Becoming a barrister.

DeVore

For a while I have entertained the idea of returning to college to change careers and study law in order to work as a barrister.

I have a rudimentary but realistic understanding of the legal system in this country (from being dragged into the wrong end of it ) but I have some questions about the practicalities of training to work in it.


1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?

2. How long will it take?

3. Can I do it at night?

4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?

DeV.

NoQuarter

DeVore wrote: »

1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?

2. How long will it take?

3. Can I do it at night?

4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?

DeV.

1. I cant answer all your questions for you but there are a lot of people doing a law degree in my college right now that are a LOT older than 38 thats for sure, but it all depends on your own personal circumstances I would imagine.

2/3. you can do a law degree at night in Griffith College (€5000+ per year) and it will take 3 years for the degree, then assuming you pass all 5 Kings Inn tests, i believe you can do the Barrister at law degree at night (€12,000 approx, possibility grants?) now in 2 years.

4. Ill leave this one to the others as they will give you a better answer than I can at the moment!

DeVore

Sorry, explain this to me like I'ma 5 year old...

Lets suppose I want to do this full time. Are you saying that first I need a law degree and then 2 more years at kings inn? (I have a primary degree in Maths but I presume thats no use in this situation... )

Also, how much of the whole thing is reliant on a big memory? I dont have a good memory for rote book-learning.

DeV.

NoQuarter

ok, as far as i know a primary degree is no good to sit the kings inn(barrister training school) in anything other than law(not 100%) but i know you can sit the FE-1's which qualify you as a solicitor with a non-law degree.

but assuming you get your law degree which takes 3 years, the it takes another year to become a barrister attending the kings inn(full-time) or 2 years(part-time, evenings).

As regards memory, you do need a decent one, short term at least, crammin hard before exams 3 -4 days before will work but it does take effort

johnnyskeleton

DeVore wrote: »

1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?

You're bonkers trying to be a barrister at any age.

DeVore wrote: »

2. How long will it take?

The rest of your natural life.

DeVore wrote: »

3. Can I do it at night?

Once you put on that wig, you can do it all night long.

DeVore wrote: »

4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?

You have to devil for one year. But just in case you're under any misaprehension, barristers get their work from solicitors and other barristers, not from the public at large. So setting up your own practise is not like setting up a taxi company (or even a solicitors) where you will get off the street trade, so as a barrister you will need to get to know solicitors, and unless you have strong family connections to the legal profession (or to major litigants/criminals) you will get absolutely nowhere without devilling.

johnnyskeleton

DeVore wrote: »

Lets suppose I want to do this full time. Are you saying that first I need a law degree and then 2 more years at kings inn? (I have a primary degree in Maths but I presume thats no use in this situation... )

You can do the Kings Inns Diploma (which takes 2 years) or a conversion course in law (which usually take 1 year) instead of a primary degree, but you need a basic law qualification before you do the professional qualification.

DeVore wrote: »

Also, how much of the whole thing is reliant on a big memory? I dont have a good memory for rote book-learning.

At the end of the day, all you really need to know is your client's name and what exactly it is that he didn't do. A good head for faces and names is good, and being able to think quickly on the spot are all useful.

Victor

DeVore wrote: »

I have a primary degree in Maths but I presume thats no use in this situation...

I can't see that many cases turning on maths. Medicine or engineering graduates are probably more common converting to law as their experience puts them at an advantage over those who have only done law, although it probably puts them in a bracket "Oh, he did engineering, he'll know nothing about criminal law". You're more likely to be putting you IT and business skills to use.

Also, how much of the whole thing is reliant on a big memory? I dont have a good memory for rote book-learning.

When working, you need to remember the principals and the principles. Otherwise, you can check the details from books as you go.

hullaballoo

DeVore wrote: »

1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?

You're bonkers anyway, but no, there's no reason why being any age would stop you. Aside from anything else, any legal qualification will have application in almost any field. I don't think there's any shortage of work for barristers in general - there's just a shortage of work at the bar at the moment.

2. How long will it take?

I think the quickest route for you is to do the King's Inns diploma over the course of 2 years (five nights a week). That will allow you to sit the entrance exams for the King's Inns degree course, which can now be done over the course of 2 years - otherwise, you can do the same course over one year, but full-time.

One thing to bear in mind when you're considering the implications of taking this route is costs. Expect to be very poor for a very long time. The courses themselves are costly and unless you have a very flexible job, there's not that much scope for earnings.

3. Can I do it at night?

Yes, see above.

4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?

I think someone else has already pointed out that you must do at least 1 year's devilling. It's mandatory and it's sort of part of the course that you go down and apprentice for another, more experienced barrister so that you know what you're doing and become competent (hopefully) that way.

It's something that's very useful if you plan to practise, in any event and as such, many barristers do more than one year's devilling when they go down to the courts.

I want to emphasise that irrespective of the doom-and-gloomers who will tell you all about how life as a newly-qualified barrister is terrible, which it is, there's plenty of use in doing the qualification: the skills and knowledge you gain are applicable across the board in almost any area.

Also, there is work out there, it's just making sure that you're the one who gets it that's tough.

2rs

The age range down at the Inns this year is from 21 to 61

You need to get a law degree first, or do the KI dip 5 nights a week. Alternatively, with your Math primary already you could do a Portobello law degree. They will skip you into 2nd year of the 3 year degree by giving you credit for holding a recognised degree. This is less nights per week (3 in your first year and 4 in your second year).

Be careful of subject choices in any degree course though. Check out the KI entrance requirements.

Law degree or KI dip can be done at night over the 2 years and then the KI degree can be done over a further 1 year full time or 2 years part time.

CantGetNoSleep

DeVore wrote: »

For a while I have entertained the idea of returning to college to change careers and study law in order to work as a barrister.

I have a rudimentary but realistic understanding of the legal system in this country (from being dragged into the wrong end of it ) but I have some questions about the practicalities of training to work in it.


1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?

2. How long will it take?

3. Can I do it at night?

4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?

DeV.

Just wondering why exactly you want to be a barrister? Have you considered being a solicitor?

Also you say you have been dragged into the wrong end of this country's legal system? Is your sole motivation a desire to put things right? I've encountered a couple of people who felt they had been badly treated by the legal system and decided to go do a law degree with the intention of changing things/clearing their names. I have never seen any of the succeeding in what they set out to achieve, although some of them did have decent careers out of it

DeVore

I will admit that that has crossed my mind, but its not the sole reason.

I have the opportunity to return to full time education if I wish and its always been on my mind that I can speak well in public and can debate.

Also, its clear to me now that in reality even if you say its hard to change laws, its the legal profession who have the guns in this knife fight

I'm confused though, because I muddied things by asking about night courses.
How quickly can it be done doing a day course?

Why do barristers have to work through solicitors? Can they not tout for business directly? I was always of the opinion that barristers got to do all the cool stuff (:)) no?

DeV.

DeVore

By the way, over this thread was a google ad linking to this guy:
http://www.brianwalker.ie/index.php?gclid=CJ2W1e7ct5MCFQyD1QodqWu6CA

He seems to be advertising directly at least!

