Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

looking4advice

Hi all. I am a trainee Solicitor and am due to qualify in December '08. I would like to hear other trainees views on the fact that there will be probably very few jobs when we do qualify. I know a lot of you will have little sympathy for lawyers (who does?!) but I am really annoyed at the way the Law Society have handled the numbers qualifying.

I think a in '03 there was about 250 qualifying which was fine. Now there is 3 times that! The Law Society are obviously afraid of what the Competition Authority will do if they limit the numbers. I think the Law Society were quoted as saying re numbers qualifying "it is our job to educate not to regulate the numbers" which is total bullsh*t.

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's. i know the FE1's are tough but a lot of people can pass 8 exams in 10 seperate sittings. I met a lot of non BCL people in Blackhall and they really don't understand the basics of law.

Sorry for the rant but I'd like to hear other trainees views.

Amazotheamazing

Depends, we're facing an interesting time. Look around your class, I'll be surprised if half of them are working in law in 7 or 8 years time.

However, if you are good at what you do, there will always be work for good, professional solicitors.

It's not just due to the drop off in conveyancing either, no industry could expand to the extent the legal profession has in recent years. If it's any consolation, we'll be joining barristers on the dole queue too. I know a few recently qualified ones and it's just a grim a vista for them as it is for us.

ronnie3585

looking4advice wrote: »

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's. i know the FE1's are tough but a lot of people can pass 8 exams in 10 seperate sittings. I met a lot of non BCL people in Blackhall and they really don't understand the basics of law.

I agree with you on this point 110%. This is one of my biggest gripes with the FE1s and indeed the Law Society. Why did I slog my guts out in school to get the points to go to University and study law and then slog my guts out for another four years to get my degree when it means absolutely nothing to the Law Society. I'm not looking down my nose by any means at people without law degrees however my degree should have entitled me to something when it came to doing my FE1s ie less subjects to do or a lower pass mark - in other words my degree should have afforded me some advantage over those that didn't have a degree. In any other country a law degree is required before you can sit professional exams or enroll in a similar Professional Practice course. It's basic common sense.

There is one simple reason why the situation is the way it is - the Law Society's unbelievable greed for money. I have never in my life come across a so called regulatory body who takes so much from their members and leaves them so much on their own at the same time. Allowing non-law students to sit the FE1s in very simple terms means more bums on seats in the RDS every April and October and accordingly more money rolling into the Law Society's bank account. The Law Society make money hand over fist with the FE1s and its not like they are going to stop any time soon.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

It's not just due to the drop off in conveyancing either, no industry could expand to the extent the legal profession has in recent years. If it's any consolation, we'll be joining barristers on the dole queue too. I know a few recently qualified ones and it's just a grim a vista for them as it is for us.

I think you're absolutely right. It is a simple supply and demand problem. The supply of newly qualified solicitors now greatly exceeds the demand. The current economic downturn has only served to exacerbate this problem - not cause it.

Amazotheamazing

For the record, I have a law degree, but I don't see the problem being people who don't have law degrees. All the main universities have fairly large legal departments now, in addition to Legal Sciences/Arts etc. The numbers doing law degrees of some sort has risen hugely.

The problem is there was a huge jump in numbers attending the courses and at some point the numbers were going to work through the system. The FE1's put a temporary break on the system, they didn't cause the overcrowding.

elgransenor

That is the most pathetic,contradictory,self serving rant I have read in a long time.
Welcome to the real world.

Amazotheamazing

elgransenor wrote: »

That is the most pathetic,contradictory,self serving rant I have read in a long time.
Welcome to the real world.

What a helpful and insightful post.

The fact is the Law Society have seen this moment coming for a long time, but much like the collapse of conveyancing, they haven't really got a plan B.

Jimi-Spandex

elgransenor wrote: »

That is the most pathetic,contradictory,self serving rant I have read in a long time.
Welcome to the real world.

I have to agree with the sentiment of this post if not the tone. The job market will regulate itself and for the most part the better solicitors will get the available jobs. The rest will have to find other jobs. The law society does not owe you a career.

Amazotheamazing

Jimi-Spandex wrote: »

I have to agree with the sentiment of this post if not the tone. The job market will regulate itself and for the most part the better solicitors will get the available jobs. The rest will have to find other jobs. The law society does not owe you a career.

Who's saying it does? Like I said, there will always be work for good, professional solicitors and barristers. That doesn't make the current situation any less annoying if you're the nervous type though. Like i said, it will be interesting.

Every profession, to some extent, places barriers to entry, the OP is simply asking is stronger barriers might be necessary.

dats_right

elgransenor wrote: »

That is the most pathetic,contradictory,self serving rant I have read in a long time.
Welcome to the real world.

+1

I am also a trainee (law graduate) and think that attitudes expressed by certain posters that somehow the world owes one a living because one got 500+ points in one's leaving certificate is childish.

Many, many of the best and most succesful solicitors, barristers and judges never studied law at university and excelled in the profession. It is narrow minded to think that graduates from other disciplines are somehow less deserving of being solicitors than law graduates. The skills, experience and knowledge that they bring is without doubt a benefit to the profession. Regardless, in my opinion, I don't see that possessing a law degree is that big a benefit to practising law anyway, as I'm sure we are all aware that academic law at university is totally different than the reality of practice.

Of course we are all worried about the future (and indeed the numbers qualifying) but the answer isn't quotas and restrictions. Besides, as with all things the cream will always float to the top, so if people are as bright and capable as they think they are then they will have absolutely no difficulties securing suitable and quality employment. The perceived threat from less intelligent and capable colleagues is therefore not significant and can easily be discounted by the more capable.


