people who think they can go over there for a year or two, make a ton of money and get a lot of wide ranging experience. I think the reality is a little different.

But if you are prepared to work at it then it could very well be great.

One other thing though, you mentioned doing an LLM, but that the scholarships are restricted. Even a one year masters in an Ivy League college will cost you at least a year's wages in Dublin.

maidhc wrote:

Right now I'm doing conveyancing and probate. Its boring, but you have to begin somewhere.

Personally, I'd take conveyancing and probate anyday over tax (if the money was about the same).

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Personally, I'd take conveyancing and probate anyday over tax (if the money was about the same).

You sort of have to know the tax with everything nowadays anyway. I don't think I will ever be a "tax consultant". Maybe do a little, but not all day everyday, that is for sure.

morbo

maidhc wrote:

Not a hope.

You wouldn't consider doing the FE-1s? You can stay in Cork, and depending on your training solicitor it won't cost anything.

You will end up conveyancing and being a general dogsbody for a few years though.

That’s my point exactly! I’m a smart guy. I don’t want to be an apprentice at the age of 26, making no money. It’s going to cost me about €20,000 just to sit the FE-1’s, and then I have to spend along time as an apprentice. Not allot of people have their fees covered by their employer, and I don’t have any relations or friends of the family in the legal profession that can pull strings for me. The NYSB costs $400 to sit, and you are qualified to handle life or death murder trials as soon as you pass! And when you have a NYSB accreditation, you can do the QLTT for the Law Society of Ireland, which costs €625 in total! You are then qualified as a solicitor in this jurisdiction, and can be hired as a first year associate. This basically allows you to bypass your apprenticeship, make more money faster, and save yourself about €18,000 in the getting qualified process. Plus, you’d be a Solicitor~at~Law, and an Attorney~at~Law.

morbo

The fees to do an LL.M. in Harvard, Yale, Colombia, George Town, etc. all hover around the $35,000 mark. Oxford and Cambridge come in at about £20,000, so Euro-wise, the price is the same. I’d love to do a doctorate in Oxford, just so I could have a DPhil instead of a Ph.D.! That is literally my only reason to want to do a doctorate. Most of the scholarships are only half scholarships, and it does cost allot to live in the States while you’re studying, so I’d still be looking at needing $35,000 even with half my fees paid. Still, doing it adds brand value for you as a lawyer, and it’s a fantastic life experience to go to what is ranked as both the world’s no.1 university, and the no.1 law school.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

You are then qualified as a solicitor in this jurisdiction, and can be hired as a first year associate.

In Cork at least you are paid about 20k as an apprentice (MOPs in Dublin pay 35k IIRC, and they are the best from what I know). In Cork a Solicitor with 0 years PQE should expect to get 35k or thereabouts.

If you follow your line of reasoning, you will be pretty useless to most employers, as you won't have learned the boring stuff, which invariably is what they will have in mind for you.

It doesn't cost 20k to sit the FE1s! Exams are a few hundred, and the PPC is about 6k or something. Pain in the rear end to pass them, but thats life.

Are you sure about the law society recognising the NY Bar?

morbo

maidhc wrote:

In Cork at least you are paid about 20k as an apprentice (MOPs in Dublin pay 35k IIRC, and they are the best from what I know). In Cork a Solicitor with 0 years PQE should expect to get 35k or thereabouts.

If you follow your line of reasoning, you will be pretty useless to most employers, as you won't have learned the boring stuff, which invariably is what they will have in mind for you.

It doesn't cost 20k to sit the FE1s! Exams are a few hundred, and the PPC is about 6k or something. Pain in the rear end to pass them, but thats life.

Are you sure about the law society recognising the NY Bar?

The recognition of the NYSB and others is listed near the top of this page;
http://www.lawsociety.ie/displayCDAContent.aspx?node=340&groupID=340&code=overseas_lawyers

Price list for the FE-1’s in total;
http://www.lawsociety.ie/documents/education/hbs/fees.pdf
PPC 1 = €7,800
PPC 2 = €4,550
And there are loads of little charges around that.

And if you fail the exams, you have to pay the same amount to re-sit them. If you fail the NYSB, it’s only another $400!

