Barrister or Solicitor, Which Career?

morbo

It’s now only a few short months before I finish my law degree in UL. I am trying to decide on whether or not I should become a Barrister or a Solicitor. I have been thinking about this since before I made the call to go back to college and do a second degree and change life/career path.

My gut feeling has always been that I want to be a Barrister. However, I am constantly seeing how it is almost impossible for anyone to become successful. The Competition Authorities Final Report on Solicitors and Barristers gave figures for the average income of Barristers from being newly qualified Junior Counsels all the way up to Senior Counsel. I ignore the ‘Average Salary’ column, as an average is always misleading, and looked straight at the ‘Median Salary’ one instead.

General view on Barristers by the Competition Authority is that in your first 3 years you’re on around €30,000 a year, 4-6 years €45,000, 7-9 years €65,00, 10-12 years €95,000 and 13+ years €125,000. This seems like a fairly good amount of money, nothing special, but you won’t have to worry about holes in your socks. I know some Junior Counsels can even earn over €1,000,000 and all that, but they are the exception, and I’m not interested in stories of wonders and marvels.

Here’s the thing, I’ve had similar discussions on here (Boards.ie) in the past and also with numerous practicing Barristers and Solicitors on many different occasions, and every one of them have painted a very dark picture of being a Barrister. Basically you live a demeaning life of working off the scraps thrown down from your Master, who couldn’t be bothered lowering themselves to doing such work, and most of your other work seems to depend on how sorry for you friends of your Master feel. So unless; your mother, father, two brothers, two sisters, a wealth of your cousins’ work as Solicitors and provide you with work; you have written more law books that Michael Forde; and/or you are pretty much a full-time lecturer, you will have no money.

The Competition Authority seem to be of the understanding that Solicitors make far less money than Barristers on average, where the reality on the street is that Solicitors are far more financially secure, and have much more opportunities to make vastly greater sums of money.

Can anyone on here offer some sort of light at the end of the tunnel for me? I have always wanted to be a Barrister, but at 25 now, 26 when I graduate, 28/29 when I finish my Delving (or older if I do a Masters), would it be unwise for me to take such a financial risk and try to establish myself at the Bar? At that stage most of my peers would be earning €50,000 or €60,000 if they had been practicing since they were 22/23, and I would be broke.

Further, from having looked at the Competition Authority Final Report on Competition in Legal Services, and other research into the English legal services sector, I think I would be a lot more comfortable making a decision to become a Barrister now if I felt there would be an English style Chambers system in place to give me some hope of financial security and aiding me in making a career for myself in the future.

As it stands now, I’m seriously considering just giving up on being a Barrister and going the Solicitor route, because it will offer a more stable future. Any advice, observations, etc. are more than welcome.

Tom Young

Did we not spend enough time with your last string on this?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055070993&referrerid=&highlight=

morbo

That started out as a question about qualifying for the NY State Bar, and while we did cover a good bit about it, I’m looking for some actually real world figures of what people in both professions are actually making.

Tom Young

The Haran Report might be of use.

We did really cover a hell of a lot more than the NY bar question to the point where quite a few people became rather tired of the thread. No disrespect meant.

IBEC www.ibec.ie salary surveys might be of some use also.

morbo

I haven’t seen much of the Haran Report, only the news stories surrounding it. It is very difficult to find it online. As for IBEC, I can never find a damn thing on that site. Nevertheless, thanks for the suggestions.

The main aim of this thread is to work out what sort of money I can expect to be making down through the years if I stay in Ireland. Currently, I am 25 years old, and I have absolutely no savings or assets of any kind. I am a student through and through! So having future security is important, especially because I’ve been going out with the same girl for 6 years and will probably be spending the rest of my life with her. I don’t want my kids to grow up wondering why daddy has a fancy wig and gown, and yet, there’s no food on the table.

I have no delusions of grandeur, and bar some sort of miracle, I don’t expect to make millions from my salary in either profession. I just want to be comfortable. My girlfriend has a good job (she has a degree and masters in chemistry), so we would have a decent combined income to live comfortably on (if everything goes to plan). Making millions will be our hobby for the weekends!

