Kings Inns entrance exam 2007

cycleoin

Anyone have any dealings with any of the examiners? Any hot topics they tend to put emphasis on when lecturing???

Tom Young

Summary by JS was good. 'know the law' for each subject. The lecturers are from various places and practice, not sure you'll get much more that the syllabus. Recent amendments appear relevant in most cases/subjects.

Tom Young

3 weeks to go. Best of luck with the study. Its going to be fine. Stay cool. Cover the bases and don't play the numbers game with the papers. Its a real bad idea, as was displayed with last years evidence exam.

Rhonda9000

Tom Young wrote:

3 weeks to go. Best of luck with the study. Its going to be fine. Stay cool. Cover the bases and don't play the numbers game with the papers. Its a real bad idea, as was displayed with last years evidence exam.

Please elaborate. What happened in last years evidence exam?

Is there a single paper which seems to cause the most trouble? Most people say that it's the 5 day stint is the hardest thing to grapple with but that aside, is the general outlook on getting all five at the first go good or bad?

I usually steer clear of exam tip mongering as much as possible and this philosophy has served me well but I am tempted to know this time round

Tom Young

Evidence was traditionally O'Brien Rule and Confession Ev. That changed last year drastically to Testimony and Confession Ev. when it hadn't changed much for years before.

Tort is troubling, I find. Questions are heavily packed and addressing the problem might only give room to graze the surface of issues.

5 day stint, easy. Sitting in the KI exam hall not knowing what to write! ....umh.

Rhonda9000

Definitely the tort questions are loaded. Tricky only by virtue of efficient, articulate recall and time constraints etc. Spotted the switch in focus in evidence alright - it must have caught a lot of people out huh?

Tom Young

Yes, I believe that was the case. There are only 13 areas in Evidence so its not the most challenging. Constitutional is messier, as is Company.

johnnyskeleton

Company has been a few people's downfall, as far as I know.

Tort - if nothing else, know the basic principles of negligence and duty of care.

As an alternative to studying everything, just memorise the nutshells series on each subject.

Rosita

Hi Guys,

Just wondering what standard is required is these exams? Obviously there's a pass mark or whatever but I presume in reality that with a finite number able to study for the actual course in a given year it is decided on your average mark. What kind of mark would that normally be do you know?

Or maybe it works differently? Is there an interview? Thanks.

Rhonda9000

johnnyskeleton wrote:

As an alternative to studying everything, just memorise the nutshells series on each subject.

I try and steer clear of nutshells. I like the concise format and having everything condensed down but its all English law? The - more expensive - Essential Law Texts series I love

johnnyskeleton

Rosita wrote:

What kind of mark would that normally be do you know?

You pass, you usually get in. There is no quota like in Blackhall, so they decide the intake based on the numbers who pass. You also have to sign a memorial, but that is mostly to swear that you don't have a criminal record, history of professional misconduct etc.

Rhonda9000 wrote:

I try and steer clear of nutshells. I like the concise format and having everything condensed down but its all English law? The - more expensive - Essential Law Texts series I love

Roundhall nutshells are Irish law.

Rhonda9000

Roundhall nutshells are Irish law.

Ah thanks for clearing this up. I got a few Thomson Sweet & Maxwell nutshells many moons ago and was annoyed to find they were published in England / not what I was expecting...

Tom Young

The ELTs are good, though I think some are a little dated now.

cycleoin

Tom Young wrote:

The ELTs are good, though I think some are a little dated now.

Cheers guys... I think the fact that I'm just coming off the back of my finals is the hardest thing. I'm TIRED and UNMOTIVATED! Focussing on becoming a Barrister is the only thing that got me through my degree and now that it's almost here I just want to hit the snooze button!!!!!!

I'll try and keep a cool head an have a wide rather than deep knowledge of the topics.

Wish our poor souls luck!!

clairepotatoes

Just heard that the inns are using 4 different exam centres for the exams this year. Has that always been the case or is it indicative that there are alot more applicants this year as compared to previous years? Any opinions?

Tom Young

Nah, the floor is being maintained in the main exam hall, far as I know.

They always reserve the right to move exam centres. Lets hope that they don't dot them around the city.

Cylceoin the same is the case for many, just stay healthy and focussed. 5 days on the trot is going to hurt, so will the first pint that is consumed at about 1.20 that afternoon. I totally agree that less is more. Johnnyskeleton gave some good advice earlier on.

Tom

morbo

I have two questions regarding the exams:

1. Most people I've been talking to say the King's Inns exams are easier than the FE-1's. Is this true?

2. I've got 1 year left in my degree and i haven't yet, and will not get to cover administrative law by the time i graduate, which means I will not be eligible to site the entrance exams in 2008. Does anyone know where I can site an administrative law course by night or during the summer in Cork, or even Limerick, that will satisfy the entrance requirements?