DeV.

dats_right

I don't think it is true to say that he is advertising directly to the public, or at least there is nothing on his website indicating that he is. Anyway, De Vore, without intending any offence, I think that your understanding of both branches of the profession is a little child like. Therefore, my advice would be to do a little bit more research into the functions of the respective branches of the profession and perhaps talk to some practitioners.

One of the reasons why barristers don't tout for business from clients directly(other than their code of conduct) is that your avergae joe client hasn't a bloody clue about litigation/his case/preparing the case/dealing with correspondence, etc, etc and if barristers were to act directly for clients without solictors, then not only would the barrister have their own advocacy/specialist role but would have to deal with all the other essential, yet boring sh*t too, such as endless "urgent" calls from clients! And I don't think too many barristers (at least not succesful ones at any rate) would have any interest in putting up with all of this other nonesense.. No, they would rather like to have a nice indexed brief with only the salient facts included, indeed for most it's a case of the less direct client contact the better.

Hobart

Barristers are normally (although not solely) instructed by solicitors. To be instructed is just a fancy way of saying that one person has being given details by another. Barristers are simply lawyers who practise in court work or are called upon to give expert opinions. They can take instructions from professionals aswell, such as accountants, architects and tax consultants in specific areas of expertise.

Barristers can work outside of Ireland for any lay client, where the matter has arisen or takes place outside Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Barristers must act in accordance with the Bar Council Professional Code of Conduct. Barristers are subject to many general rules, such as:

A barrister may only accept so much work as he or she can give adequate attention to within a reasonable time
A barrister must ensure confidentiality concerning client matters
A barrister has duties towards the courts he or she cannot mislead a court in any way
A barrister may not tout or advertise his/her services.

More info on professional code of conduct is available here. => http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=4

I would also advise you to go down to the law library and observe the goings on on a busy day, it's eye opening.

Duffman

Barristers are supposed to be servants of the court (at least in theory) so they ultimately owe a duty to it rather than to clients. That might have something to do with the fact that clients can't go directly to them.

It could also have something to do with the "cab rank" rule. The idea here is that barristers should accept any case that's offered to them (that they are capable of handling) on a first-come, first-served basis. The theory is that every client rich or poor, criminal or corporation has a pretty good chance of having the best barristers represent them. Again, this is something that is fine in theory but may not operate so effectively in practice.

Maximilian

Dev, you're mad. Law only ever appears attractive to non-lawyers. I've been at this for 8 years and I wish I could go back in time and warn my younger self (and also tell myself to get on the property ladder)

Rhonda9000

Maximilian wrote: »

Law only ever appears attractive to non-lawyers.

I absolutely agree. Well put.

DeVore

I have said the same thing about computers to non-computer people (and come to think of it, about poker too hahah).

I have an opportunity to go back and retrain and I am thinking about careers etc. I like public speaking and I can argue well and people have been saying I would make a good barrister but to be honest I think I need to do a lot more investigation of the day to day job right now.

In the end though, lawyers basically have power in this society. Something I am learning first hand

DeV.

Trojan

Tom, maybe less drastic but just as useful would be to get the basic law degree.

McCrack

Maximilian wrote: »

Dev, you're mad. Law only ever appears attractive to non-lawyers. I've been at this for 8 years and I wish I could go back in time and warn my younger self (and also tell myself to get on the property ladder)

Why what specifically grinds your gears? I'm interested to hear from practitioners because I hope to be one!

I've spoken to some lawyers who love and thrive on their work and others who don't. Law is as diverse as your clients so if your unhappy is it not just possible to focus on areas you're interested in or have a flair for?

Esel

DeVore wrote: »

... I like public speaking and I can argue well ....

Ever thought of politics? If you were as successful as Bertie, you might get to learn an awful lot about the legal system!

Maximilian

McCrack wrote: »

Why what specifically grinds your gears? I'm interested to hear from practitioners because I hope to be one!

I've spoken to some lawyers who love and thrive on their work and others who don't. Law is as diverse as your clients so if your unhappy is it not just possible to focus on areas you're interested in or have a flair for?

Pressure, stress, clients who want everything done yesterday, long hours.

dats_right

Okay, here's a few reasons why not to become a barrister:

1. The enormous cost in terms of finance, time and effort.

2. The fact that there is an unsustainable and massive oversupply of newly qualified BL's, the vast majority of whom will leave practise within the first few years as they realise that they can't live on fresh air! What makes you think that you are in anyway different from the hundreds of others who went before you and failed?

3. There is a lot Less work for the pool of barristers i.e. PIAB in particular but also bodies such as the PRTB and the like have dramatically impacted on the amount of work available. There is no sign of these developments abating, if anything we can probably expect more of these types of bodies and further inroads into available work.

4. High paying corporate/commercial work is really dominated by solicitors and whilst the barristers who do this type of work are extremely well paid, in reality, they are very, very few in number and it is all but impossible to break into.

5. Whilst criminal remains at least constant (despite ever increasing number of offences on the statute book) and family is undoubtedly a growth area. It is only a matter of time before the Irish Goverment copy the example of their UK counterparts, in essentially 'breaking the back' of the legal aid system by reducing fees to unsustainable levels, where it becomes impossible for practitioners to continue with this type of work.

In time we will probably see a Public Defender system similar to that in the USA. And in relation to family law, I think it is inevitable that mediation/concilliation will have a much greater role in the future with a direct knock-on effect to the work of courts and of course practitioners.

6. The fact that the competition authority and even the government seem to have it in for lawyers. In such a climate I would not be risking my career/future/financial well-being on a career that is only a matter of time before yet another initiative is launched to tackle the so called 'fat cat' lawyers. I think many would see that that there has undoubtedly, over recent years been a conscious effort to attack the profession.

7. The fact that TV does not in anyway accurately portray the life of a lawyer.

8. In the end, if you overcome all of the above, including the fierce competition between highly capable colleagues, managing to cosy up to several solcitors and ultimately succeed at the bar, well then you can expect reasonably good earnings. But was it all worth it? You'll probably feel that if you had expended so much time and effort into any other career the financial rewards would have been as good or in some cases (Banking, corporate, medicine, senior management) significantly better.


For pity sake OP and anybody else considering a career in law please do not underestimate the above considerations and indeed the numerous others that I have ommitted. We see it time and time again on this forum, that for some reason when it comes to a career in law candidates refuse to listen to the warnings of others. Ask yourself this, why are so many
lawyers/trainees/students warning you against it ot at least advising extreme caution?

It just doesn't add up- more and more barristers, less and less work!

Rhonda9000

dats_right wrote: »

We see it time and time again on this forum, that for some reason when it comes to a career in law candidates refuse to listen to the warnings of others.

People want to be able to use the B word in front of their friends, plain an simple

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

Okay, here's a few reasons why not to become a barrister:

Just for the divilment of it, I'll argue the contrary.

dats_right wrote: »

1. The enormous cost in terms of finance, time and effort.

But it's the same with starting up any business, it's always front heavy on these things before youre established. Solicitors, if they wish to go out on their own, face similar difficulties.

dats_right wrote: »

2. The fact that there is an unsustainable and massive oversupply of newly qualified BL's, the vast majority of whom will leave practise within the first few years as they realise that they can't live on fresh air! What makes you think that you are in anyway different from the hundreds of others who went before you and failed?

It's hard to say whether there is a massive oversupply or not. There's probably enough work to go around, although spreading it evenly is hard to do. I don't think it's possible to say how many barristers are needed either, because no one really knows how much legal work there will be going into the future or how openly spread it might be.

dats_right wrote: »

3. There is a lot Less work for the pool of barristers i.e. PIAB in particular but also bodies such as the PRTB and the like have dramatically impacted on the amount of work available. There is no sign of these developments abating, if anything we can probably expect more of these types of bodies and further inroads into available work.

Or we could see more work opening up in different areas e.g. employment appeals tribunals, PIAB could implode as people realise that they can get more money from the courts (and insurance companies deciding to fight more cases), barristers might be appearing in the PRTB and the PRTB might promote more tenants to bring cases.

dats_right wrote: »

4. High paying corporate/commercial work is really dominated by solicitors and whilst the barristers who do this type of work are extremely well paid, in reality, they are very, very few in number and it is all but impossible to break into.

I don't think anyone, no matter how deluded they are would think that they can go straight into the top corporate/commercial work straight away.

dats_right wrote: »

5. Whilst criminal remains at least constant (despite ever increasing number of offences on the statute book) and family is undoubtedly a growth area. It is only a matter of time before the Irish Goverment copy the example of their UK counterparts, in essentially 'breaking the back' of the legal aid system by reducing fees to unsustainable levels, where it becomes impossible for practitioners to continue with this type of work.

Criminal law (and crime) are on the increase as is marital break up. More companies are becoming insolvent and filing for voluntary liquidation, more people are becoming bankrupt and defaulting on loans, more dodgy conveyances are coming to the surface, more people are losing their jobs and seeking redundancy, more people are going to be thinking of a nice dodgy personal injury claim, etc etc. Generally, as the economy goes down, the legal profession goes up.

dats_right wrote: »

In time we will probably see a Public Defender system similar to that in the USA. And in relation to family law, I think it is inevitable that mediation/concilliation will have a much greater role in the future with a direct knock-on effect to the work of courts and of course practitioners.

I don't think we will, because it is recognised that a person charged with a criminal offence who cannot afford to engage a lawyer privately is entitled to a lawyer and a lawyer of his or her choice. Put another way, they need to be able to trust their solicitor, and it's harder to trust someone who works directly for the state.

dats_right wrote: »

6. The fact that the competition authority and even the government seem to have it in for lawyers. In such a climate I would not be risking my career/future/financial well-being on a career that is only a matter of time before yet another initiative is launched to tackle the so called 'fat cat' lawyers. I think many would see that that there has undoubtedly, over recent years been a conscious effort to attack the profession.

Swings and roundabouts really. If they persist, eventually the profession will reach breaking point, and while the idea of a barrister's strike will no doubt provoke "ah sure who needs them" remarks, it would be seriously damaging to the country.

dats_right wrote: »

7. The fact that TV does not in anyway accurately portray the life of a lawyer.

Rumpole is pretty accurate I would imagine.

dats_right wrote: »

We see it time and time again on this forum, that for some reason when it comes to a career in law candidates refuse to listen to the warnings of others.

To be honest, that is just the first of many hurdles to be overcome. Someone who is told "don't be a barrister" and decides against it wouldn't make a good barrister anyway.

dats_right wrote: »

Ask yourself this, why are so many lawyers/trainees/students warning you against it ot at least advising extreme caution?

Because they see lots of competition around them and don't want to share that competition with more people.

dats_right wrote: »

It just doesn't add up- more and more barristers, less and less work!

Well maybe in 5 years time there will be less and less barristers and more and more work. The market will ultimately correct itself no matter what.

johnnyskeleton

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

People want to be able to use the B word in front of their friends, plain an simple

Broke?

Maximilian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Broke?

QFT

dats_right

Interesting alternative viewpoint JS and one not often heard amongst members of the professions, but then isn't that what a barrister are trained to do, viz. argue hopeless and lost causes with courage and conviction. Nonetheless, and whilst I can just about accept a lot of what you say, in that although not as likely or probable as my thesis, and you are probably stretching the boundaries of realistic argument/probabilities to their absolute limits, I suppose nobody can ultimately predict the future and perhaps your fanciful and optimistic outlook may transpire in full or in part in the future. I certainly hope that you are right.

But, to come back on some of your specific points:

1. A newly qualifed solicitor in a medium/large firm can expect to earn €55k+ in year 1, not really much of a risk is it? But, I accept your point that a solicitor setting up in practise on their own do face some risks, having said that very few open the doors to a new firm in pure hope of success, rather they have nurtured and devloped clients/contacts and have obviously made a decision that they can succeed. I don't know, but I would imagine that the statistics show that the percentage of failed firms in their early years are a mere fraction of that of failed BL's.

2. I take your point that it is difficult to be scientific about it. But, don't you think that if there was an additional demand for more barristers that there clearly wouldn't be so many young BL's leaving practise in their first few early years. Also, from speaking with many barristers at all levels of the food chain from devils to SC's none of them have ever expressed the view that there was a need for ever more BL's.

3. I sincerely doubt that claimants will be rejecting PIAB awards in the future in any significant numbers, if anything there will be a huge fall off in those who do reject a PIAB Award. On account of s51A of the PIAB (Amendment) Act 2007, which now means that if an award is accepted by a respondent but refused by a claimant and if that award is not exceeded in the subsequent proceedings or settlement then: a) no award of costs may be made to the claimant , and; b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs againt the claimant. Only the most foolhardy of claimant would be likely to risk having an award of costs made against him by pursuing proceedings in these circumstances.

As regards the EAT and PRTB, I doubt whether any claimant would want to turn their back on the EAT given that it is almost impossible for an employee to lose a claim (and counsel's fees in the EAT aren't going to make them rich €1,000-1,3000). The PRTB does not award legal costs, but some parties still may wish to be represented by a solicitor, but who in their right mind is going to want to be represented by counsel as well as a solicitor, especially given that most residential tenancy disputes are over such relatively small amounts of money e.g wrongful retention of deposit, etc.

4. Don't agree, see no.2 above. Some solicitors walk into this type of work straight after qualification and within 3-4 PQE could easily command €100k+ +bonuses, etc.

5. Redundancy will not end up in the courts. Some claims under the RPA 1967-2007 may end up in the EAT but certainly go no further. Insolvency law is specialised and the same few barristers who specialise in this area will cream off the work. Any increase will not feed down sufficiently to significantly better the lot of the majority of barristers.

Agree that family is a growth area, but as my previous post states, it is inevitable that this will come under attack by some form of ADR in the future. Legal Aid fees will also come under attack at some stage.

A bit naive to suggest that the Government will always protect an impecunious client's, who can't afford to privately retain legal advisors, right to choose their own legal advisors. I certainly don't think that there will be any constitutional issue regarding the establishment of a Public Defender Office of some sort or other. Again, and in any event I would foresee that the Irish Government will probably follow their UK counterparts in attacking legal aid.

6. Perhaps you are right.

7. A fantastic programme, one of my favourites. I even own the the box series! (Sad- I know!). I know plenty of BL's who model themelves on good old Horace Rumpole, but that is as far as the similarities go really.

In relation to the remainder of your points time may well prove you right, but I sincerely doubt it.