I don’t want to start off in Ireland. I’ll be working in the States. If they don’t have apprenticeships in the States, then the firms generally won’t be turning you down for lack of experience when you are starting out. That crap only happens in Ireland and the UK.

You study for 2 exams in the NYSB. Day 1, you write 5 essays, and 50 MCQ’s. Day 2, you answer 200 MCQ’s. In the NYSB, you do not have to know specific case law, they only exam you on points of law. Basically, they’re testing you ability to “make a noise like a lawyer” as one of my lecturers puts it. FE-1’s, you sit 8 massive exams, where you have to mention 20 cases in every question of each paper, and if you don’t pass the first time, you’re looked at like a leper by your employer.

And 20K? I'd make more working in McDonalds!

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

The NYSB costs $400 to sit, and you are qualified to handle life or death murder trials as soon as you pass! And when you have a NYSB accreditation, you can do the QLTT for the Law Society of Ireland, which costs €625 in total! You are then qualified as a solicitor in this jurisdiction, and can be hired as a first year associate. This basically allows you to bypass your apprenticeship, make more money faster, and save yourself about €18,000 in the getting qualified process.

I wonder where is the catch? Why doesn't everybody who wants to be a solicitor in Ireland do it this way - they get a free holiday in NY to boot?

morbo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I wonder where is the catch? Why doesn't everybody who wants to be a solicitor in Ireland do it this way - they get a free holiday in NY to boot?

Because they don't know there is a possibility to do so. Friary Law are the first firm in Ireland to put together a course for sitting the NYSB, and it's only been running for 6 years. Give it some time. The way the industry is going, you pretty much will have to have accreditations in at least 2 jurisdictions in a few years time.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

Because they don't know there is a possibility to do so. Friary Law are the first firm in Ireland to put together a course for sitting the NYSB, and it's only been running for 6 years. Give it some time. The way the industry is going, you pretty much will have to have accreditations in at least 2 jurisdictions in a few years time.

Is this not common knowledge though? Of all the people in your year who want to be solicitors, do they all know aobut this as a back door to getting into the solicitor's profession? Are there any of them who, knowing they can go this route, still want to go to Blackhall place?

Is there any vetting process (e.g. do the law society refuse to let you do it if you have only done the NY bar so you can skip the fe1s, PPC1, PPC2 and apprentiship)?

What is even more disconcerting is that you could probably do the NY bar for less effort, less money and in a shorter space of time than the FE1s. And you are then more qualified than people who do the solicitor's course.

This seems too good to be true, and I honestly don't think I would do the blackhall place course if I could do this instead. I'm sure the law society wouldn't be too happy about it either, if you were calling yourself a new york lawyer purely because you were there for a week and sat some exams.

Tom Young

Morbo, I've been reading your postings for the past few days with interest.

I congratulate you on your motivation, and comment that you need to remain focussed as the hurdles are high and plenty regardless of which route you opt to take.

I am not going to get into my backgrounnd here but I'd love to know whether or not you've scalled the work and time commitments with regard to a D.Phil and PhD? I've looked at both and from my reviews the minimum time commitment is circa 3 years (DPhil), notwithstanding a thesis/dissertation period. Both generally are full time and would require a period of work or commitment to tutilage in some institution with relatively low pay, but high contact with academic staff. If you do chose this direction you'd be well served to check the schools of law professed and also your own view.

I make that point as, you could end up in Chicago doing a LLM and dispise the Law and Economics movement, or end-up somewhere else and dispise the Critical Legal Studies Movement etc. Elect this option with extreme care.

With regard to the US, many people work in firms and hold JDs or Joint Degrees in law and (say) business. So effectively they have the bolt on ability that seems not available in our general region of the world. Having worked at US firms, I'd not weigh the levels of academic regiour the same way as I would Irish/UK/central EU legal qualifications. Much weight in practice is given to the apprentice work undertaken post qualification, like it is in Ireland.

Anyway, I wish you well.

morbo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Is this not common knowledge though? Of all the people in your year who want to be solicitors, do they all know aobut this as a back door to getting into the solicitor's profession? Are there any of them who, knowing they can go this route, still want to go to Blackhall place?