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

would it be unwise for me to take such a financial risk and try to establish myself at the Bar?

You seem to have a lot of information, accurate or otherwise. The decision is up to you.

morbo wrote:

I think I would be a lot more comfortable making a decision to become a Barrister now if I felt there would be an English style Chambers system in place to give me some hope of financial security and aiding me in making a career for myself in the future.

More likely you would end up all dressed up with nowhere to go. Chambers would in all liklihood, restrict entry to the bar. Also, the introduction of chambers does not mean that barristers in their first few years will be paid - it's just a place to hang your wig.

morbo wrote:

..having future security is important ...I don’t want my kids to grow up wondering why daddy has a fancy wig and gown, and yet, there’s no food on the table...I just want to be comfortable....Making millions will be our hobby for the weekends!

You've really answered your own question here - don't be a barrister.

EdgarAllenPoo

Become a barrister, that way if you go bald people won't know. You could be a solicitor and just wear funny hats but I don't think it has the same effect.

pirelli

I dont have an issue with this thread and if the facts are accurate i find it very informative and interesting. I suppose it does attract more competition in the form of job seekers although anyone who has a high regard for the law is welcome to get merit for their knowledge and be rewarded for their skill's.
When I worked in solicitors office in the ninties I learned that a Barrister earned as little as 3,ooo pounds in his or her first couple of years. Thereafter only the greatest of legal minds would rise quickly through the pay grade while the majority eeked a living. I had a negative experience later with a the legal proffession and I see them as very flawed and far below basic standard's although the 1993 criminal procedure act was a rare form of generosity on the part of both the state and the courts and law society.Unfortunately it is hard for many proffesionals to use it for case's the DPP have damaged in their characteristic way of those days,
So I would like to see hundreds if not thousands of barrister's and solicitors earning their respective grade and pay and i would like to see those extra proffessionals in involved in greater and better appeal courts for miscarriages of justice.They could earn a modest pay.

cycleoin

Something that never stops amazing me is that some people who are asking the "should I go the Bar or Solicitor route" question don't actually know the difference in the work, apart from the obvious Barristers advocate the majority of the time in the Superior Courts. Have you taken the time to do work experience in a firm of Solicitors or do you know any Barristers you could shadow for a week or two to actually see what their work entails??

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote:

I dont have an issue with this thread and if the facts are accurate i find it very informative and interesting.

Why would you have an issue with the thread?

pirelli wrote:

although the 1993 criminal procedure act was a rare form of generosity on the part of both the state and the courts and law society.Unfortunately it is hard for many proffesionals to use it for case's the DPP have damaged in their characteristic way of those days,
So I would like to see hundreds if not thousands of barrister's and solicitors earning their respective grade and pay and i would like to see those extra proffessionals in involved in greater and better appeal courts for miscarriages of justice.They could earn a modest pay.

What is it you think is so special about the 1993 Act, and what sort of better appeal court would you propose?

jackelle

Originally Posted by pirelli
although the 1993 criminal procedure act was a rare form of generosity on the part of both the state and the courts and law society.Unfortunately it is hard for many proffesionals to use it for case's the DPP have damaged in their characteristic way of those days,
So I would like to see hundreds if not thousands of barrister's and solicitors earning their respective grade and pay and i would like to see those extra proffessionals in involved in greater and better appeal courts for miscarriages of justice.They could earn a modest pay.

Maybe it's the fe1s have left my brain operating at a lower level than usual, but I have reread this passage a few times and I can't make any sense of it. Can I ask what it means and what changes the proffessionals [sic] in their practice should make in relation to the 1993 Act?

morbo

To Johnnyskeleton;

Everyone in Ireland seems to think that having Chambers spells doom for the profession of Barrister-at-Law. I’d love to know why. It works in England, and we are fundamentally the same countries from a legal structure point-of-view. It increases access to the Bar in England. I know we have debated this point in the other thread, but I just don’t accept your point of view. The main reason there are so many people just out of there BVC in England without a Master is because there are more Pupils than Masters at the moment.