PS. Sorry about the length of this post.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

Interesting alternative viewpoint JS and one not often heard amongst members of the professions, but then isn't that what a barrister are trained to do, viz. argue hopeless and lost causes with courage and conviction.

I thought barristers were trained to look learned and aloof, the argument merely being something for them to do in between bouts of dashing about between courts.

dats_right wrote: »

Nonetheless, and whilst I can just about accept a lot of what you say,

Ah-HA. So you admit it then?

dats_right wrote: »

in that although not as likely or probable as my thesis, and you are probably stretching the boundaries of realistic argument/probabilities to their absolute limits, I suppose nobody can ultimately predict the future and perhaps your fanciful and optimistic outlook may transpire in full or in part in the future. I certainly hope that you are right.

So you're giving me the benefit of the doubt eh? On balance, I would have thought my argument (that barrister work is increasing) is more likely, on the basis that during boom times people don't want to spend their money on protracted litigation and the non-litigous aspects of the legal industry prosper. But during a recession (which even the dogs in the street are saying we are heading through at the moment) litigation increases. Bad news for humans, but a glorious era is about to open up for lawyers.

dats_right wrote: »

1. A newly qualifed solicitor in a medium/large firm can expect to earn €55k+ in year 1, not really much of a risk is it?

A lot more life threatening than you might imagine. First of all there is the ever present risk of cramp, and occasionally you might spill scalding coffee on your lap. Plus, if you are an attractive young solicitor (of either gender these days) be wary of lecherous senior partners. Nah, it's not worth it, not for all the tea in China.

dats_right wrote: »

But, I accept your point that a solicitor setting up in practise on their own do face some risks, having said that very few open the doors to a new firm in pure hope of success, rather they have nurtured and devloped clients/contacts and have obviously made a decision that they can succeed. I don't know, but I would imagine that the statistics show that the percentage of failed firms in their early years are a mere fraction of that of failed BL's.

Oh probably, but a solicitor who goes out on their own and fails will be left with massive debts. A failed barrister will invariably get a significant pay rise.

dats_right wrote: »

2. I take your point that it is difficult to be scientific about it. But, don't you think that if there was an additional demand for more barristers that there clearly wouldn't be so many young BL's leaving practise in their first few early years.

I'm sure there are many reasons:
1) Don't like the work
2) Can't do the work
3) Can't handle the stress
4) Never intended it as a serious career anyway (e.g. retiree or independently wealthy person)
5) Better job offer
6) Not prepared to give it their best shot (i.e. hang in there)
7) personal circumstances changed
etc

I think that judging the profession by either the top or the bottom is a serious mistake and both are equally misleading. To get a clearer picture, you would need to look at people who are leaving after they have put in the 4/5 years recommended and see how they are getting on.

dats_right wrote: »

Also, from speaking with many barristers at all levels of the food chain from devils to SC's none of them have ever expressed the view that there was a need for ever more BL's.

Well of course they would, wouldn't they. Turkeys voting for christmas springs to mind.

dats_right wrote: »

3. I sincerely doubt that claimants will be rejecting PIAB awards in the future in any significant numbers, if anything there will be a huge fall off in those who do reject a PIAB Award. On account of s51A of the PIAB (Amendment) Act 2007, which now means that if an award is accepted by a respondent but refused by a claimant and if that award is not exceeded in the subsequent proceedings or settlement then: a) no award of costs may be made to the claimant , and; b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs againt the claimant. Only the most foolhardy of claimant would be likely to risk having an award of costs made against him by pursuing proceedings in these circumstances.

Or, judges will be afraid of not beating the PIAB award and become more generous. The scenario I foresee is this:

Billy: I just got a settlement for my broken arm.
Jack: That's great, what did ya get?
Billy: €10,000.
Jack: Oh. A mate of mine got €15,000 there a few months back for the same thing.
Billy: I wonder why they gave him more than me?
Jack: Well his barrister said that it was worth up to €20,000 but they settled for 15 on the steps of the court.
Billy: Barrister? Judge? Court? I only put in a piece of paper...

And so on. But also, you can always rely on the Irish insurance industry to really mess things up. PIAB is great now, it's saving them a packet (which obviously they are not passing on to customers) but they will get even more greedy in a few years time and put pressure on PIAB (which is their creature after all) to reduce the awards, and they will get to such a point that everyone is challenging them.

dats_right wrote: »

As regards the EAT and PRTB, I doubt whether any claimant would want to turn their back on the EAT given that it is almost impossible for an employee to lose a claim (and counsel's fees in the EAT aren't going to make them rich €1,000-1,3000). The PRTB does not award legal costs, but some parties still may wish to be represented by a solicitor, but who in their right mind is going to want to be represented by counsel as well as a solicitor, especially given that most residential tenancy disputes are over such relatively small amounts of money e.g wrongful retention of deposit, etc.

We're not taking about making barristers rich, we're talking about sustainable levels of work. If there are thousands of cases springing up paying €1,000-€1,300 for a day in court it's well worth it. Do 20 a year and you're flying. As for the PRTB, counsel can appear unattended. Considering that some barristers are doing criminal legal aid work at €30 a day, I'm sure they would love a couple of hundred quid to go off to the PRTB for the afternoon. Again, if you get €300 a pop and do 5 a day you can make €7,500 a week, which is not to be sniffed at by any means.

dats_right wrote: »

4. Don't agree, see no.2 above. Some solicitors walk into this type of work straight after qualification and within 3-4 PQE could easily command €100k+ +bonuses, etc.

Some barristers within 3-4 years could also earn over €100k doing this type of work. But I don't think anyone (unless they are seriously well connected) would believe that they would walk straight into it, in the same way that I don't think the majority of solicitors-in-potentia believe that they will walk straight into these jobs either. A select few will, maybe even as much as 30-40 in any given year, but out of 600 that's not a lot, and is probably equivalent to the 10 or so barristers who walk straight into a massive practise courtsey of their solicitor parents/partner etc.

dats_right wrote: »

5. Redundancy will not end up in the courts. Some claims under the RPA 1967-2007 may end up in the EAT but certainly go no further. Insolvency law is specialised and the same few barristers who specialise in this area will cream off the work. Any increase will not feed down sufficiently to significantly better the lot of the majority of barristers.

Rising tide floats all boats. A percentage of all EAT cases will end up in the labour court like the recent McKenna case, so more work in this area will mean more work in the courts (in addition to more work in the EAT). Also, the really big redundancies are usually litigated by the Trade Unions and they often retain counsel. Again insolvency is specialised but not so specialised that a few dribs and drabs won't float off. While the people who represent the big businesses will no doubt retain the same counsel over and over again, the small companies and petitioners will be more random in their selection. Also, the increase in insolvency will mean these barristers have less time for other work and will therefore leave vacancies in other civil law areas.

dats_right wrote: »

Agree that family is a growth area, but as my previous post states, it is inevitable that this will come under attack by some form of ADR in the future. Legal Aid fees will also come under attack at some stage.