Out of the 200 or so people in my group of class mates (taking into account that I share classes with people doing business, law and accounting, law and European studies, etc.) that all take the same law modules with me, only 6 people knew it was a possibility. Two of them are determined to do the NYSB. One wants to work in London, and would prefer to do the NYSB and intern for 2 years there, rather than pay the £12,000 for the England and Wales Law Society exams. Basically, they have the same backdoor system that we do; you can do the QLTT for pittance in comparison. Two aren’t bothered either way. They’ll go the NY route if it works out, but aren’t refusing the apprenticeship either.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Is there any vetting process (e.g. do the law society refuse to let you do it if you have only done the NY bar so you can skip the fe1s, PPC1, PPC2 and apprentiship)?

What is even more disconcerting is that you could probably do the NY bar for less effort, less money and in a shorter space of time than the FE1s. And you are then more qualified than people who do the solicitor's course.

This seems too good to be true, and I honestly don't think I would do the blackhall place course if I could do this instead. I'm sure the law society wouldn't be too happy about it either, if you were calling yourself a new york lawyer purely because you were there for a week and sat some exams.

There is no vetting process. You can simply be accredited over there, and then sit the QLTT here and go into practice. However, as it has been mentioned earlier in the thread, no employer in Ireland will touch you without experience. You will probably have to work in the US or somewhere else to get your experience. But look at it this way, you could be an Attorney~at~Law, and be doing an apprenticeship here. It’s just another qualification under your belt that will be a selling point when you go for a better job, or are trying to attract more clients. You may be more qualified on paper, but you could be the world’s worst lawyer.

The Law Society of Ireland is basically a rip off. Nobody is going to argue against that. What are their profit margins, do you think? Probably costs them a fraction of the fee they charge to give you the accreditation. Oh, but god forbid it should be February and they’re still driving around in last years Bentley! What would the neighbours say? I'm sure that would be a major scandal! The cost of becoming a solicitor goes back to the old class divide. Only the upper-middle class could afford it.

morbo

Tom, I only really mentioned the D.Phil. as a joke, saying the only place I’d ever do a doctorate program was in Oxford, just to have a D.Phil. rather than a Ph.D. But I would like to do a doctorate in the distant future. I don’t think I’d like lecturing right now. Academia is appealing, but for me, not as much as the profession.

All the LL.M. programs I am considering are nearly all in international trade, commercial, contract, company, etc. That’s the area I like, and want to learn more about. But, I may not bother doing an LL.M. at all. I’ve already done 5 years in college, and I have 1 more to go. The prospect of doing an LL.M. on top of what is increasingly looking like an apprenticeship here is not appealing. I’m sick of being a poor student, I want to get out there and work.

I do have a B.Sc. degree in Computer Science. I will have a B.Sc. and LL.B. when I go looking for a job, whether it is here or in America. I could probably target the software/I.T. companies, as I can communicate with computer geeks on a better level than your average legally minded person, who thinks in a whole different dimension.

Thank you for your advice and insight.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

The Law Society of Ireland is basically a rip off. Nobody is going to argue against that. What are their profit margins, do you think?

A lot of solicitors pay your fees. Even if they don't you can deduct it from your taxable income.

There is a lot of work in an LLM! I did a research one in UCC. The thought of doing a PhD would scare me.

There aren't that many openings for making a quick buck in law.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

The Law Society of Ireland is basically a rip off. Nobody is going to argue against that. What are their profit margins, do you think? Probably costs them a fraction of the fee they charge to give you the accreditation.

This is could be said for all higher education, and it is not entirely true. I don't think they make a profit as such, the funds are used to sustain the law society and to pay for the running of the courses.

You get a lot of materials and high quality tutors (as far as I know), and have access to a first rate library and (I assume) computer services etc. All these things cost money.

But while the €7k for the first year there might seem expensive, it costs about €4.5k for someone who doesn't qualify for free fees to do a basic undergrad or masters (such as a two year LLB). Or worse, it can cost €3-4k to do a thesis masters. The latter costs the university very little, all you get is a lecturer for a few hours and the use of the library.