The whole nepotism thing is equally an old argument(often used to justify failure) and really doesn't hold up to scrutiny, well perhaps other than some small practices, (but C'est la vie and in any event there isn't too many entirely meritocratic professions/industries/careers in this or any other country anyway), but at the end of the day law firms are primarily businesses and exist to make profit- so therefore will generally speaking employ the best available talent.

We should stop feeling sorry for ourselves and forget any notions that the world at large or the law society owe us anything and prepare ourselves for tough times. There is no doubting that it's not ideal at the moment for trainees/newly qualifieds, but lest not forget we are a privileged bunch, we are highly educated with professional qualifcations. It could be a lot, lot worse!

ronnie3585

I don't think any of the above posters including myself were suggesting for one minute that the Law Society 'owes us a career', far from it - I don't think any regulatory body of any profession owes any member a career. It is what you make of it yourself.

The point I was trying to convey is that the dog on the street could have foreseen the situation that trainees and newly qualifieds are facing now. The Law Society have chosen to close their eyes and ears to this problem accepting more and more students to do the FE1s and the PPC1 course every year and at the same time increasing fees across the board. Their statement that it their job only to educate us and not to regulate the figures really sums up their position.

I was certainly not suggesting that a person from a non law background would be any less of a solicitor than someone with a law degree. I would actually go as far to say that a law degree has very little practical application in respect of the job. Some of the better solicitors and barrister I know do not have a law degree. The point I was making is that a law degree should entitle a candidate in a more favourable position with regard to the FE1s, which are themselves purely an exercise in academic knowledge. Many of us have spent 3/4/5 years in university studying law and the bottom line is that the work put in in those years is essentially worthless when it comes to doing the FE1s.

Amazotheamazing

dats_right wrote: »

+1

I am also a trainee (law graduate) and think that attitudes expressed by certain posters that somehow the world owes one a living because one got 500+ points in one's leaving certificate is childish.

Many, many of the best and most succesful solicitors, barristers and judges never studied law at university and excelled in the profession. It is narrow minded to think that graduates from other disciplines are somehow less deserving of being solicitors than law graduates. The skills, experience and knowledge that they bring is without doubt a benefit to the profession. Regardless, in my opinion, I don't see that possessing a law degree is that big a benefit to practising law anyway, as I'm sure we are all aware that academic law at university is totally different than the reality of practice.

Of course we are all worried about the future (and indeed the numbers qualifying) but the answer isn't quotas and restrictions. Besides, as with all things the cream will always float to the top, so if people are as bright and capable as they think they are then they will have absolutely no difficulties securing suitable and quality employment. The perceived threat from less intelligent and capable colleagues is therefore not significant and can easily be discounted by the more capable.


The whole nepotism thing is equally an old argument(often used to justify failure) and really doesn't hold up to scrutiny, well perhaps other than some small practices, (but C'est la vie and in any event there isn't too many entirely meritocratic professions/industries/careers in this or any other country anyway), but at the end of the day law firms are primarily businesses and exist to make profit- so therefore will generally speaking employ the best available talent.

We should stop feeling sorry for ourselves and forget any notions that the world at large or the law society owe us anything and prepare ourselves for tough times. There is no doubting that it's not ideal at the moment for trainees/newly qualifieds, but lest not forget we are a privileged bunch, we are highly educated with professional qualifcations. It could be a lot, lot worse!

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but at the same time, the Law Society and the Law School in Blackhall, are currently doing a poor job at regulating the numbers qualifying, imo. The FE1's are far too easy to pass, as are the FE2's (again imo)

Even worse, i suspect they are poorly training the current students (I think we're all current students?) to enter a wildly changing professional environment. The most important relationship a solicitor will have is with his clients, but client care is relegated to a minor section of the blackhall training programme. The course is poorly structured, poorly taught and subsequently poorly attended. People are leaving the place with a negligible insight into what work as a solicitor is like.

Imo, all students should have to work in their office for a year prior to ever entering blackhall, for example.

ronnie3585

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Even worse, i suspect they are poorly training the current students (I think we're all current students?) to enter a wildly changing professional environment. The most important relationship a solicitor will have is with his clients, but client care is relegated to a minor section of the blackhall training programme. The course is poorly structured, poorly taught and subsequently poorly attended. People are leaving the place with a negligible insight into what work as a solicitor is like.

Spot on. I have yet to meet a trainee who hasn't been left with a sour taste of the Law Society after attending Blackhall. Case in point being those in PPC2 who missed days of the PPCM course had to go back to Blackhall this week to attend lectures and tutorials despite the fact that they had already taken the exam. For the pleasure of attending - €100 a day. I know that the Law Society are trying to enforce a strict attendance policy however this seems to be bureaucracy taken a step too far.

Imo, all students should have to work in their office for a year prior to ever entering blackhall, for example.

This should really be a mandatory requirement. Take conveyancing for example. If you come straight from college/FE1s into the conveyancing course, even the brightest amongst us would struggle. Basic terminologies and documents etc are double dutch to someone who has no practical experience of it.

Dandelion6

ronnie3585 wrote: »

In any other country a law degree is required before you can sit professional exams or enroll in a similar Professional Practice course.

Incorrect.

elgransenor

looking4advice wrote: »

Hi all. I am a trainee Solicitor and am due to qualify in December '08. I would like to hear other trainees views on the fact that there will be probably very few jobs when we do qualify. I know a lot of you will have little sympathy for lawyers (who does?!) but I am really annoyed at the way the Law Society have handled the numbers qualifying.

I think a in '03 there was about 250 qualifying which was fine. Now there is 3 times that! The Law Society are obviously afraid of what the Competition Authority will do if they limit the numbers. I think the Law Society were quoted as saying re numbers qualifying "it is our job to educate not to regulate the numbers" which is total bullsh*t.