I don't know what ADR is, but if it is alternative dispute resolution, who do you think will be doing the mediation? Besides, where a couple can agree their differences and rationally divide the family assets, they will have done so long before approaching legal advisors. As for legal aid fees, it makes more sense from everyone's point of view to pay lawyers less per case but give them more work in exchange. The lawyers get paid more for more work done, the government saves money, and the waiting times for legal aid are reduced.

dats_right wrote: »

A bit naive to suggest that the Government will always protect an impecunious client's, who can't afford to privately retain legal advisors, right to choose their own legal advisors. I certainly don't think that there will be any constitutional issue regarding the establishment of a Public Defender Office of some sort or other. Again, and in any event I would foresee that the Irish Government will probably follow their UK counterparts in attacking legal aid.

I don't think I said anything of the kind. The right to legal aid is a constitutional right, vigilantly guarded by the courts. That right is not just the right to any old legal representation, but to legal representation of a suitable standard and of the person's choosing. As for the UK attacks on legal aid, lets just see how that all pans out.

dats_right wrote: »

6. Perhaps you are right.

Of course I'm right.

dats_right wrote: »

7. A fantastic programme, one of my favourites. I even own the the box series! (Sad- I know!). I know plenty of BL's who model themelves on good old Horace Rumpole, but that is as far as the similarities go really.

No, it goes further; there are lots of accused persons who model themselves on Tommy Timmson and Peanuts Molloy, and many, many district court judges who model themselves on Judge Bullingham. Also, every episode (or story) of Rumpole discusses an aspect of the legal system, and in my view a good law student will be familiar with all 3 UK legal authorities Archbold, Blackstone and Mortimer.

Marz66

Hi DeV,

I have studied some law subjects at college although didnt go down the legal route so not as knowledgeable as some of the others on the Kings Inns etc.

However, I chose to study law subjects, because similar to you, I like the arguing/debating side of things and thought being a barrister would be interesting.

Law in theory is much more boring (imho). I would recommend reading a few law text books in your local college library e.g. Land Law by Andrew Lyall - Chapter on Fee Simple, E.U. Law by Craig and deBurca - any chapter (!) to see what I mean. There is an awful lot of book learning involved - learning different case names and what happened in each - as has been said, you can cram but its hard. A lot of the marks in exams go for quoting articles where you quote the thoughts of various academics on different topics so I hope you like reading! Of course, while not all law subjects are interesting, maybe you can stay the course for the degree and later specialise in an area you like, I'm not sure how it works.

DeVore wrote: »

Also, its clear to me now that in reality even if you say its hard to change laws, its the legal profession who have the guns in this knife fight

What I took from college is that only the Oireachtas i.e. the government can change laws and only the Irish people, by referendum, can change the Constitution. A barrister must argue his case on the basis of legal principles, past judgements and sometimes academic views but neither him or the judges can actually change the laws - the courts role is just to uphold the law.

Tom Young

Sounds like you got alot from your study of law.

Victor

Marz66 wrote: »

What I took from college is that only the Oireachtas i.e. the government can change laws and only the Irish people, by referendum, can change the Constitution. A barrister must argue his case on the basis of legal principles, past judgements and sometimes academic views but neither him or the judges can actually change the laws - the courts role is just to uphold the law.

They can change the common perception of the law.

Brooke01

DeVore wrote: »

For a while I have entertained the idea of returning to college to change careers and study law in order to work as a barrister.

I have a rudimentary but realistic understanding of the legal system in this country (from being dragged into the wrong end of it ) but I have some questions about the practicalities of training to work in it.


1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?

2. How long will it take?

3. Can I do it at night?

4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?

DeV.

There are two written exams and oral examination in Irish to be completed in the start for your examination at the Kings Inn. the exams in Irish are at higher level Irish at LC

copperdaz

law degree 3years
+kings inn 1 year or 2 years part time


if you already have a degree kings inn diploma 2 years
+full time 1 year or
part time 2 years on top of that.
then....
1 year with a master..


its tough going but you only get one go at life. if your interested than go for it.

study time flys by and you will enjoy it if it is what your into best of luck

Ellechim

Devore, just saw this now - haven't been on boards in a while. Hope you're well. Just interested to know what's your stance on this now? I have a friend who is a barrister, plus someone who trained as a barrister but then chose to go into the corporate world and could put you in touch if you're still interested. (I have friends who are solicitors too btw if you wanted to meet them). One of the benefits of doing arts at UCD was it was the same building as the law students.

The reality is solicitors are the people who know the law and do the nitty gritty - that is solicitors in practise. Solicitors in big corporations play the corporate game like the rest of us. Barristers are the people who represent us poor schmucks in court - my experience of them is that they are excellent negotiators more so than debaters.

Barristers are reliant on referrals for their work: you will earn next to nothing for the first couple of years after qualifying and actually neither here nor in the UK do they send out bills. I have heard of barristers who rarely get paid but make a living by being paid in kind.......

If I recall, one thing I have quoted from you when we were on a quiz team together in a chateau in france a few years ago and pitched against all the physic phd heads 'I know how to run a business which none of these guys do but I won't win a quiz with that kind of knowledge'. Focus on your strengths matey.

If you have the opportunity to back to college go and study something that you absolutely love - do take time to decide what that is and if necessary go and see someone who can help you decide (try this weekend workshop which might help http://www.brianmcivor.com/index.php?page=workshops). I know this guy so don't see him 1:1 without speaking to me first.

If you haven't guessed who I am by now, my husband worked with you and introduced you to the watchers and you took over our flat when we moved out in summer of 2001.

bye for now.........

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

3. I sincerely doubt that claimants will be rejecting PIAB awards in the future in any significant numbers, if anything there will be a huge fall off in those who do reject a PIAB Award. On account of s51A of the PIAB (Amendment) Act 2007, which now means that if an award is accepted by a respondent but refused by a claimant and if that award is not exceeded in the subsequent proceedings or settlement then: a) no award of costs may be made to the claimant , and; b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs againt the claimant. Only the most foolhardy of claimant would be likely to risk having an award of costs made against him by pursuing proceedings in these circumstances.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0717/courts.html

rte news wrote:

There was also a significant increase in the number of personal injuries cases, which included people challenging judgements of the Injuries Board.
New personal injuries cases more than doubled to nearly 6000 cases last year.

Also on primetime right now, link to follow.

_JOE_

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Also on primetime right now, link to follow.

Will tonight's primetime be posted on rte.ie, i only saw the last couple of minutes? I know it's repeated at 4am, but i've no way of recording it...

johnnyskeleton

_JOE_ wrote: »

Will tonight's primetime be posted on rte.ie, i only saw the last couple of minutes? I know it's repeated at 4am, but i've no way of recording it...

Yup, it usually takes a day or two.

Essentially, Law Society representative argues that 60% of clients are rejecting PIAB awards because they are too low. PIAB representative being very defensive.

Highlight for me was when the PIAB woman accepted that 97% of applicants had a solicitor on board at their choice and paid for directly by the client (technically untrue since o'brien but hey). This to me is the biggest indictment of the system. This, plus the number of rejections of low offers suggests that:
1) the system is not trusted by people; and
2) they are right not to trust it as it is run by the insurance companies.

DeVore

I have given this idea a long hard think but I'm not sure I'm ready to commit to 5 years plus a few years devilling. I think Ellechim might be right to stick to what I am good at!