As for Chambers, in England you have the option to join a Chambers if you want to do so, or you can go it alone like the Irish system. All I’m saying is that I would be more comfortable knowing that if I did get a Develing position after finishing in the Kings Inns, I would be guaranteed an income through the Chambers for the time I was a Devil. In England, Pupil Barristers must be paid at least £10,000 per year. Here, Devils are paid €0 per year. How is that fair? You’ve just finished a law degree, gotten through a professional training school at astronomical expense, and you are guaranteed to make nothing in your first year.

Solicitors get paid for their apprenticeships. So should Barristers. And before the, “well, Barristers can’t really do anything until they have followed their Master around for a few months…” argument comes in, neither can an apprentice Solicitor. Nobody in a firm says, “Give that challenge of an infringement of constitutional rights about to go before the Supreme Court to the new guy…” It takes years before Solicitor is anyway useful to their bosses. Devils do all the grunt work for their Masters the same as apprentices’ in a solicitors firm do, so they should be paid for all the running around the courts they do.

It’s the same with the idea of Conveyancers. According to the Law Society it will drive up costs and lower standards, yet in every other jurisdiction it has been introduced in, it has lowered cost and driven up standards.

To GDM;

I’m already bald. Yes, the idea of a wig is tempting…

To Pirelli;

Facts and figures are as accurate as possible. Nearly all come from the Competition Authority, the Irish Times, and a few others.

To Cycleoin;

I have worked for both, I do know the difference. Basically, a Solicitor does everything that a Barrister can do, and a Barrister is limited in what they can do by the code of practice set out by the privileged few that made it big as Barristers and became benchers.


I’m writing this in a hurry, so apologies for any spelling mistakes or random sentences that seem to make no sense.

cycleoin

A solicitors job is almost completely different mate, I mean, if you like the law, be a barrister. Regardless of money. Money will come one way or another, lecturing, barwork, McDonalds, the important thing is that you are doing something you love. If you love the law, advocacy, drafting etc etc be a barrister. If, on the other hand, you love cash, cars, security, kissing up to clients, a month of christmas lunch's in december, photocopying, taking long calls, paid holidays etc then maybe the Solicitors path is the way for you.

At the end of the day its a personal choice which nobody can properly advise you on.

EdgarAllenPoo

cycleoin wrote:

A solicitors job is almost completely different mate, I mean, if you like the law, be a barrister. Regardless of money. Money will come one way or another, lecturing, barwork, McDonalds, the important thing is that you are doing something you love. If you love the law, advocacy, drafting etc etc be a barrister. If, on the other hand, you love cash, cars, security, kissing up to clients, a month of christmas lunch's in december, photocopying, taking long calls, paid holidays etc then maybe the Solicitors path is the way for you.

At the end of the day its a personal choice which nobody can properly advise you on.

I'll take option number two thank you very much:D

morbo

cycleoin wrote:

A solicitors job is almost completely different mate, I mean, if you like the law, be a barrister. Regardless of money. Money will come one way or another, lecturing, barwork, McDonalds, the important thing is that you are doing something you love. If you love the law, advocacy, drafting etc etc be a barrister. If, on the other hand, you love cash, cars, security, kissing up to clients, a month of christmas lunch's in december, photocopying, taking long calls, paid holidays etc then maybe the Solicitors path is the way for you.

At the end of the day its a personal choice which nobody can properly advise you on.

What I meant was that nowadays, a Solicitor can basically carry out all of the functions a Barrister can, a fact which the Bar Council admits to in the Competition Authorities report. They have full rights of audience before every court in the land. The Bar Council still believes that there will always be a niche for highly skilled actors… I mean Barristers even if Solicitors take over.

There’s an interesting thing in your reply though; ‘McDonalds’. That’s one of the big issues I have with the Bar Council. If you work part-time in McDonalds while you are a practicing Barrister, just to keep food on your table, you will be disbarred and never allowed to practice at the Bar of Ireland again. That is an F-ing joke!

Newly qualified Barristers make no money, yet the only jobs they are allowed to take while in practice are; as educators in third-level institutions; or alternatively, as politicians. Now, last time I checked, there weren’t any jobs on Monster.ie advertising lots of lecturing and political openings. They aren’t exactly jobs you walk into easily.

And guess what! You know the way the Bar is full of rampant nepotism and only sons and daughters of former or currently practicing Senior Counsels actually get to make a living at the Bar… Well! Those fathers and mothers who insure little Jimmy gets a good client base are probably lecturers or politicians themselves, and they will be making sure it’s little Jimmy that get’s picked for any academic vacancies that come up, and will make sure they bring the little guy with them the next time they go canvassing so the little fella gets his face out there amongst the voters for when daddy decides not to run anymore.

I do love the law (I actually do, which I know makes me seem a bit sad), and I would love to be a Barrister, and actually get to make a contribution, big or small, to the laws of the country, but it looks to be practically impossible to get in. My Great Granduncle was Jack Lynch. While he was a Barrister and a politician, he can’t exactly take me under his wing, now can he? I would much prefer to make it myself anyway. (Also, my name doesn’t happen to be ‘Jack Lynch’, so name recognition is out, too!)

I’m just so bloody confused. I mean, sure, become a Barrister. But what do I do if I don’t have a lot of briefs? I mean, outside of going to court, it’ll be very difficult to make a living. Also, Barristers are loosing their position as so called ‘experts’ on specific areas of law. I mean, if you have a question about a company law issue, you’re not going to go ask a Barrister, you’ll ask Dr Thomas Courtney, a Solicitor? Similarly, a family law issue… who would you ask; A Barrister? Or the Solicitor, Mr Alan Shatter? They’re just two that come to mind. I’m sure there are arguments for and against either or both.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

To johnnyskeleton...yet in every other jurisdiction it has been introduced in, it has lowered cost and driven up standards.

I didn't mention any of that in this thread. All I said was that the introduction of chambers may, and probably will, mean that it's harder to get a master as you will have perhaps 5/6 potential masters in a chambers who might decide to take only 1/2 devils between them. Also, if chambers are allowed it does not mean in any shape or form that devils will be entitled to be paid. In England & Wales chambers existed for hundreds of years without paying pupils, and it's only very recently that they have started paying them. A better proposal, from the point of view of people seeking to enter the profession, would be a requirement that things remain the same, but masters are required to pay their pupils for work done.

morbo wrote:

I have worked for both, I do know the difference. Basically, a Solicitor does everything that a Barrister can do, and a Barrister is limited in what they can do by the code of practice set out by the privileged few that made it big as Barristers and became benchers.

If that's your attitude, if you really believe that, then (and I can't help feel that I'm repeating myself to no avail), logically you would want to become a solicitor and not a barrister. But I'm sure it's not really your attitude so make your own mind up.

morbo wrote:

Newly qualified Barristers make no money, yet the only jobs they are allowed to take while in practice are; as educators in third-level institutions; or alternatively, as politicians. Now, last time I checked, there weren’t any jobs on Monster.ie advertising lots of lecturing and political openings. They aren’t exactly jobs you walk into easily.

Bar Code of conduct wrote:

link
2.7 Barristers are permitted to engage in any part-time occupation that is not inconsistent with the Code of Conduct.

But you probably already knew that.

morbo wrote:

And guess what! You know the way the Bar is full of rampant nepotism

No, and you know it's not. You're a troll.

daiixi

Go get another career. Ireland doesn't need any more barristers or solicitors this year.

Amazotheamazing

Do neither.

You want the career of a barrister and the security of a solicitor. Since you can't seem to compromise, go find something else to do with your time.

Btw, imo, one of the main reasons solicitors will always want barristers is because solicitors will always want someone else to break the bad news to a client. A solicitor tells his client that the barrister is a proven genuis in the area etc etc, the barrister turns around and goes, "yes I'm expert, I'd settle this for 10k and costs", client believes barrister, solicitors makes very august statement about barrister being a genius etc. All sorted. (or am I being cynical?)