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's. i know the FE1's are tough but a lot of people can pass 8 exams in 10 seperate sittings. I met a lot of non BCL people in Blackhall and they really don't understand the basics of law.

Sorry for the rant but I'd like to hear other trainees views.

If they held the numbers at 250 as you seem to suggest how do you know you would be qualifying in Dec 08?

The people in Blackhall who you have met who don't understand the basics of law as you suggest probably have a better understanding of anti competitive practices, competition law, laws relating to abuse of power by monopolies etc which you seem to be happy to set aside when your self interest is threatened.

The law society allow people to qualify if they can obtain an apprenticeship and pass the FE1s; sounds pretty fair to me.
I accepted this offer unconditionally, not 'Ok thanks, but don't make that offer to other people ie the great unwashed' because I don't want to compete and like the cosy situation as it was 20 years ago.

Some people reading your post may take the view(me certainly) that if you are the competition,'' bring it on''.

Let me make clear that I have no connections in the proffession but am delighted to have the opportunity to pursue a career in law as a result of the Law Society(with the sword of Damocles of Competition Authority hanging over them)

Amazotheamazing

elgransenor wrote: »

If they held the numbers at 250 as you seem to suggest how do you know you would be qualifying in Dec 08?

The people in Blackhall who you have met who don't understand the basics of law as you suggest probably have a better understanding of anti competitive practices, competition law, laws relating to abuse of power by monopolies etc which you seem to be happy to set aside when your self interest is threatened.

The law society allow people to qualify if they can obtain an apprenticeship and pass the FE1s; sounds pretty fair to me.
I accepted this offer unconditionally, not 'Ok thanks, but don't make that offer to other people ie the great unwashed' because I don't want to compete and like the cosy situation as it was 20 years ago.

Some people reading your post may take the view(me certainly) that if you are the competition,'' bring it on''.

Let me make clear that I have no connections in the proffession but am delighted to have the opportunity to pursue a career in law as a result of the Law Society(with the sword of Damocles of Competition Authority hanging over them)

Or you could read the OP's post and realise he has raised valid concerns of the relatively easiness of the FE1's and the poor structure of the qualifying process. It's nothing to do with anti-competitiveness. I genuinely believe the quality of the education learned through the FE's and blackhall is currently close to worthless. Every trainee I know has only learned anything worthwhile in the office.

nuac

I understand that the Law Society cannot restrict the number of entrants to solicitors profession, either directly, by applying higher standards for passing examinations - Gilmore was one of the cases where the Law Society was so told by the High Court.

Many students, and their fond Mammas think that law is lucrative. The tribunals have fosted this impression. Not so. Check on how many lawyers' children are doing other things and go figure.

ronnie3585

nuac wrote: »

IGilmore was one of the cases where the Law Society was so told by the High Court.

Could you elabourate please? Is there a judgement?

nuac

In reply to query there have been a number of decided cases re entry to solicitors profession. Haven't the references to hand. Gilmore is the only Plaintiffs name I can remember.

hada

if you do a quick search of the irish times online database (irishtimes.com) you'll find articles on the various cases brought against the Law Society re entrance requirements, etc..

johnnyskeleton

looking4advice wrote: »

I would like to hear other trainees views on the fact that there will be probably very few jobs when we do qualify.

You don't have to work for someone, you can set up your own practice if you like.

hada

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You don't have to work for someone, you can set up your own practice if you like.

in an already flooded marketplace?

anyway, being the type of person I am, I'm quite optimistic about things. People need lawyers, whether it's in conveyancing, IP, media, etc - if you're good enough, you'll make it. Simple as it is. If you aren't - find another avenue of law and make it your own - lecturing, journalism, tax, and stop bitching about it.

and as a by the way, we could be far worse off. Take a look at anyone who has qualified in nursing/speech and language therapy/OT/Physio this year - a week before they finished their lectures a rep from the HSE came into one of the final year nursing class's lectures in NUIG and told them as bluntly as possible: Go home to your parents, get a job in a local shop and keep it. We have no jobs for you. And that's after four years of college.

johnnyskeleton

hada wrote: »

in an already flooded marketplace?

See dats_rite's comments above. Going out on your own is a great opportunity for the cream to rise to the top. Also, who is to say the marketplace is flooded? The job market for newly qualified solicitors might be flooded (increased supply drop in demand), but people will still need lawyers, and if you market yourself towards the areas which are growing at the moment (crime, family, financial difficulties problems) you could do very well for yourself. Or you could fail miserably, but at least you do it on your own terms and you are not reliant on a big firm coming and offering you a job.

brayblue24

Sure can't ya always just join the Guards?

ronnie3585

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You don't have to work for someone, you can set up your own practice if you like.

Do you not have to have a practicing cert for 5 years before setting up on your own?

hada

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Do you not have to have a practicing cert for 5 years before setting up on your own?

not 100% on this, but think you may be correct.

and in reply to johnny's point: the marketplace IS flooded. Every corner you turn now you have some sort of practice advocating the same services: PIAB, Employment, Divorce, Probate. The chances are (and I'm talking serious chances stacked against you) is that you, as a NQ Solicitor would get little or no profit and would be forced to go out of business due to "brand loyalty" in the form of people having already chosen their solicitors.

However what I think you might be alluding to a more specialised form of practice: i.e. media law, IP whatever. In this case, one's best bet is to get a worldclass masters in that area of law, from say, Oxbridge/Harvard etc, get a lot of good experience which builds up your name, and then open up your own private consultancy business. I know of one women in my town who has done so in the area of media law - and by god is she raking it in.

johnnyskeleton

hada wrote: »

not 100% on this, but think you may be correct.