I think a lot of good info was discovered here though so its been a good thread! i'm not saying I'm not but I'm still very much thinking about what to do for the next 5 years

DeV.

dats_right

This survey made me laugh. Sensationalist media strike again. I'd like to clear up a few things, firstly, there has been no increase or meaningful one in the number of personal injuries claims being initiated in this country, as this has for several years remained constant at the 30,000 mark per annum. The reported 700% increase is very misleading because there was a huge spike or more accurately a frenzy in the number of claims initiated in the Courts before PIAB came into effect, so essentially every single case or potential case that solicitors had on their books, including the most hopeless of hopeless, whether it was ready or not was launched in the Courts pre-PIAB. In an obvious attempt by the legal profession to stick with the divil they know, etc. This in turn lead to the situation where for the first six to twelve months of its existence PIAB & its staff were essentially sitting on their backsides with very little to do as every case for the previous three years had been lobbed into the courts, I'm sure the staff of PIAB enjoyed playing solitaire or whatever else they were doing because they sure as hell weren't assessing injury claims!

Gradually of course solicitors were left with no choice as they could no longer go to the Courts first because of the legislation, so all new PI cases had to first go to PIAB, so PIAB slowly began to assess more cases. Obviously because of the above situation the numbers of cases going to PIAB 3-4 years ago was very low, so in turn, because they were dealing with so few cases it follows that there would be a lower than normal number of PIAB cases going before the courts. As time moves on i.e. last couple of years we see that PIAB is dealing with the 30,000 or so cases per annum, which obviously in turn we see a much higher amount going before the courts. This is how the statistics have been manipulated to create a false impression of what is really happening in practice.

Importantly, the Courts Service statistics relate to 2007. The Courts are on vacation from the end of July until the beginning of October. Have you ever tried contacting a barrister during long vacation? Suffice to say that Michael Lynn, Shergar and Lord Lucan would be easier to track down. Why is this important? Because very little if any cases would be initiated in this period and even when term begins in October it’s hectic as everybody is trying to catch up on a couple of months work!

With this in mind let me refer you back to a piece of legislation that I keep harping on about which is and will increasingly continue to have an impact (negatively) on the number of cases going before the Courts. Personal Injuries Assessment Boars (Amendment) Act 2007, section 51A, which provides:
That in respect of any ward of damages made by PIAB which is rejected by a claimant and accepted by a respondent, if that award of damages is not exceeded in subsequent proceedings (ie. Court order or settlement) then: a) No award of costs may be made to the claimant. b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs against the claimant.

Meaning claimants and there lawyers must take enormous finacial risks if they decline a PIAB Award and proceed through the Courts instead. There is absolutely no doubt in the world that the numbers of PI cases coming before the Courts will dramatically decrease as a result of section 51A, save of course somebody successfully challenges this particularly nasty and draconian piece of legislation. And when was this piece of legislation enacted? Let me see, oh yes, it was 11 July 2007!! So we we have not(at least statistically) seen the full effects of it. So JohnnyS, rest assured in twelve or twenty four months I will resurrect and link up this post with statistics from PIAB or the Courts Service and say I told you so.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote:

firstly, there has been no increase or meaningful one in the number of personal injuries claims being initiated in this country, as this has for several years remained constant at the 30,000 mark per annum.

I don't dispute this in general terms. However, going into a recession this number could well increase.

dats_right wrote:

The reported 700% increase is very misleading because there was a huge spike or more accurately a frenzy in the number of claims initiated in the Courts before PIAB came into effect, so essentially every single case or potential case that solicitors had on their books, including the most hopeless of hopeless, whether it was ready or not was launched in the Courts pre-PIAB. In an obvious attempt by the legal profession to stick with the divil they know, etc. This in turn lead to the situation where for the first six to twelve months of its existence PIAB & its staff were essentially sitting on their backsides with very little to do as every case for the previous three years had been lobbed into the courts, I'm sure the staff of PIAB enjoyed playing solitaire or whatever else they were doing because they sure as hell weren't assessing injury claims!

Again I agree, but that was my point: it only seemed like there was a significant drop, but it was just a case of adjusting to the new regime. So, for the last few years it has been said that all the PI work has dried up, but that's not the case, it was simply delayed a few years to go through PIAB. I would also say that it wasn't touted as a 700% increase that I could see (that surely would be sensationalist). But the point is that the cases are returning, to the tune of perhaps 50-60% of what they were pre-PIAB.

dats_right wrote:

Gradually of course solicitors were left with no choice as they could no longer go to the Courts first because of the legislation, so all new PI cases had to first go to PIAB, so PIAB slowly began to assess more cases. Obviously because of the above situation the numbers of cases going to PIAB 3-4 years ago was very low, so in turn, because they were dealing with so few cases it follows that there would be a lower than normal number of PIAB cases going before the courts. As time moves on i.e. last couple of years we see that PIAB is dealing with the 30,000 or so cases per annum, which obviously in turn we see a much higher amount going before the courts. This is how the statistics have been manipulated to create a false impression of what is really happening in practice.

Are you accusing me of manipulating the statistics? Because that's simply not true. My point was always that the numbers, though down, were steadily increasing. It is unlikely that they will return to the peak days of 1996-2003, but it is certainly wrong to say that there is little PI work left when there is a lot of it (albeit not as much).

dats_right wrote:

Importantly, the Courts Service statistics relate to 2007. The Courts are on vacation from the end of July until the beginning of October. Have you ever tried contacting a barrister during long vacation? Suffice to say that Michael Lynn, Shergar and Lord Lucan would be easier to track down. Why is this important? Because very little if any cases would be initiated in this period and even when term begins in October it’s hectic as everybody is trying to catch up on a couple of months work!

I don't quite see your point here. By the way, 1300 plenary cases were issued in august and september, 2007 which is slightly lower than the average monthly rate of approx 807 in 2007.

dats_right wrote:

With this in mind let me refer you back to a piece of legislation that I keep harping on about which is and will increasingly continue to have an impact (negatively) on the number of cases going before the Courts. Personal Injuries Assessment Boars (Amendment) Act 2007, section 51A, which provides:
That in respect of any ward of damages made by PIAB which is rejected by a claimant and accepted by a respondent, if that award of damages is not exceeded in subsequent proceedings (ie. Court order or settlement) then: a) No award of costs may be made to the claimant. b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs against the claimant.

If you keep harping on about that then I reserve the right to keep harping on about somethings that are not found in the oireachtas website:


1) when people take personal injury claims there is always a costs risk. Yet they proceed anyway. Every person who takes a claim is advised by their solicitor that they bear this costs risk if unsuccessful, and every solicitor will advise their client that if they reject a PIAB award and don't meet the award in court, they will have to pay their solicitor's costs. Solicitors will often take this on the chin, so this risk is usually far from a client's mind


2) the vast majority of cases that go to court settle with costs. The PIAB lady on primetime made this point and essentially it is true. Therefore, the risk for costs only arises if the case is to run, not if it is to settle.


3) a lot of insurance companies simply don't bother seeking to enforce orders for costs. A lot of the people who make PI claims are not very well off, and on a cost benefit analysis it is more economical to simply leave them be.