Furthermore, you mentioned yourself that college in america costs $35k. Here it says that it will cost $42k(€31.5k) for a year's undergrad in harvard (without grants).

What exactly do they do in Harvard that costs so much? Do you get a butler?

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote:

You get a lot of materials and high quality tutors (as far as I know), and have access to a first rate library and (I assume) computer services etc. All these things cost money.

You do. For the most part the tutors are solicitors of some experience. There are a few barristers too, but I suppose that can't be helped. It keeps them off the streets if nothing else.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote:

You do. For the most part the tutors are solicitors of some experience. There are a few barristers too, but I suppose that can't be helped. It keeps them off the streets if nothing else.

And in order to attract high quality, experienced solicitors (and yes, some lazy barristers too:rolleyes: ) you need to pay them quite well. They are not going to give up a day's work worth €1000 to do a few classes for €200.

morbo

The LL.M. course in Harvard costs $35,000. There undergrad programs are more expensive. You are paying for the namesake. And to be honest, they do have the best professors in the world teaching you. Education in America is not subsidised by the Government, that’s why it’s so expensive. I am paying €5,000 a year to do the LL.B. course I’m in, but the college is probably getting a further €10,000 from the Government to have me here.

What we seem to be forgetting about the US legal practice is that they do all the apprenticeship work we do during college. They study legal writing as a full course, not part of an intro to the Irish legal system as a whole. They have about 4 Moots a year, and they study courtroom procedure, etc. and they are expected to intern every summer they are in college. They are much more prepared for working in the real world than Irish grads are when we get our degree.

What Ireland needs is a second law society, and a second bar association that can accredit legal professionals. The quality of the courses offered would go up dramatically, and the cost would come down.

Why the hell is everyone insulting barristers? The vast majority of barristers are forced out of practice within 5 years. Yes you have some barristers getting paid €2,500 a day or even more, but you have to remember, they might have a massive staff of junior councils and paralegals working under them. And let’s face it, there are solicitors out there making the same amount of money, but you’re not questioning their drive.

Which also leads me to ask a simple question, when I started this thread, everyone was advising me to go do the BL in Kings Inn? Judas! Ye are all kinsmen of Judas! But seriously, I’m still undecided on what I want to do; solicitor, or barrister?

Tom Young

morbo wrote:

Why the hell is everyone insulting barristers? The vast majority of barristers are forced out of practice within 5 years. Yes you have some barristers getting paid €2,500 a day or even more, but you have to remember, they might have a massive staff of junior councils and paralegals working under them. And let’s face it, there are solicitors out there making the same amount of money, but you’re not questioning their drive.

Which also leads me to ask a simple question, when I started this thread, everyone was advising me to go do the BL in Kings Inn? Judas! Ye are all kinsmen of Judas! But seriously, I’m still undecided on what I want to do; solicitor, or barrister?

Merbo,

The most rewarding profession in my view is that of the Barrister-At-Law. In deciding which route you will take I'd thoroughly review the vocational aspects of the two institutions educational offerings.

The BL degree has moots, negotiation, advocacy, drafting, opinion writing etc. The Kings Inns is far more focussed on the advocate and superior court practitioner that that of the Law Society, though both have rights of audience, the proximity of the two professions differs greatly. The Barrister practice is tough, but I believe the rewards are far greater and I don't refer to cash.

I just don't accept that further institutions are needed to regulate both professions further, I firmly believe its a matter of reach.

Just my opinion and I know a stacks of both solicitors and barristers, personally and professionally.

From the beginning of this thread you have outlined your ancilary qualifications i.e., Computer Science. Either profession in the law will compliment such but do you want to front to the public or advocate?

Anyway, again my view.

Tom

PS: How's your spoken and written Irish?

morbo

I am terrible at Irish. I wish I was better, and wanted to take Irish as an elective this year, but I couldn’t possibly find the time. I have 6 law modules and a project to do every semester (keep in mind, it’s a 3 year degree compressed into 2 very short years). I know I will have to pass an Irish exam either route I take, but is there allot of emphasis placed on written and spoken Irish as a barrister in practice?