I know a number of solicitors who, as soon as they finished their traning contract, set up on their own. It would be a serious restriction in the marketplace if you couldn't set up on your own once you are qualified.

hada wrote: »

and in reply to johnny's point: the marketplace IS flooded. Every corner you turn now you have some sort of practice advocating the same services: PIAB, Employment, Divorce, Probate. The chances are (and I'm talking serious chances stacked against you) is that you, as a NQ Solicitor would get little or no profit and would be forced to go out of business due to "brand loyalty" in the form of people having already chosen their solicitors.

That's the same risk that faces every barrister, nay every successful business man. Most of the top solicitors went out and did it on their own, many after only a few years experience.

hada wrote: »

However what I think you might be alluding to a more specialised form of practice: i.e. media law, IP whatever. In this case, one's best bet is to get a worldclass masters in that area of law, from say, Oxbridge/Harvard etc, get a lot of good experience which builds up your name, and then open up your own private consultancy business. I know of one women in my town who has done so in the area of media law - and by god is she raking it in.

No, quite the opposite. As a lawyer you trade off your name, and while you can build up a bit of a reputation while working for someone, the best way to get your name known is to get out there as the principle of your own firm. Outside of Dublin it seems to be a lot more common to have sole practitioners, but that is not to say that it can't be done in Dublin too.

ronnie3585

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I know a number of solicitors who, as soon as they finished their traning contract, set up on their own. It would be a serious restriction in the marketplace if you couldn't set up on your own once you are qualified.

A serious restriction on the market place? How about a serious protection of the market place. 99% of newly qualified solicitors are extremely green, even those that have had a lot of pre PPC experience. I'm nearly certain that you need to hold a practicing cert for at least four years before you can establish your own practice. It would be a HUGE step for a trainee to go from training in the office under the supervision of their master working with other solicitors to having their own practice with all that responsibility (and liability) after only 24 months experience. I know what solicitor I would rather have working for me.

No, quite the opposite. As a lawyer you trade off your name, and while you can build up a bit of a reputation while working for someone, the best way to get your name known is to get out there as the principle of your own firm. Outside of Dublin it seems to be a lot more common to have sole practitioners, but that is not to say that it can't be done in Dublin too.

I totally disagree. Take a look at legal500 http://www.legal500.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1136&l5country_code=ir&l5directory=lfe&Itemid=362#includes/get_content_page_l500.php?l5country_code=IR&section_name=Corporate%20and%20commercial&workarea_title=Corporate%20and%20commercial. The vast majority of the top solicitors in this country work within a large firms. Of course you have to make a name for yourself however the name of your firm comes first and foremost. I disagree that you could become as successful as a sole practitioner in Dublin as you could in a large firm in Dublin, they take most of the big clients, big money and big contracts.

hada

i'm with ronnie on this one.

johnny: do you honestly think it's good advice right now to a NQ Solicitor to set up his/her own practice with little or no experience, name, etc in areas of law that are already going to be dominated by other bigger, better and more popular local firms??

As I said, the odds are heavily stacked against you, so you might actually make it, but the risk is deeply hazardous and rather foolish, that unless it's been a dream of yours to do so, you would be highly misled to do it.


The vast majority of Ireland's worldclass solicitors work in the larger commericial firms in Dublin - that is a fact. That's not saying there aren't others practising down the country, but it's common sense (as pointed out by the legal500 among other places).

My advice: let someone else worry about paying the rent, the secretary and signing the cheques.

hada

oh and johnny: have you actually ever lived in a small rural town in Ireland? I'm sure if you were you'd see, that like (where I'm from), on every corner there is a legal practice of some sort, oftentimes having been established many many years ago by a family member who's lineage is still continued.

if you were to walze into town, set up shop and expect suddenly to be creaming these guys in the legal market, you're kidding yourself. Hell even the example I give of the woman in my town setting up a private practice recently - 99% of my town (which is a rather large town) does not know she even exists, because she only deals with RTE, book publishers, and international organisations, not your local joe soap. I know I'm contradicting myself here, but most rural people couldn't give a fiddlers if you set up trained with McCanns, Linklaters or whoever, they need familiarity and consistency: two virtues a new practice cannot compete with in contrast to any (and there are plenty of them in towns around Ireland) half decent practice who's already established for a number of years.

johnnyskeleton

ronnie3585 wrote: »

A serious restriction on the market place? How about a serious protection of the market place. 99% of newly qualified solicitors are extremely green, even those that have had a lot of pre PPC experience. I'm nearly certain that you need to hold a practicing cert for at least four years before you can establish your own practice. It would be a HUGE step for a trainee to go from training in the office under the supervision of their master working with other solicitors to having their own practice with all that responsibility (and liability) after only 24 months experience. I know what solicitor I would rather have working for me.

It was 5 years yesterday, and I can't find anything about it on the law society website. I'm guessing that the solicitors who have gone out on their own straight after apprenticeship were entitled to do so, as they are still practising. While I would agree that going out on your own is not for everybody, there are a lot of solicitors who can't imagine it any other way. Ultimately, if someone wants to start their own business, then the market decides whether they stand or fall.

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I totally disagree. Take a look at legal500 http://www.legal500.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1136&l5country_code=ir&l5directory=lfe&Itemid=362#includes/get_content_page_l500.php?l5country_code=IR&section_name=Corporate%20and%20commercial&workarea_title=Corporate%20and%20commercial. The vast majority of the top solicitors in this country work within a large firms.

They're not exactly household names though, unlike a lot of the smaller firms that were started by one person going out on their own (e.g. Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan). But even if you do look at the big firms, most of them started off with one or two people going out on their own, for example Arthur Cox & Co was built up on almost entirely on the name of one of Ireland's greatest solicitors.