4) the courts usually do grant a higher award than PIAB (more on this later).

dats_right wrote:

Meaning claimants and there lawyers must take enormous finacial risks if they decline a PIAB Award and proceed through the Courts instead. There is absolutely no doubt in the world that the numbers of PI cases coming before the Courts will dramatically decrease as a result of section 51A, save of course somebody successfully challenges this particularly nasty and draconian piece of legislation. And when was this piece of legislation enacted? Let me see, oh yes, it was 11 July 2007!! So we we have not(at least statistically) seen the full effects of it. So JohnnyS, rest assured in twelve or twenty four months I will resurrect and link up this post with statistics from PIAB or the Courts Service and say I told you so.

As staed above, I don't accept that the new act will have as significant an effect on claims as it is intended to do. That said, it's very unfair (as is all of PIAB) and a constitutional challenge would be very interesting (if unlikely to succeed). What is noteworthy about the new act is that they slipped in it at the end of the oireachtas term, at a time of low numbers. One of the only people to speak against it was Deputy Creighton, but she was heavily (and unfairly) criticised as being looking after the interests of the legal profession only.


I would be absolutely delighted to hear from you in 12 or 24 months time on this point as it will be interesting to see how things pan out. I don't have a crystal ball, so I will refrain from saying that you will be wrong. But for now, what I will say is this:


A) There are a lot of cases that PIAB can't or wont deal with - med neg, mental injury, high value cases, contested liability, cases involving approtionment of liability or contributory negligence, etc which will always go to the courts.


The PIAB book of quantum was published in 2004 and has not been updated for inflation. This was perhaps deliberate to allow them to slowly reduce the awards in real terms, but it means that PIAB will be assessing a claim at approximately 10-15% lower in real terms, and with an inflation rate of 5% or higher (which we have at the moment) in 2 years time PIAB awards will be too low.


C) PIAB will usually overvalue the small and dodgy claims (i.e. minor whiplash, sprained ankle etc) and they usually undervalue the major claims. Thus, the cases that PIAB are giving generous awards in are the ones that traditionally never went to court (or went to the District Court) and the ones in which they are giving unsatisfactory awards are the major High Court cases.


D) This is not the first media report critical of PIAB - there have been several and I think word of mouth is spreading that they give lesser awards. Although people will express a general dislike for lawyers, in particular they trust their solicitors and barristers far more than a creature of the insurance lobby, and so I don't think there is much trust in the PIAB system


E) The insurance companies themselves are going to become sceptical of PIAB. On a macro level PIAB is good for insurance (they have made bumper profits since its inception, which curiously haven't been passed onto consumers), but on a case specific level, the insurance companies don't want to simply give money away, so other than in obvious cases, they will often be unhappy with the fact that in PIAB they cannot contest liability or question whether the injuries are genuine or not. Thus, the insurance companies IMO will ultimately contribute to the demise of PIAB.


F) A lot of cases are simply not ready to be assessed after 2.5 years. If you think of the long term effects of a serious injury, the outcome is not yet known, and PIAB awards do not adequately account for likely future complications in the way the courts do (i.e. increased liklihood of arthritis).


G) The PDs are no longer in power. PIAB was a concession to them by the government in exchange for their support. However, with the party reduced to 2 farily unpopular TDs, there is no longer the political will behind PIAB.


H) Ultimately there is a reason why personal injuries cases came before the courts and required legal advisers - because they involve complicated issues of liability, a subjective assessement of the injuries, awards appropriate to circumstance and because a lot of the time people want their day in court. The courts were a public system and could be seen to be working / not working as appropriate. I just don't think that PIAB can simply whitewash the area of personal injury litigation and survive.


I) It's curious that other jurisdictions haven't followed suit. I would suggest that is because the outcome is uncertain, possibly highly doubtful, and they want to see if PIAB survives before considering a similar system. That, or they actually believe in Justice and access to the courts.

dats_right

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't dispute this in general terms. However, going into a recession this number could well increase.

Agreed, in so far as PI cases generally being brought as distinct from those reaching Court.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you accusing me of manipulating the statistics? Because that's simply not true. My point was always that the numbers, though down, were steadily increasing. It is unlikely that they will return to the peak days of 1996-2003, but it is certainly wrong to say that there is little PI work left when there is a lot of it (albeit not as much).

No not you, I'm accusing the media. The 700% was a figure I heard being thrown around in the media yesterday, I think it refers from 3-4 years ago until this report.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't quite see your point here.

Point was that as there is not that much activity between July-October that new legislative provision wouldn't have had much impact on these figures.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you keep harping on about that then I reserve the right to keep harping on about somethings that are not found in the oireachtas website:

I was quoting from materials provided to me by the Law Society, I was unaware that the information was sourced from the Oireachtas website.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) when people take personal injury claims there is always a costs risk. Yet they proceed anyway. Every person who takes a claim is advised by their solicitor that they bear this costs risk if unsuccessful, and every solicitor will advise their client that if they reject a PIAB award and don't meet the award in court, they will have to pay their solicitor's costs. Solicitors will often take this on the chin, so this risk is usually far from a client's mind
2) the vast majority of cases that go to court settle with costs. The PIAB lady on primetime made this point and essentially it is true. Therefore, the risk for costs only arises if the case is to run, not if it is to settle.
3) a lot of insurance companies simply don't bother seeking to enforce orders for costs. A lot of the people who make PI claims are not very well off, and on a cost benefit analysis it is more economical to simply leave them be.

Don't be fooled- the goalposts have moved! Yes, there has always been risks but only when you lost or have brought a case in the wrong Court (eg. minor whip-lash worth€10k in the High Court), solicitors have traditionally been happy enough to proceed on the basis that once they received some amount of compensation that they would be also awarded costs. Whereas now even if a claimant wins their case in court, unless they beat the PIAB award they will at the very least have to pay their own legal costs and potentially the respondents too. There is no escaping that the risks are much greater now whatever way you look at it.

So a solicitor will be faced with a dilemma; their client is awarded say €20k by PIAB, but the solicitor feels that in his experience, on a good day, the case is worth say €25K-€30k, but equally knows that if his client fails to perform in the box or you get the wrong judge or any one of million other things that commonly occur in litigation happen then an award below €20k is a possibility. How can a solicitor advise his client to reject and proceed to the courts?

I can see it now, Solicitor: "Congratulations Mr. Plaintiff you've won your case and the judge has awarded you €19,500, I'm sorry but the judge really preferred Dr X's report over that of Dr. Y's. Now the good news is that the Judge hasn't awarded costs against you as he is entitled, but unfortunately, in the circumstances he cannot under law award costs in your favour, which means you are responsible for your own legal costs (incl. Medical Reports, Engineer's Reports, Etc.). And whilst your legal costs are in excess of the award, I'm glad to say I won't be pursuing you for the difference".

Mr Plaintiff: " Have you got the telephone number for the Law Society please? Oh and do you have Professional Indemnity Insurance?"

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

4) the courts usually do grant a higher award than PIAB (more on this later).

That's nice, and I tend to just about agree, but can I advise a client on this basis to run all the above risks?!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As staed above, I don't accept that the new act will have as significant an effect on claims as it is intended to do.

Time will tell.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That said, it's very unfair (as is all of PIAB) and a constitutional challenge would be very interesting (if unlikely to succeed).

Agreed. Although the fact that it is mandatory and no discretion is left to a judge in an individual case means that a challenge is inevitable and I wouldn't necessarily be as pessimistic as you.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A) There are a lot of cases that PIAB can't or wont deal with - med neg, mental injury, high value cases, contested liability, cases involving approtionment of liability or contributory negligence, etc which will always go to the courts.