As far as written and spoken English goes, I am pretty good. My friends refer to me as a ‘Grammar Nazi’ to be honest. I am tending to lean towards being a barrister. I like the idea of being part of justice being served, and all that, rather than doing the prep work and conveying land and regular solicitor work (which I’m not knocking. I’m sure it’s rewarding, but not as much as being a barrister sounds to be in my view). There is a shift in the right to audience, though. Solicitors will be heading to the Supreme Court soon enough, and solicitors can even sit on the bench.

What worries me is being able to get started. As I said, I have no contacts in the industry at all. I do have all my friends in college that I could beg for cases, as they want to be solicitors. Being a solicitor seems to be a somewhat safer route than that of being a barrister. But the more I think about it, I’m thinking barrister.

By the way, if I ever make it to the bench, I will impose the longest terms I can on criminals. 6 years for rape, JOKE! And that guy that raped the Japanese woman in the hotel toilet in Dublin, it was his second conviction for the same crime. The judge referred to him as ‘a continuing and ongoing threat to all women” and then gave him just 6 years. I will brutalise criminals!

hullaballoo

Em, if you want to be part of justice being served, the last thing you want to do is become a barrister. Certainly in this country anyway. For the most part, you'd be working for the bad guys, and doing everything you can to slow the justice process.

morbo

I was thinking more along the lines of getting a job with the DPP, or something like that. Well, I suppose that could be considered working for the bad guys, too! One of my classmates knows a barrister in Limerick who handles the cases against the ‘Families of Limerick’ and the like. His house has been fire bombed 3 times in the last year!

maidhc

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Em, if you want to be part of justice being served, the last thing you want to do is become a barrister. Certainly in this country anyway. For the most part, you'd be working for the bad guys, and doing everything you can to slow the justice process.

Thats an unfair comment. Justice IS served by forcing the state to prove its case.

morbo wrote:

By the way, if I ever make it to the bench, I will impose the longest terms I can on criminals. 6 years for rape, JOKE! And that guy that raped the Japanese woman in the hotel toilet in Dublin, it was his second conviction for the same crime. The judge referred to him as ‘a continuing and ongoing threat to all women” and then gave him just 6 years. I will brutalise criminals!

There is generally two side to every story. Maybe when you see the social backgrounds some of these criminals come from you might see that imposing harsh sentences will solve nothing.

You will have some incorrigible criminals alright, but I think many would rather not be where they are at. e.g. the heroin addicts steal and attack people from necessity, not from choice.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

By the way, if I ever make it to the bench, I will impose the longest terms I can on criminals. 6 years for rape, JOKE! And that guy that raped the Japanese woman in the hotel toilet in Dublin, it was his second conviction for the same crime. The judge referred to him as ‘a continuing and ongoing threat to all women” and then gave him just 6 years. I will brutalise criminals!

If it is the same case that I'm thinking of, then it was a sexual assault.

In any case, I don't think people fully appreciate what a 6 year sentece actually entails. 6 years is quite harsh for a sexual assault.

It is easy to say lock him up and throw away the key, but that kind of thinking (and I don't mean any disrespect by this) is not realistic given the ridiculous overcrowding in prisons, the poor conditions (especially in mountjoy), the need to rehabilitate offenders and any factors in mitigation of the offence. Plus 6 years is a long time; if you did a 4 year undergrad degree and a 2 year postgrad, could you imagine that part of your life being removed and a replaced by a nightmare. They *quite literally* love sex offenders in prison.

I think the problem in that regard is not the leniency of the sentence, but the way the public don't understand the actual severity and the other factors surrounding it. Also, if you take the oft cited view that "he gets 6 years, but she has to live it with for the rest of her life" remember that not even the death sentence will undo the crime. No will it deter other offenders.

morbo

Maidhc,

First off, of course I’m not going to be locking up innocent people, and second, I’m from a poor single parent family, and live in an absolutely crap part of Cork North Central. There is crime all around me, quite literally! Knocknaheeny and Farranree are up the hill, Blackpool is down the road, etc., and I would never break the law. Anyone that uses the excuse that they are poor as a reason for breaking the law is a lying piece of crap! Go get a job, go get an education, stop breaking into my house and stealing my car! Education is free, and employers are crying out for work.

Criminals are criminals because they think they can get away with it, and generally they can. The Gardaí are useless. I’m basing this on personal experience. I once spent 45 minutes on the phone to a Garda, waiting for another Garda to show up after a drunk tried to bottle me and other customers at work on a wet Tuesday night. I had him pinned to the ground the whole time. Well … I’m still waiting, and it was a year and a half ago. The guy I was talking to on the phone actually said’ “ah well, sure you know, the lads could be quite busy, like!”

Socioeconomic background my hole!

To Johnny,

Rape or sexual assault (I’m pretty sure it was rape)? Either way, it was his second conviction for the same offence. The Japanese woman was badly beaten. He obviously didn’t find 6 years a harsh enough penalty. He should have got 12 years, minimum! End of story!

Jails too full, build more! It’s quite simple really. “I’m sorry Mrs Murphy, I know he killed your son, raped your daughter, and ate your favourite dog, but jails are just so packed we are going to have to let him go!”

Jails not working? Maybe they should bring back hard labour? Perhaps force them to take class to educate themselves? How about anything else that stops giving them nothing but time to lift weights and trade skills with other criminals!?

Prisons are meant to be harsh. They’re not holiday camps. Most of the guys going in there can’t seem to wait to get back in. (Probably the only way they’re going to get 3 square meals a day!)

It’s just like the prisoner voting rights crap. You broke the law, and now you want to be able to vote? “No problem! Would you like a phone in your cell, too? You know, just in case you’re feeling lonely and want to ring home. I’m sure the Government/Tax Payers won’t mind paying the bill! Oh! And the guy will be around tomorrow to fix your Sky Digital. Sorry for the inconvenience of having to go to the common room to watch the match.” If you break the law, you loose your rights. It’s the basic premise of the criminal justice system.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

First off, of course I’m not going to be locking up innocent people, and second, I’m from a poor single parent family, and live in an absolutely crap part of Cork North Central. There is crime all around me, quite literally! Knocknaheeny and Farranree are up the hill, Blackpool is down the road, etc., and I would never break the law. Anyone that uses the excuse that they are poor as a reason for breaking the law is a lying piece of crap! Go get a job, go get an education, stop breaking into my house and stealing my car! Education is free, and employers are crying out for work.

But giving people longer sentances isn't going to really solve anything. Extra gardaí and so forth is a completely different matter entirely.

It is grand to say education is free, but the 13year olds who see the value in it without having parents and a support network pushing them are few and far between. I know when I was 13 I prefered messing with engines than going to school!

You can of course get rid of one "problem case" by locking him of at a cost of 50k p/a for 10 years. But... as Emimem so wisely notes:

...there's a million of us just like me
Who cuss like me; who just don't give a f**k like me
Who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

Criminals are criminals because they think they can get away with it, and generally they can.

A lot of crimes are committed recklessly, and often the criminal doesn't even think about the consequences. Especially in crimes of passion.

morbo wrote:

Perhaps force them to take class to educate themselves? How about anything else that stops giving them nothing but time to lift weights and trade skills with other criminals!?

I'd agree with that.

However, longer sentences, in my opinion, are not an effective deterrent. I think that rehabilitation should be the most important aspect of sentencing. Retribution, especially for the public, seems to be the motivation for the recent calls for harsher sentences. However, if people realised that even a one year sentence is quite long, and ten years is extremely long, they would be more satisfied with the current range of sentences. So, I don't think that sentences are too short at present, but rather that the media, and some politicians, can easily portray a 5, 10 or even 20 year sentence as too lenient and a lot of people will believe this to be true.

morbo

Well then, what would either of ye suggest? My mother never gave a damn about my education. I was allowed to stay home from school if I felt like it! But I didn’t. How about make the bad parents liable for not having their kids in schools?

Anything is better than the crap we’ve got right now. We are only a few short years away from ghettoes and excessively high crime rates. Ireland is a paradise compared with some other ‘civilised’ countries, but not for very long.

The Gardaí are even reluctant to move on groups of travellers from privately owned land, for fear of retribution. The Guards are a joke. We don’t need more Guards, we need to get the fat, lazy bunch we have into the gym, and make them accountable for not doing their job properly.

A guy broke into my house before and stole loads of stuff. I rang the guards when he was in my house. He walked around for about another 5 minutes down stairs, then tried getting out the front door. When he couldn’t open it, he came upstairs, opened a window, and fell out, landing on a car roof outside. He was dazed and pretty much unable to walk for a good while. Eventually he got up and walked off. I watched him go up the Commons Road and turn up Farrenree.

The Guards didn’t arrive until about 5 minutes after he went up the hill. Keep in mind, the Garda station is about ½ a mile from my house. It’s a straight road between it and my house. The Guards even said instantly, “This was definitely ‘Horse’, no question about it!” But did they go after him? No, they didn’t. They knew where he lived, and couldn’t be bothered following him up the hill, or going to his house to catch him in possession of the goods. They just let him go!

All this took place at 4.30 in the morning. Nobody was ever arrested for the crime, despite having found Horse’s finger prints on the upstairs window he climbed out, and there was blood on the car he landed on that they never bothered testing. Who the hell can we as a society expect to have criminals to live in fear of the law, when there is no enforcement?

Criminals don’t live in fear of the Guards; the Guards live in fear of them!

Stirling

Sorry - don't usually get involved in these debates but feel compelled to this time. I really don't buy the "retributive public" argument which is raised time and again. To my mind the criminal is too often treated as the victim and thus the focus is put on the need to rehabilitate them more than it is on the impact that the crime has on the victims.

A swing in the wrong direction is how I see that. The argument that is always put forward is that as prison doesn't seem to work as there is no focuson rehabilitation and so it should be abolished. I say make prison as f**king hard as it is physically possible to do so that it serves as a disincentive to reoffend and make the cost of detention cheaper aswell and spend the money in disadvantaged communities so that people do not offend rather than trying to fix the problem after it has been created through inaction on the part of the State.

As for the Civil Liberties arguments I say that most people who are strong proponents of the ICCL and the ACLU are those that have lived a very sheltered existence where neither they nor their families have been exposed to Crime in a real way either as victims or as members of the Gardai.

Never forgot that in terms of protecting the rights of an accused this is the role of the lawyer and that once the right to Legal Aid in Criminal Trials remains protected under the Constitution I see no difficulty in tipping the "Rights Balance" in favour of the victim rather than the criminal.

maidhc

Stirling wrote:

I say make prison as f**king hard as it is physically possible to do so that it serves as a disincentive to reoffend and make the cost of detention cheaper aswell and spend the money in disadvantaged communities so that people do not offend rather than trying to fix the problem after it has been created through inaction on the part of the State.

By all means. But at present giving someone a massive long sentence is just putting them out of sight. I don't think prison is quite the junket some people in the media make it out to be though. I don't see how prison can be made cheaper.. unless we just bring back hanging.

Add to this the fact that your standard scumbag tends to grow out of crime by the time he reaches 35 (a fact I learned form one of the leading criminal solicitors in the country!), and really I don't think there is any justification in some of the more shrill proposals being bandied around at the moment.

And to cap it all off we DONT have a particularly high level of Ireland in comparison to most international standards. We have a huge fear of crime, and mostly it is unjustified. We also have pretty damn tough criminal laws, some of which have been found to infringe the European Convention on Human Rights (Heaney v. Ireland)...

(And yes, I have my my car broken into... and stuff was robbed from our house. I still feel safe walking up barrack st. at 2 in the morning though.)

I just don't buy this modern notion that the victim is entitled to some sort of moral victory and "justice". The criminal action is one between the state, and the accused. The verdict should hinge upon implications for society, both from a public order and economic point of view, not someone sobbing at the back of the courtroom, as upset and all as s/he may be.

Morbo wrote:

Well then, what would either of ye suggest? My mother never gave a damn about my education. I was allowed to stay home from school if I felt like it! But I didn’t. How about make the bad parents liable for not having their kids in schools?

It is nice to be that driven and dedicated. Most are not. No one can be blamed for that.