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Of course you have to make a name for yourself however the name of your firm comes first and foremost. I disagree that you could become as successful as a sole practitioner in Dublin as you could in a large firm in Dublin, they take most of the big clients, big money and big contracts.

You're putting words in my mouth here - I never said that sole practituioners could become as successful as the larger firms.

johnnyskeleton

hada wrote: »

i'm with ronnie on this one.

johnny: do you honestly think it's good advice right now to a NQ Solicitor to set up his/her own practice with little or no experience, name, etc in areas of law that are already going to be dominated by other bigger, better and more popular local firms??

I'm not advising anyone, I'm saying it is an option, and it is.

hada wrote: »

As I said, the odds are heavily stacked against you, so you might actually make it, but the risk is deeply hazardous and rather foolish, that unless it's been a dream of yours to do so, you would be highly misled to do it.

Same is true for every member of the bar, but that doesn't stop 200 joining the law library each year.

hada wrote: »

The vast majority of Ireland's worldclass solicitors work in the larger commericial firms in Dublin - that is a fact. That's not saying there aren't others practising down the country, but it's common sense (as pointed out by the legal500 among other places).

I don't see the relevance of this comment.

hada wrote: »

My advice: let someone else worry about paying the rent, the secretary and signing the cheques.

I don't know why you are making this an issue of advice or trying to make it a competition. The OP is concerned that there will not be jobs available when he/she qualifies and that will be an end to his or her soliciterring career. But he/she can set up their own practice if they want. That's my point. Whether you prefer to be employed or self employed is a matter for you.

johnnyskeleton

hada wrote: »

oh and johnny: have you actually ever lived in a small rural town in Ireland? I'm sure if you were you'd see, that like (where I'm from), on every corner there is a legal practice of some sort, oftentimes having been established many many years ago by a family member who's lineage is still continued.

Where I live is beside the point, but I know of several solicitors who have successfully established practices for themselves in medium to large towns accross the country (and in Dublin). I can't speak for very small rural towns, but then again I never mentioned small rural towns.

hada wrote: »

if you were to walze into town, set up shop and expect suddenly to be creaming these guys in the legal market, you're kidding yourself.

Without mentioning names, there is a firm who did exactly that in Athlone a few years ago, and I'm sure it has happened before.

hada wrote: »

Hell even the example I give of the woman in my town setting up a private practice recently - 99% of my town (which is a rather large town) does not know she even exists, because she only deals with RTE, book publishers, and international organisations, not your local joe soap. I know I'm contradicting myself here, but most rural people couldn't give a fiddlers if you set up trained with McCanns, Linklaters or whoever, they need familiarity and consistency: two virtues a new practice cannot compete with in contrast to any (and there are plenty of them in towns around Ireland) half decent practice who's already established for a number of years.

But what about people who are from the town and who did their apprenticeship with an established firm in the town? Especially when they are involved in local politics or are already well known in the area?

This analogy of the apprentice fresh from a huge firm in Dublin setting up shop in Ballygobackwards seems ridiculous and it is. But there are much more rational ways to go about it. I'm also not saying that someone should expect to develop a practice overnight - it takes time for your name to become known. So if you do a good job for 3 clients in your first year of practice you might find that you get 10 clients back the next year. And if another firm is too busy or if there is a situation where independent legal advice or representatin is required, they might give work to you (especially if you know them from, for example, doing your training contract with them).

ronnie3585

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It was 5 years yesterday

Don't patronise me please. I'm sure how long you have to have a practicing cert - I believe it to be in the region of 4/5 years. I'll check tomorrow and revert with the exact number of days required.

They're not exactly household names though, unlike a lot of the smaller firms that were started by one person going out on their own (e.g. Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan).

Within the profession the firms that were referred to in the legal500 link I posted are household names. Out of interest johnny are you a solicitor or a trainee? I've yet to meet someone in the profession wouldn't consider the big firms in Dublin a household name.

hada

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where I live is beside the point, but I know of several solicitors who have successfully established practices for themselves in medium to large towns accross the country (and in Dublin). I can't speak for very small rural towns, but then again I never mentioned small rural towns.

Established. Key inference being it took them years to do this.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Without mentioning names, there is a firm who did exactly that in Athlone a few years ago, and I'm sure it has happened before.

Reread my post. I said it is possible, but very unlikely. One firm doing such a thing a few years ago means nothing now, with the current number of solicitors and economic climate.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But what about people who are from the town and who did their apprenticeship with an established firm in the town? Especially when they are involved in local politics or are already well known in the area?

Too many variables here. I'm not a massive fan of politics and am well known among people of my own age group (like most people are) - but that age group is the very type of people who have gone travelling, working abroad, working in dublin, etc etc.. so useless to me.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This analogy of the apprentice fresh from a huge firm in Dublin setting up shop in Ballygobackwards seems ridiculous and it is. But there are much more rational ways to go about it. I'm also not saying that someone should expect to develop a practice overnight - it takes time for your name to become known. So if you do a good job for 3 clients in your first year of practice you might find that you get 10 clients back the next year. And if another firm is too busy or if there is a situation where independent legal advice or representatin is required, they might give work to you (especially if you know them from, for example, doing your training contract with them).

I'm an optimist johnny, always have been, but talk to solicitors in ANY town (as I have), from clare, to galway, mayo (even athlone) and they will give you this advice: Law is not exactly prospering at the moment, but if you're good enough, you will make it, therefore to maximise your chances, work with some of the dublin firms, see how you get on, and then come back to us (by that time any economic down turn will have surpassed and things should be green again). I mean, a hell of a lot normal everyday practices around the country aren't even taking on apprentices anymore!

johnnyskeleton

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Within the profession the firms that were referred to in the legal500 link I posted are household names. Out of interest johnny are you a solicitor or a trainee? I've yet to meet someone in the profession wouldn't consider the big firms in Dublin a household name.