The PIAB book of quantum was published in 2004 and has not been updated for inflation. This was perhaps deliberate to allow them to slowly reduce the awards in real terms, but it means that PIAB will be assessing a claim at approximately 10-15% lower in real terms, and with an inflation rate of 5% or higher (which we have at the moment) in 2 years time PIAB awards will be too low.

C) PIAB will usually overvalue the small and dodgy claims (i.e. minor whiplash, sprained ankle etc) and they usually undervalue the major claims. Thus, the cases that PIAB are giving generous awards in are the ones that traditionally never went to court (or went to the District Court) and the ones in which they are giving unsatisfactory awards are the major High Court cases.

D) This is not the first media report critical of PIAB - there have been several and I think word of mouth is spreading that they give lesser awards. Although people will express a general dislike for lawyers, in particular they trust their solicitors and barristers far more than a creature of the insurance lobby, and so I don't think there is much trust in the PIAB system

E) The insurance companies themselves are going to become sceptical of PIAB. On a macro level PIAB is good for insurance (they have made bumper profits since its inception, which curiously haven't been passed onto consumers), but on a case specific level, the insurance companies don't want to simply give money away, so other than in obvious cases, they will often be unhappy with the fact that in PIAB they cannot contest liability or question whether the injuries are genuine or not. Thus, the insurance companies IMO will ultimately contribute to the demise of PIAB.

F) A lot of cases are simply not ready to be assessed after 2.5 years. If you think of the long term effects of a serious injury, the outcome is not yet known, and PIAB awards do not adequately account for likely future complications in the way the courts do (i.e. increased liklihood of arthritis).

G) The PDs are no longer in power. PIAB was a concession to them by the government in exchange for their support. However, with the party reduced to 2 farily unpopular TDs, there is no longer the political will behind PIAB.

H) Ultimately there is a reason why personal injuries cases came before the courts and required legal advisers - because they involve complicated issues of liability, a subjective assessement of the injuries, awards appropriate to circumstance and because a lot of the time people want their day in court. The courts were a public system and could be seen to be working / not working as appropriate. I just don't think that PIAB can simply whitewash the area of personal injury litigation and survive.

I) It's curious that other jurisdictions haven't followed suit. I would suggest that is because the outcome is uncertain, possibly highly doubtful, and they want to see if PIAB survives before considering a similar system. That, or they actually believe in Justice and access to the courts.

The majority of what you say makes sense and I agree with you, but just not enough to think that PI cases coming before the courts will increase, rather I think we will see a marked decline in cases were the award is rejected reaching the Courts. Of course, you are right when you outline the various types of cases that PIAB are ill-equipped and won't deal with such as disputed liability, medical negligence, etc. and these will continue to reach the Courts. But, it is the run of the mill PI case were an award is made (i think about 2/3rd's of them)that will not reach the Courts anymore as claimants won't want to run the risks of the new regime.

Goodluck2me

Tom, why don't you do the FE1's and become a solicitor. Solicitors have a right of advocacy up to the Circuit court (may be district court) and that way you ave 2 years of a conversion course, and can do all the things a barrister could do at local level. And tbh, its unlikley you would be working in the Supreme court any time soon evne as a qualified barrister.

dats_right

goodluck2me wrote: »

Solicitors have a right of advocacy up to the Circuit court (may be district court) .

This is incorrect. Solicitors have full rights of audience right up to and including the Supreme Court. However, very few solicitors choose to exercise their rights as a matter of practice and there are sound reasons for not doing so, but there have been a few notable exceptions, the obvious one, I'm thinking a certain well-known family lawyer, politician and textbook author.

goodluck2me wrote: »

and that way you ave 2 years of a conversion course, and can do all the things a barrister could do at local level. And tbh, its unlikley you would be working in the Supreme court any time soon even as a qualified barrister.

For the most part the two jobs, whilst having obvious parallels, are completely different. I would not recommend becoming a solicitor if you intend becoming a barrister. Secondly, solicitors do not have to do a conversion course per se. AFAIK, solicitors must seek to have their names removed from the Roll of Solicitors, do a few exams (not the full degree course) & of course devil for the requisite time.

Goodluck2me

dats_right wrote: »

This is incorrect. Solicitors have full rights of audience right up to and including the Supreme Court.

Sorry it was that they just dont rather than can't.

fliptzer

Hi all,
Thanks for advice earlier, I’ve done a lot of soul searching and spoke to a few barristers, all of whom said don’t bother as it’s impossible to live off thin air for a few years.

I’m doing the diploma in Kings Inns this Sept and would like to know once I’ve done the two years and passed them both is it possible to then become a solicitor instead of a barrister?

If so, what is involved?

PS: The link on the Law Society’s website on “How to become a solicitor” isn’t working and results in a blank page.

impr0v

If you've got a degree already you'd be better off studying for and doing the FE1s now, rather than wasting your time and money on the diploma. It's a decent course, but it won't count for anything if you want to be a solicitor.

There are 8 FE1s to do and they're held twice a year I think. You can sit all 8 at once but you must pass 3 in the first sitting and they're allegedly quite hard (see the FE1 thread).

The law soc link is working for me now, this is a general outline of the process:

* Pass the Preliminary Examination or receive an exemption from it
* Pass the Final Examination - First Part (FE-1)
* Secure a training contract
* Attend the PPC I and pass the course examinations
* Spend a period of 11 months as a trainee solicitor in the training solicitor's office
* Attend the PPC II and pass the course examinations
* Serve the remainder of the two year term of apprenticeship following completion of the PPC II

Training contracts are also allegedly very hard to secure at the moment, so don't necessarily expect the above process to flow smoothly.

If you do the diploma in the King's Inns you won't bypass any of the above steps. You can carry on and do the KI degree after the diploma and try and get work in a solicitor's firm on the back of that qualification, with or without being called to the bar. It depends on the hiring criteria of the individual firms and whether you have past experience in other fields as to whether you'll be successful. You'll need to convert to being a solicitor if you want to reach partnership level and you can do that after 3 years of working for a firm if you've been called to the bar (there are some other requirements, see the law soc website for full details).

Tom Young

Last posted is correct. Dip in Legal Studies at the KI is excellent but doubling up unnecessary.

Tom

fliptzer

Ok, even more confused now..
I've a degree in business studies and marketing....
So...
I Do the 2 yr diploma in Kings Inns so I learn the basics and pass the exams (get the diploma), then if I want to become a barrister stay onto the next year
Or...
Get diploma with Kings Inn and then If I want to be a solicitor take the FE1 exams and get a training contract, attend PC1 etc....
Or...
Don’t bother with the diploma, study for the FE1’s by applying to a collage now to learn about law (don’t have a legal background so would be starting from scratch and would need advice on good places)...
Does this sound right or is there an easier way?
Thanks

Tom Young

If you want to be a Barrister take the Diploma in Legal Studies provided by the Honorable Society of King's Inns. The Dip will allow you sit the BL entrance exam and hey presto, you can wear a wig.

If you want to be a Solicitor, apply and do the FE1's.

Simple as that.

I think you've bottomed out the options from the various answers people have provided in the above posts.

Tom