Sleepy

How can you not be cynical about the legal profession in Ireland Amazo?

In her first year at the bar, despite winning most of her cases a good friend of mine made the princely sum of €1000. That's frankly insulting to someone who's got a law degree and made it through Kings Inns and their develing.

The whole industry is a joke.

Jo King

1K profit for a second year at the bar! Not bad. I'm told most people lose money for the first four years. BTW how is it an insult? She is self employed and charges what the market will bear. It is not as if she was employed in a job and that was the wage paid.

cycleoin

"In her first year at the bar, despite winning most of her cases a good friend of mine made the princely sum of €1000."


"Newly qualified Barristers make no money."

I think people are forgetting that the Master is doing a favour for the devil. I would challenge anyone to try and make a few quid down at the bar without having devilled. I suppose it might be possible for someone who has very close friends or family working as a solicitor and is willing to disregard their clients interests by giving work to someone who has never uttered a word on their feet before a court. You don't get paid because the reward lies in the experience. If ye can't see that then there is probably no place for ye at the Bar. Anyone who goes to the Bar for money is sure to be disappointed. A practice needs to be nurtured and grown. Nothing happens over night and the pupilage system makes sure everyone (should) at least get some time on their feet or in client consultations.

Rhonda9000

cycleoin wrote:

You don't get paid because the reward lies in the experience. If ye can't see that then there is probably no place for ye at the Bar. Anyone who goes to the Bar for money is sure to be disappointed. A practice needs to be nurtured and grown. Nothing happens over night and the pupilage system makes sure everyone (should) at least get some time on their feet or in client consultations.

Here here!

Humming and hawing about not making enough money @ 28 years of age after being a student so long etc. etc. etc. as if one is owed an easy access career path just because they went off and got a law degree, doesn't cut it. Yes it is difficult and challenging but in the end its through this that the ones doing it for the right reasons stick it out and get their bounty. They have the requisite skill, desire and belief in themselves to excel past the slog - not just faulty reasoning, superficial desires for a flashy title and bragging rights. [Sorry!]

Tom Young

Morbo.

I have to say that I re-posted your original thread as all of the above has been addressed already.

catherinesara

I hear a lot of people are self representing because of incompitant solicitors and barristers.

The law is one avenue but a better route is seeking justice for your clients.

Then you will make a fortune, but you will be boycotted by the others sols etc.

johnnyskeleton

catherinesara wrote: »

I hear a lot of people are self representing because of incompitant solicitors and barristers.

I doubt it, because in criminal cases most people either get legal aid, or have the funds to pay top dollar, and in civil cases if you win you get your costs, so there is no incentive to represent yourself.

The people who represent themselves are usually the people who have asked several solicitors to represent them and have been turned down because their case is spurious and not going to win and consequently the lawyers are not going to get paid. Don't forget that while a lot of lawyers do pro-bono work, at the end of the day it's still a job and they have to have at least some paying clients.

If you are rejected by several solicitors, are you going to tell your friends that:
a) you are representing yourself because you were told by several solicitors that you had no chance of succeeding
b) you are representing yourself because lawyers are incompetent and you will do a much better job of it yourself?

catherinesara wrote:

The law is one avenue but a better route is seeking justice for your clients.

Then you will make a fortune, but you will be boycotted by the others sols etc.

That's a strange viewpoint. For example, there was one particular Dublin based criminal solicitor who dedicated himself to the pursuit of justice, human rights and civil liberties. He is now a judge. Rather than being shunned by other solicitors, he was at their forefront.

The only solicitors who might be boycotted by others are those that are incompetent, impossible to deal with and/or involved in dodgy deals.

While I understand that your viewpoint is common in certain areas, I think the vast majority of people who actually use legal services (and who are not cranks) are satisfied with the service.

By the way, interesting that you chose this thread to air your views.