The solicitors are different to the firm. Just because the firm is a household name doesn't mean that the partners are well known at all. I stated that if you wanted to get a name for yourself, the best way to do this is as the principle or named partner of your own firm. I'm sure most solicitors could name 20 big dublin firms, but I'm also sure that very few would be able to name the senior partners, let alone the other solicitors.

As a side note, it doesn't really matter what I am or what I do. I could say that I'm the Chief Justice or I could be a janitor in the four courts who just happens to overhear legal talk on a daily basis. It doesn't add to or detract from what I am saying in any way, because you can either go out on your own or you cannot. There is an objectively correct answer and while I'm not 100% certain that you don't need 4/5 years holding a practising cert, I am confident that you don't.

ronnie3585

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The solicitors are different to the firm. Just because the firm is a household name doesn't mean that the partners are well known at all. I stated that if you wanted to get a name for yourself, the best way to do this is as the principle or named partner of your own firm. I'm sure most solicitors could name 20 big dublin firms, but I'm also sure that very few would be able to name the senior partners, let alone the other solicitors.

This statement makes no sense. Partners and indeed solicitors in the big dublin firms are very well known, even more so than those that have set up on their own.

As a side note, it doesn't really matter what I am or what I do. I could say that I'm the Chief Justice or I could be a janitor in the four courts who just happens to overhear legal talk on a daily basis. It doesn't add to or detract from what I am saying in any way, because you can either go out on your own or you cannot.

I disagree. This thread was discussing the current state of play in this country with regard to trainees, jobs (or the lack there of) the attitude of the Law Society towards this situation and setting up on your own etc. Unless you are working within the profession seeing this stuff every day I don't feel you are really qualified to comment. I looks very different from the inside out.

johnnyskeleton

hada wrote: »

Established. Key inference being it took them years to do this.

This is true, but you have to start somewhere.

hada wrote: »

Reread my post. I said it is possible, but very unlikely. One firm doing such a thing a few years ago means nothing now, with the current number of solicitors and economic climate.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but it sounded like you said that if I think it is possible that you could just waltz into a town and set up a firm that I was kidding myself. When I say a few years ago, it was about 2 or 3 if memory serves. Strangely enough, I don't think that now is any worse for someone starting off on their own; I think we are agreed that the opportunities are there for those of sufficient skill, and I think going out on your own is just another way of availing of those opportunities.

hada wrote: »

Too many variables here. I'm not a massive fan of politics and am well known among people of my own age group (like most people are) - but that age group is the very type of people who have gone travelling, working abroad, working in dublin, etc etc.. so useless to me.

I suppose you are right. There are too many variables to speculate as to the circumstances in which someone will start out on their own as a solicitor. The only point I wish to make though, is that it is possible, and it is possible to succeed given the right conditions. I think it goes without saying that now is not the time to set up a conveyancing only firm, but getting into a litigious area is not a bad idea to be honest.

hada wrote: »

I'm an optimist johnny, always have been, but talk to solicitors in ANY town (as I have), from clare, to galway, mayo (even athlone) and they will give you this advice: Law is not exactly prospering at the moment, but if you're good enough, you will make it, therefore to maximise your chances, work with some of the dublin firms, see how you get on, and then come back to us (by that time any economic down turn will have surpassed and things should be green again). I mean, a hell of a lot normal everyday practices around the country aren't even taking on apprentices anymore!

I've been accused of that myself, but the solicitors I speak to are very much of the view that conveyancing is dead, long live litigation. It's just a matter of changing focus. Obviously for many conveyancing was the mainstay of their practice, and was also a nicer way of making money than representing someone accused of a violent crime, but as I have said in other threads (and been equally opposed by dats_right) recession could well be the best thing for lawyers, litigation lawyers in particular. Family law, crime, insolvency, bankrupsy, repossession, breach of contract, bogus personal injury claims, employment are all growth areas, and also all the mistakes made during the boom in the property sector will come to light and will be litigated. There is already a queue forming in the commercial court for all the multimillion developer cases, and there will be more incentive to fight over the scraps during the recession. It's the end of an era for one sector of the legal industry, but the start of another glorious era in the less savoury areas of law.

Amazotheamazing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I've been accused of that myself, but the solicitors I speak to are very much of the view that conveyancing is dead, long live litigation. It's just a matter of changing focus. Obviously for many conveyancing was the mainstay of their practice, and was also a nicer way of making money than representing someone accused of a violent crime, but as I have said in other threads (and been equally opposed by dats_right) recession could well be the best thing for lawyers, litigation lawyers in particular. Family law, crime, insolvency, bankrupsy, repossession, breach of contract, bogus personal injury claims, employment are all growth areas, and also all the mistakes made during the boom in the property sector will come to light and will be litigated. There is already a queue forming in the commercial court for all the multimillion developer cases, and there will be more incentive to fight over the scraps during the recession. It's the end of an era for one sector of the legal industry, but the start of another glorious era in the less savoury areas of law.

Great, why not just become all out pettifoggers?

ronnie3585

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

as I have said in other threads (and been equally opposed by dats_right) recession could well be the best thing for lawyers, litigation lawyers in particular. Family law, crime, insolvency, bankrupsy, repossession, breach of contract, bogus personal injury claims, employment are all growth areas, and also all the mistakes made during the boom in the property sector will come to light and will be litigated. There is already a queue forming in the commercial court for all the multimillion developer cases, and there will be more incentive to fight over the scraps during the recession. It's the end of an era for one sector of the legal industry, but the start of another glorious era in the less savoury areas of law.

I think you're listen to too much Matt Cooper. There is no glorious era on the horizon for the legal profession. True, litigation has gone up primarily in the areas of debt collection, insolvency and corporate recovery however this increase in litigation has not been followed by a similar increase in solicitors fees.

One of the biggest problem is getting paid. The major problem with our economy is a simple lack of liquidity, cash is king and not a lot of people have it. A lot of the clients issuing proceedings for debt collect these days are only doing so as they have no money themselves and are doing it as a last resort. The person/company they are instigating the proceedings against also have no money. Judgement can be obtained but to what end? The likelihood is that the company will go into liquidation owing a stack of money the Revenue and other preferential secured creditors like the bank and the client's judgement is therefore worthless. The client is left with the original debt unpaid and on top of that the solicitor's Bill of Costs, which he is unable to pay because remember he has no money. The solicitor is left with a lot of wasted billable hours and a significant outlay with no prospect of payment. Bottom line - you can't get blood from a stone.

As has been stated by an above poster a lot of firms that always took on apprentices are no longer doing so. Many of the big firms won't be accepting applications until 2010/2011. It is now the case that most of the big firms will not be keeping up to 90% of their trainees once their indentures run out. Solicitors (conveyancing & litigation) are being let go every day of the week across the country. The good days are long gone and it will be a long time before and remanence of them will return.:(

johnnyskeleton

ronnie3585 wrote: »

This statement makes no sense. Partners and indeed solicitors in the big dublin firms are very well known, even more so than those that have set up on their own.

It does make sense, you just don't agree with it. That's fine; I don't think that the solicitors in the big firms have big reputations in their own right - perhaps among others in their specialised areas, but generally they are not as well known personally as the sole practitioners. Put another way, virtually all the household name solicitors are named in their firm (Gerald Keane, Alan Shatter, Garrett Sheehan J., Michael Peart J., Michael Lynn (sorry couldn't resist), Ivor Fitzpatrick, Frank Buttimer). For all of these guys, their reputation was built up when they went out on their own, not before. I don't think we can find any objective middle ground, but it seems to me that the guys who set up their own firms are the most well known solicitors.

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I disagree. This thread was discussing the current state of play in this country with regard to trainees, jobs (or the lack there of) the attitude of the Law Society towards this situation and setting up on your own etc. Unless you are working within the profession seeing this stuff every day I don't feel you are really qualified to comment. I looks very different from the inside out.

Ok, my name is Johnny Lyotta Murray S.C. CJ., so by definition I know more about the Irish legal system than anybody else. Do you see the problem here? I'm not the Chief Justice, by the way, my point is that in an anonymous forum you can say that you are whoever you want to be. If I say I'm the Chief Justice, or a top solicitor, does that make my view more valid than yours? No, the only way in which views can be tested on boards.ie is by objective scrutiny.

I also disagree that only solicitors are qualified to comment on this thread.

I also suspect that if I were to say, for example, that I have just finished my FE1s and am starting blackhall this year, you would go "Aha, well I just finished PPCII therefore my views are better than yours". It doesn't work like that.

ronnie3585

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I also disagree that only solicitors are qualified to comment on this thread.

I also suspect that if I were to say, for example, that I have just finished my FE1s and am starting blackhall this year, you would go "Aha, well I just finished PPCII therefore my views are better than yours". It doesn't work like that.

Mate, I'm not trying to get into a pissing competition with you. The point I was trying to make is that today's legal profession is much different than as it is portrayed in the media. To get a real feel for it you need to be working in it. I'm not trying to say that people outside of the profession don't have a valid opinion, of course they do. It's just that it's not as simple as the argument that the 'cream will rise' to the top and any good solicitor will get a job. This is not the case anymore and those working within the profession will understand it more than most.

hada

On a side note, I think the fact that we're actually having this discussion means that, at least for now, there are actually some people passionate about practising in the legal sector, a lot of my counterparts have lost complete interest/just going through the motions without even reaching the finishing line - that I cannot understand.

Oh and on the boards the person with the most posts would get most clout - johnny...duh!

not to be the eternal abritrator, I really think we should get back to advising the OP?

There are jobs out there, not the kind of jobs that suit everyone (litigation, PIAB-esque, employment, defamation (anything to do with libel nowadays is gold), etc etc.. If you are finding it hard to pin a job down in Dublin, do not be afraid to look elsewhere, since you've done the PPC I and II you should have trained with a firm already, that is counted as experience (how valuable depends on the type of firm/training itself). If you want to go into opening a firm on your own, I would (as would johnny..) warn you against it's serious pitfalls - but of course, it could be one of the most rewarding things you do, if not very risky.

johnnyskeleton

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I think you're listen to too much Matt Cooper. There is no glorious era on the horizon for the legal profession. True, litigation has gone up primarily in the areas of debt collection, insolvency and corporate recovery however this increase in litigation has not been followed by a similar increase in solicitors fees.

I don't know who Matt Cooper is, I was referring to the Courts services report of last year which showed an increase in litigation. I also refer to the rising crime rate (still low by international standards, but we're catching up) and marital breakdowns (ditto).

I know you like to know who said what, so I'll tell you that a friend of mine who was a senior corporate insolvency partner in a large Dublin firm told me that in the 80s they did a roaring trade, and then in the 90s it dropped off a bit. He seems to think that this could be on the cards again. As for being paid, a good solicitor will always get paid, whether by asking for money down or by pursuing his clients.

johnnyskeleton

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Mate, I'm not trying to get into a pissing competition with you. The point I was trying to make is that today's legal profession is much different than as it is portrayed in the media. To get a real feel for it you need to be working in it. I'm not trying to say that people outside of the profession don't have a valid opinion, of course they do. It's just that it's not as simple as the argument that the 'cream will rise' to the top and any good solicitor will get a job. This is not the case anymore and those working within the profession will understand it more than most.

But yes you are trying to get into a pissing competition with me. The slant you are taking is that my views are not valid because I don't disclose who I am or what I do, and that your views are better because by implication you are in the profession, so to speak.

I don't see why you can't say why you think it's not as simple as the cream will rise to the top. Simply saying it's complicated, trust me, doesn't cut it. I don't think it is as simple as that either, mainly because in addition to being a good solicitor, you have to have the balls to make risky decisions. Going out on your own is a gutsy move, but if it works out it pays out in far more than money. You get to be your own boss.

johnnyskeleton

hada wrote: »

On a side note, I think the fact that we're actually having this discussion means that, at least for now, there are actually some people passionate about practising in the legal sector, a lot of my counterparts have lost complete interest/just going through the motions without even reaching the finishing line - that I cannot understand.

Oh and on the boards the person with the most posts would get most clout - johnny...duh!

not to be the eternal abritrator, I really think we should get back to advising the OP?

Methinks there will always be a job for hada in alternative dispute resolution.

hada wrote: »

There are jobs out there, not the kind of jobs that suit everyone (litigation, PIAB-esque, employment, defamation (anything to do with libel nowadays is gold), etc etc.. If you are finding it hard to pin a job down in Dublin, do not be afraid to look elsewhere, since you've done the PPC I and II you should have trained with a firm already, that is counted as experience (how valuable depends on the type of firm/training itself). If you want to go into opening a firm on your own, I would (as would johnny..) warn you against it's serious pitfalls - but of course, it could be one of the most rewarding things you do, if not very risky.

Well said. However, I think the OP has probably been scared off already.

bills

i have just come across this thread-very interesting!! I have a law degree & fe-1s under my belt but just could not get a training contract. I have to agree with most of the criticism of the law society. i have not read all the posts. I dont think much of the law society.I have spent years doing a law degree & then studying for the fe-1s and at the end of the day- its been a waste of time!! they should be helping people get training contracts & encouraging solicitors to take on trainees. They dont care. They just take your money & eventually you pass the fe-1s. I mean i think you should at least get a certificate or some some sort of formal recognition for passing fe-1s. Im not saying they owe me a training contract but of course i feel disheartened after working really hard for a career in law & it has not happened- just could not find a training contract.

dats_right

My understanding is that once a admitted to the Roll of Solicitors and in possession of a practising certificate that there is no restriction or rule prohibiting setting up in practice. Which essentially means that as soon as one is qualified one is free to set up in practice immediately. Whether that would be wise or practical is another matter entirely.

I also understand that whilst you can set up in practice immediately, it would not be possible to take on any apprentices until you have been a practising solicitor for at least five years.

Nyall

looking4advice wrote: »

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's.


I've just stumbled upon this thread myself and felt compelled to refer back to this absolutely non-sensical, petty post by 'looking4advice' - 'looking4lobotomy' would be more apt. I got full marks in my leaving and chose a course that needed nowhere near that number of points. After that course i did the FE-1s and started Blachall. The very fact of me having a non-law degree is, i'm largely convinced what got me my apprenticeship. That and the fact that I have some semblance of a personality...The fact of acheiving 500+ points in the leaving Cert is by no stretch of the imagination going to make one a good solicitor.
In any profession the cream rises to the Top so if you're not confident enough that you're in that category maybe you should consider leaving Law to those (with or without a BCL) who are more concerned with becoming good lawyers than whinging about the Law Society being mean to them.

dats_right

100% agree with you Nyall.

Anyway, no job and don't want to set up in practice? Well, another option for those newly qualifieds is to fill in the application form pay the fee and be admitted to the Roll in England and Wales and go live & practice in the UK for a year or two.

Amazotheamazing

I'm surprised no one has bothered too much with the fact that the FE's are too easy and blackhall is a jokeshop when it comes to exams. Barriers to trade, people, barriers to trade.

McCrack

Nyall wrote: »

looking4advice wrote: »

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's.


I've just stumbled upon this thread myself and felt compelled to refer back to this absolutely non-sensical, petty post by 'looking4advice' - 'looking4lobotomy' would be more apt. I got full marks in my leaving and chose a course that needed nowhere near that number of points. After that course i did the FE-1s and started Blachall. The very fact of me having a non-law degree is, i'm largely convinced what got me my apprenticeship. That and the fact that I have some semblance of a personality...The fact of acheiving 500+ points in the leaving Cert is by no stretch of the imagination going to make one a good solicitor.
In any profession the cream rises to the Top so if you're not confident enough that you're in that category maybe you should consider leaving Law to those (with or without a BCL) who are more concerned with becoming good lawyers than whinging about the Law Society being mean to them.

Your post isnt clear. There seems a contradiction in it. One the one hand your saying students who score massively in their leaving should be allowed after completing their BCL or BBLS apply to sit the FE1's straight away despite as you say there is no guarantee they will make good practitioners and then those whos degree is non law related or less worthy in your opinion should not be allowed apply directly but should instead be made sit some sort of a post-grad dip. in law and then presumably study for the FE1's and pass them?

Nonsense.

Some of the best lawyers (Solicitors & Counsel) and indeed judges did not study law at undergrad. Their degrees were in a variety of diciplines.
It's not correct to equate high academic achievement at school (500+pts.) with a good lawyer. One doesnt guarantee the other, and I'm speaking from personal experience. I've seen both sides.

The present system is in my opinion favourable. Sure look at the debacle that happened around 1995 with Bloomer v Law Society. It's simple economics, supply & demand, the market will dictate and so it should, not the Law Society of Ireland.