Tom Young

Admin law is a new module in the Inns Diploma 1 or 2, possibly with legal systems. I think that the Inns will allow you take a module. I read somewhere its 4 weeks in length, which means, 2/3 hours by 4 weeks and its not that hard, mostly principles of Judicial Review etc.

A few students I am aware of have sat subjects such as Jurisprudence as 'add ons' to their primary law degrees.

I don't agree that the Inns is easier. I think the exams are fairly similar. There are correctal/examination and marking naunces (e.g., pass rates) that are slightly different.

morbo

Thanks. I'm trying to research around to find some other 'add-on' courses. I'm doing an American e-Law course at the moment. It's worth 6 American Bar Association credits, but it's still nice to have on the CV.

I'm able to take Jurisprudence, Comparative Legal Systems, and a few other optionals this year, as well as the core subjects, but unfortunately, no Administrative Law. (I've managed to save up all the so-called 'easy' subjects for my final year!)

I don't for a second believe that one society sets an easier exam than the other. It's just idle chat I've been hearing, really. Maybe it's just the fact that there are less people applying for the King's Inns, and most manage to get in, compared with the Law Society.

Tom Young

The following three cases: Moy v Pettman Smith & Perry, D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid & Lai v Chamberlains appeared last year on the Tort entrance exam in respect of Barristers immunity. As you can see there are jurisdiction issues with regard to the enforcement the issue in tort. The House of Lords did abolish full immunity in Hall v. Simons, as below http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/hall-1.htm.

Other cases of note include Saif Ali v. Sydney Mitchell and Rondell v. Worsley

Australia: Retained by court.
NZ: Removed by court, subject to legislative review.
UK: Removed by court
Ireland: Unclear (refer to recent media in a case before Peter Kelly, J.)

http://www.lawyers.org.nz/lawtalk/642Lai.htm

Moy v Pettman Smith & Perry examines the extent of advocates’ liability in professional negligence, following the abolition of immunity from suit. It is a helpful judgment for professionals and their insurers. Not only does it reconfirm the test be applied in negligence allegations against counsel, but also it makes it clear that an exhaustive list of the reasons behind the advice given is not required – certainly the absence of such a list will not establish negligence if the advice was otherwise within the range that might have been expected.

Negligence at door of court
An advocate had no duty to explain the thinking behind her advice to her client when advising him whether or not to accept a settlement offer at the door of the court. The concept of informed consent which requires a doctor to explain a particular risk to a patient does not apply to advocates (Moy v Pettman Smith HL 3 February 2005).

Westlaw:

The clearest statement on barristers' and solicitors' immunity by the High Court can be found in its 1988 judgment in Giannarelli v Wraith [1] where it stated that:
0. at common law, barristers and solicitors are immune from liability for negligence in the conduct of court work or work out of court that leads to a decision affecting the conduct of a case in court (advocates' immunity);
0.
0. and the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 (Vic) (the 1958 Act) also provided for advocates' immunity.
Earlier this month, in D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2], the High Court (by a majority of 6-1)[3] confirmed that barristers and solicitors still enjoy the benefit of advocates' immunity. In response, state and territory governments are considering whether to wind back the scope of the immunity or to abolish it completely.

http://www.lawyers.org.nz/lawtalk/642Lai.htm

Barristers' immunity abolished
In a 4:1 majority decision, the Court of Appeal has said barristers should no longer be immune from being able to be sued for damages over the way they have conducted a civil case. The court has, however, left open the question of barristerial immunity in a criminal context to be argued at an appropriate time.
A full bench heard the case of Lai v Chamberlains on 1 March 2004 and released its decision on 8 March this year. Four (McGrath, Glazebrook, Hammond and O’Regan JJ) found in favour of abolishing the immunity while the President, Justice Anderson, gave a dissenting judgment favouring retention.
Although not parties to the case, the NZLS and New Zealand Bar Association were granted permission to intervene in the proceeding and made submissions as to why immunity should be retained.
The case arose when the plaintiffs sued an Auckland law firm for negligence over the conduct of a case. The law firm pleaded the defence of immunity, relying on Rees v Sinclair ([1974] 1 NZLR 180 (CA)) as being the established law in New Zealand. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in seeking to have that defence struck out. A full court of the High Court (Salmon and Laurenson JJ) held it had to apply the Court of Appeal’s Rees v Sinclair decision ([2003] 2 NZLR 374).
Now the Court of Appeal has overturned Rees v Sinclair, a case that had relied on the English position at the time. However, that position changed in 2000 when a seven-member bench of the House of Lords unanimously abolished immunity via the case of Arthur J Hall & Co v Simons ([2002] AC 615).

cycleoin

Cheers for that Tom.... I'm making the bold presumption that barristers immunity won't rear its ugly head again this year and instead i'm focusing on med neg and public authorities/builders liabilities....

Tort is a tricky one, as is constitutional. 13 days to go :eek: