Recent developments affecting commercial legal firms??

dee8839

I'm looking for an example of a current commercial issue which has a bearing on commercial legal practice in Ireland today. I need something a little more interesting and niche than something credit crunch related, such as a small but influential legislative change, or something along those lines. I've been stalking the business pages of all major newspapers and so forth, as well as the statutory changes page on government.ie but I'm not seeing anything popping out at me. Any help out there? Thanks as always.

dats_right

REDUNDANCIES in large commercial firms.

impr0v

There's nothing that occurs OP. Everything newsworthy is credit crunch related: the lack of credit means there's little or no M&A action; the lead insolvency partner has become the firm superstar; securitisation has become a dirty word, and no one is interested becuase they can't trust what they're buying; employment law is way up because of all the redundancies and there's a few queries about the effect on bonus payments for senior banking staff in light of the terms and conditions that come with the government's guarantee. As I said, there's nothing along the lines of what you're looking for that comes to mind.

Victor

Has government support to the banks (with statutory backing) made it easier for the banks to lend to businesses and consumers?

johnfás

Me thinks someone is dashing for a late finish to get their application form into a certain law firm on Sir John Rogerson's Quay :P.

Maximilian

Needless to say, the property market tanking means conveyancing is currently toast. That's a separate issue to the credit crunch (that just compounded the property crash)

dats_right

If this is for the purposes of an interview, you could instead utilise the opportunity to ask them, why are so many commercial firms continuing to take on apprentices whilst at the same time not retaining many, most or in some cases all of their newly qualifieds? And is this indicative of an attitude of viewing apprentices as merely a form of cheap labour rather than part of the long-term future of the the firm?

maidhc

dats_right wrote: »

If this is for the purposes of an interview, you could instead utilise the opportunity to ask them, why are so many commercial firms continuing to take on apprentices whilst at the same time not retaining many, most or in some cases all of their newly qualifieds? And is this indicative of an attitude of viewing apprentices as merely a form of cheap labour rather than part of the long-term future of the the firm?

Well they have always been viewed as cheap labour.

From what I hear those that are keeping on newly qualifieds are offering, ahem, modest wages.

johnfás

The reason I asked was it for an application is that one of the large firm's have the following question on their application, due in today:

Identify a current commercial issue which has attracted your attention recently. Why do you consider it to be significant?

I am assuming it is likely this exact question that the OP is referring to, if not, something similar I would imagine?

johnfás

dats_right wrote: »

If this is for the purposes of an interview, you could instead utilise the opportunity to ask them, why are so many commercial firms continuing to take on apprentices whilst at the same time not retaining many, most or in some cases all of their newly qualifieds? And is this indicative of an attitude of viewing apprentices as merely a form of cheap labour rather than part of the long-term future of the the firm?

a) They have always been cheap labour. In fact, when I spent time in a firm a year ago on an internship, one of the partners was reminiscing of how his father in fact paid the firm so that he could train with them. If that isn't cheap labour I don't know what is :P.

b) It always makes sense to have trainees and then let them go when they qualify in more difficult economic times. Aside from the obvious financial advantages it also means that if an upturn, either in your business or the economy, occurs you can rapidly grow your firm. If you don't have any trainees coming through you cannot do that - quite so easily anyway.

dats_right

I'm not naive enough to think that firms don't view having trainees as cheap labour. Indeed, I don't think most trainees have a problem with being cheap labour for the first few years, but I think in return your firm equally owes you at least a reasonable prospect of employment at the end of it. Surely their current trainees and newly qualifieds deserve a little more than simultaneously, upon qualification, being handed their parchment and p-45 whilst then being asked to pack up their things and leave because the new trainee who is starting tomorrow requires the corner of a desk that they had been using! HR: "Thank you, do have a nice life and don't forget to hand in your pass at security when you're leaving. Bye Bye now".

I mean rather than the partners having their egos massaged at nice wine and cheese recruitment evenings in fancy hotels or their wonderfully, superbly, fantastic new glass offices (that their client mr big developer overcharged them for as a pay back for all the years that they'd been overcharging him!) or printing nice, glossy recruitment literature explaining why their working culture sets them apart or why their firm is so unique vis-a-vis the other identical commercial firms, wouldn't they be better served by halting or at least reducing recruitment in the short term whilst trying to retain their newly qualifieds, who after all they've invested a lot of money in, and try find practice areas or niches for them within the firm. Incidentally, I have heard rumours of one rather large firm (not big 5) but not all that far down the list that won't be recruiting trainees this year.

dats_right

I see that there is a report in today's Irish Times that BCM Hanby Wallace have informed their trainees due to qualify in December and April that they will not be offered permanent jobs. A spokesperson for the practice, said: "[the firm] still had very ambitous expansion plans for solid growth, but we don't have positions at entry level". Yet, somewhat surprisingly according to their website they are currently, or at least until the closing date yesterday, seeking new suckers, sorry trainees for their 2010/2011 Trainee Campaigns, the website says this is: "To support our expansion we are currently seeking candidates for our 2010/2011 trainee solicitor programme".

Such irresponsible attitudes towards recruitment/trainess is scandalous. The firms themselves should have the good sense to adopt a sustainable and responsible attitude towards recruitments. But if they don't, then in my opinion, the Law Society should intervene and in future refuse such firms consent to enter Indentures in circumstances such as these, in order to prevent firms taking on trainees that they don't require, as really it's akin and not very different to a small firms signing off on Indentures for their sons and daughters to get them on PPC1 without having any intention of training them.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

Such irresponsible attitudes towards recruitment/trainess is scandalous. The firms themselves should have the good sense to adopt a sustainable and responsible attitude towards recruitments. But if they don't, then in my opinion, the Law Society should intervene and in future refuse such firms consent to enter Indentures in circumstances such as these, in order to prevent firms taking on trainees that they don't require, as really it's akin and not very different to a small firms signing off on Indentures for their sons and daughters to get them on PPC1 without having any intention of training them.

Unfortunately, that's how the free market works. Many solicitors firms will employ legal executives to do the work that should be done by a qualified solicitor (e.g. attending in court, drafting documents, taking attendances from clients etc). Others will brief barristers and then not pay them. Then there are other firms who will take on apprentices to do grunt work but not keep them on at the higher rates ordinarily paid to a newly qualified solicitor.

So long as people can still become trained solicitors there are no barriers to entry to the profession. What they do after they qualify is up to each individual solicitor.

Johnny Utah

dats_right wrote: »

I mean rather than the partners having their egos massaged at nice wine and cheese recruitment evenings in fancy hotels or their wonderfully, superbly, fantastic new glass offices (that their client mr big developer overcharged them for as a pay back for all the years that they'd been overcharging him!) or printing nice, glossy recruitment literature explaining why their working culture sets them apart or why their firm is so unique vis-a-vis the other identical commercial firms, wouldn't they be better served by halting or at least reducing recruitment in the short term whilst trying to retain their newly qualifieds, who after all they've invested a lot of money in, and try find practice areas or niches for them within the firm. Incidentally, I have heard rumours of one rather large firm (not big 5) but not all that far down the list that won't be recruiting trainees this year.

That's my big gripe with the big commercial firms, or "the top five" as they like to call themselves. They must spend a small fortune on their HR department, recruitment brochure, and those stupid wine evenings. There must be an incredible amount of waste in those firms when they're spending money on things like that. And, yet, they treat their trainees like a piece of ****. Here's a better idea; why not get rid of the overbloated HR dept, and its stupid application form, and cancel the wine & cheese meeting. They might even save a few quid- as they say in Tesco every little helps! :pac:

And, in the last two years, they all seemed to have moved into new (probably way overpriced) premises along the quays . Pretty bad decision when the economy is now tanking. :pac:
I'd say the commercial firms are going to find it quite difficult to get through the recession; they may be even in a worse position than the average, small general practice firm.

dats_right wrote: »

I see that there is a report in today's Irish Times that BCM Hanby Wallace have informed their trainees due to qualify in December and April that they will not be offered permanent jobs. A spokesperson for the practice, said: "[the firm] still had very ambitous expansion plans for solid growth, but we don't have positions at entry level". Yet, somewhat surprisingly according to their website they are currently, or at least until the closing date yesterday, seeking new suckers, sorry trainees for their 2010/2011 Trainee Campaigns, the website says this is: "To support our expansion we are currently seeking candidates for our 2010/2011 trainee solicitor programme".

That's outrageous. Surely, the position of trainee solicitor is the entry level position; well that's what I thought anyway.

Sorry, we don't need any qualified solicitors at the moment. But we don't mind taking on a few gimps, sorry trainees, to do the photocopying for now, and if the economy improves, then there's a slight chance that we may keep them on when they qualify. Talk about hedging your bets!


Would it be against employment law to conduct reckless recruitment like that?

dee8839

Yes indeed, it was for that damned application form for a certain "top 5" firm. I ended up thinking of one myself thank god, I went with an issue affecting eConveyancing even though I'd say such issues are the least of our worries these days.

I really am finding all this talk of how bad these firms are to work for and how unlikely it is they'll take anyone on quite disheartening. I'm from a totally non-law background, due to graduate next May and short of getting one of these damn apprenticeships (and I'm under no illusions as to how unpleasant the work may be) I haven't got a clue what I can do with my life. I don't know how to go about getting an apprenticeship with a smaller firm, or even how to apply. My local solicitor is laying off staff not hiring them.

Its a god-awful time to be graduating...

skybluejay

Ack, Dee, I'm in the exact same position as you. I filled in that delightful application form on Friday as well and ran down the quays with it. All this doom and gloom talk is so disheartening. Like you, I've no law in my family, and nothing lined up already. It just seems so weird when you've worked reasonably hard thus far in your life and things seem to be unfolding as they should and suddenly you're apparently facing a brick wall.

And then, even if you do get an apprenticeship somewhere, what's it all for if you're going to be let go as soon as you qualify? I'm the same as you though - I can't think of anything else I want to do. This has been my plan for ages. Perhaps it's time to change it...

johnfás

I did the application too and wrote about insider trading - Fyffes v DCC. Basically just said it was an important case as there had not been a Supreme Court judgment regarding price sensitive information on the stock exchange before and that it is possibly an area which will see increased activity given the current economic climate. That one was the stupidest form ever, I had to shrink my writing to that of a hobbit. Why didn't they either do it online or give you a bit more space on the form!!

Equally worried about jobs, I am going to apply for the HDipEd at Christmas as my insurance policy. I am not going to sit around forever waiting for a job in law and the longer you do that probably the less likely it is you will ever get it.

Johnny Utah

johnfás wrote: »

I did the application too and wrote about insider trading - Fyffes v DCC. Basically just said it was an important case as there had not been a Supreme Court judgment regarding price sensitive information on the stock exchange before and that it is possibly an area which will see increased activity given the current economic climate. That one was the stupidest form ever, I had to shrink my writing to that of a hobbit. Why didn't they either do it online or give you a bit more space on the form!!.

I think all those forms are fairly crap tbh. The ask ridiculously asinine questions and expect wonderfully insightful answers from the candidates. I'm convinced that they don't even bother to read most of the application forms.

In fact, I got a response from one of them exactly a week after the deadline. How could they possibly thoroughly review all the applications in such a short space of time?

johnfás wrote: »

Equally worried about jobs, I am going to apply for the HDipEd at Christmas as my insurance policy. I am not going to sit around forever waiting for a job in law and the longer you do that probably the less likely it is you will ever get it.

What's the HDipEd?
I presume it's for primary teaching- I thought that you had to have an undergraduate degree in primary teaching first?
If not, I'd be interested in pursuing that too; I've been waiting around for too long now for the apprenticeship....

johnfás

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I think all those forms are fairly crap tbh. The ask ridiculously asinine questions and expect wonderfully insightful answers from the candidates. I'm convinced that they don't even bother to read most of the application forms.

In fact, I got a response from one of them exactly a week after the deadline. How could they possibly thoroughly review all the applications in such a short space of time?

What's the HDipEd?
I presume it's for primary teaching- I thought that you had to have an undergraduate degree in primary teaching first?
If not, I'd be interested in pursuing that too; I've been waiting around for too long now for the apprenticeship....

Secondary teaching, my primary degree was in History and Politics. However, you can do primary teaching in 18 months regardless of what degree you have provided you meet the Irish language requirements. You can do it either at St Patricks College Drumcondra or online at Hibernia College. It is an 18 month postgraduate programme for non teaching graduates and is a mix of theory and practical application. I have a friend who did physiotherapy and is now doing it - madness.

Link: http://www.spd.dcu.ie/MAIN/courses/postgraduate/grad_ed_info.shtml
Link: http://www.hiberniacollege.net/SchoolofEducation/HDAPE/tabid/63/Default.aspx

I know the exact firm you got that response from, very near St Stephen's Green I presume? I know alot of people who got that rejection letter and I got it on the Wednesday after the Friday it was handed in.

Johnny Utah

johnfás wrote: »

Secondary teaching, my primary degree was in History and Politics. However, you can do primary teaching in 18 months regardless of what degree you have provided you meet the Irish language requirements. You can do it either at St Patricks College Drumcondra or online at Hibernia College. It is an 18 month postgraduate programme for non teaching graduates and is a mix of theory and practical application. I have a friend who did physiotherapy and is now doing it - madness.

Link: http://www.spd.dcu.ie/MAIN/courses/postgraduate/grad_ed_info.shtml
Link: http://www.hiberniacollege.net/SchoolofEducation/HDAPE/tabid/63/Default.aspx

I know the exact firm you got that response from, very near St Stephen's Green I presume? I know alot of people who got that rejection letter and I got it on the Wednesday after the Friday it was handed in.

Thanks for those links. I don't think I could opt for secondary teaching as I have a law degree which isn't exactly relevant to secondary school subjects. I was considering primary teaching, along with many other options, as a backup if I cant find an apprenticeship before July 09. My first choice would be graduate medicine; the only problem is the astronomical fees for the course, which unfortunately I can't realistically afford. I've been looking for a training contract for nearly a year now, and I haven't even got an interview yet. So, I'm at a point where I have to carefully consider every possible option as a backup because there's no way that I'm going to spend the next few years just waiting around for an apprenticeship. Honestly, I never thought that I'd be even considering teaching after having passed the fe1s, but if Im unable to get a training contract, then I'll have pursue something else.

The only hesitation I have with teaching is the proposed cutbacks in education. Surely recruitment of new teachers is going to be seriously affected, so I'm not exactly sure if teaching is the right option now either. If I do end up going back to college to start again, I'll go into something which will guarantee a job at the end of it.

dats_right

Johnny Utah wrote: »

My first choice would be graduate medicine; the only problem is the astronomical fees for the course, which unfortunately I can't realistically afford.

I would imagine that given the virtual certainty of a high paying job at the end of it, that banks will only be too willing to lend money to students who are accepted onto pursue such courses in medicine. Most people will be put off by the thought of the 'hard slog' involved, but if this doesn't bother you then I wouldn't let such a small thing as money put me off, particularly as it can be overcome so easily.

To me being a doctor or a solicitor is a complete no-brainer. Do I want to go into a career which is massively oversubscribed with very poor prospects in the short/medium, possibly even long term where wages have remained static over the past 3-4 years (when inflation is considered means in real terms pay-cuts) and there are now reports of some firms actually cutting wages, or do I want to join a profession which is massively undersubscribed because of a State backed closed shop agreement with the medical schools, whereby from the late 1970's up until recently only 300 places(there were 556 in 1974!, at a time when according to the 1971 Census there were 2,978,248 people in Ireland, the 2006 Census has population at 4,239,848, a difference of about 1.25 million people which sort of puts the undersupply of doctors into perspective!!) were available on Medicine courses in the country, where wages even relatively early on in your career can reach six digits [arguably because of said under-supply] and at the top we're talking about €240k+++++ ish basic, where career prospects aren't based on a cyclical economy (well, unless you are practising cosmetic surgery) and where unlike the legal profession your qualification is recognised throughout the world, now which one would sounds better?

It's funny isn't it the way the legal profession have been hounded by the zealot, fundamentalists in the the Competition Authority regarding access to the profession, notwithstanding the enormous explosion in new entrants to the profession, whilst they have at the same time completely ignored the state-backed and imposed barriers of entry to the medical profession. It's really nothing short of scandalous when you think about it!

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The only hesitation I have with teaching is the proposed cutbacks in education. Surely recruitment of new teachers is going to be seriously affected, so I'm not exactly sure if teaching is the right option now either. If I do end up going back to college to start again, I'll go into something which will guarantee a job at the end of it.

Knowing many teachers, I can assure you that the difficulties that they will face are nothing compared to wannabe, trainee and newly qualified solicitors. Also their wages are pro-rata much higher than solicitors and they don't face the same pressures. They have the benefits of finishing at half two every day, long holidays, job security, a good pension and wages. In fact, I know of a handful of solicitors who gave up practice to become teachers for these very reasons.

Bottom line, for me is that medicine offers unrivalled, superb prospects and teaching offers good, solid prospects vis-a-vis the legal profession.

nuac

Good post Dats_right.

About medicine - having some relatives at various stages in it, the work can be hard, with a very high degree of responsibility

Also have relatives teaching - they enjoy the holidays and do not appear to be stressed.

law has over my span ( 30 + years ) become very stressful and diffiicult.

Maximilian

I have a few friends who are surgeons. Not very affected by the economic conditions but it's a very very tough job, it really is. Not something to recommend unless you are committed completely to it. Hours suck.

Mind you, there are so many varied areas to choose from. I would imagine something like radiology is interesting (and a minimum of blood & guts)

McCrack

Medicine and Law? They're chalk and cheese.

To qualify in either you need a passion and aptitude, I cant personally see how a person could have both, (in saying that I do know of one barrister who practiced medicine before getting called) but it's very unusual.

I mean lawyers in the making tend to have enjoyed business, history, english in school and would be doctors the sciences and the practical subjects...maybe I'm off the mark but personally I shied away from maths/science and had and have a great interest in literature and history and still do to this day.

Are you just chasing the 'profession' status Johnny Utah?

Amazotheamazing

McCrack wrote: »

Medicine and Law? They're chalk and cheese.

To qualify in either you need a passion and aptitude, I cant personally see how a person could have both, (in saying that I do know of one barrister who practiced medicine before getting called) but it's very unusual.

Are you just chasing the 'profession' status Johnny Utah?

I'm going to level with you here, since you often bring up "passion for law". I got a first in Corporate law without ever possessing a passion for law. You do not need a passion to get good grades, or to be a competent solicitor. You probably do need a passion for law if you work with refugees and other humanitarian areas of law, but none of my colleagues, especially at big 5 firms, have a passion for law, most are intelligent people who needed something to do in college and stumbled into law. There is no passion needed to spell-check commercial contracts for example.

I genuinely admire people who have passion for law, but to say one needs it to qualify in law is utter nonsense.

McCrack

Well I disagree with you. Lets just put it into perspective, 3-4 year undergrad. 1-2 years study for the professional entry exams (and probably juggling a full time job/kids etc) serve the apprenticeship on crap money...that's assuming it all goes smoothly.
Now it's been pointed out before there is easier and quicker ways to make money (if that's your motivator) than practicing law.

I cant realistically see how a person could put themselves through all that and the great expense involved and financial sacrifice if they didnt possess the ability and motivation to do so, maybe passion is too strong a word for some but an interest/desire is needed.

I get the sense you dont like your work, pity that.

Amazotheamazing

McCrack wrote: »

Well I disagree with you. Lets just put it into perspective, 3-4 year undergrad. 1-2 years study for the professional entry exams (and probably juggling a full time job/kids etc) serve the apprenticeship on crap money...that's assuming it all goes smoothly.
Now it's been pointed out before there is easier and quicker ways to make money (if that's your motivator) than practicing law.

I cant realistically see how a person could put themselves through all that and the great expense involved and financial sacrifice if they didnt possess the ability and motivation to do so, maybe passion is too strong a word for some but an interest/desire is needed.

I get the sense you dont like your work, pity that.

I dunno, the vast majority of graduating solicitors I know are justing drifting along in the stream because they fell into it when they were 17 or so.

It's not so much an issue of liking or disliking work, some parts of law are awful (Probate, Conveyancing) and have no interest to me, some parts of somewhat interesting, but do they inspire passion? Meh.

Of course, working as a solicitor you use very little of what you learned in college anyhow, so even a passion for the academic pursuit of law may not translate into a love of actually practicing it.

Johnny Utah

johnfás wrote: »

I know the exact firm you got that response from, very near St Stephen's Green I presume? I know alot of people who got that rejection letter and I got it on the Wednesday after the Friday it was handed in.

Forgot to mention; yes that was the firm. I got it on the Thursday.

dats_right wrote: »

I would imagine that given the virtual certainty of a high paying job at the end of it, that banks will only be too willing to lend money to students who are accepted onto pursue such courses in medicine. Most people will be put off by the thought of the 'hard slog' involved, but if this doesn't bother you then I wouldn't let such a small thing as money put me off, particularly as it can be overcome so easily.

To me being a doctor or a solicitor is a complete no-brainer. Do I want to go into a career which is massively oversubscribed with very poor prospects in the short/medium, possibly even long term where wages have remained static over the past 3-4 years (when inflation is considered means in real terms pay-cuts) and there are now reports of some firms actually cutting wages, or do I want to join a profession which is massively undersubscribed because of a State backed closed shop agreement with the medical schools, whereby from the late 1970's up until recently only 300 places(there were 556 in 1974!, at a time when according to the 1971 Census there were 2,978,248 people in Ireland, the 2006 Census has population at 4,239,848, a difference of about 1.25 million people which sort of puts the undersupply of doctors into perspective!!) were available on Medicine courses in the country, where wages even relatively early on in your career can reach six digits [arguably because of said under-supply] and at the top we're talking about €240k+++++ ish basic, where career prospects aren't based on a cyclical economy (well, unless you are practising cosmetic surgery) and where unlike the legal profession your qualification is recognised throughout the world, now which one would sounds better?.

I agree with you that the medical profession is a far better option. I have no problem with the study/hard work involved. I'm well used to it at this stage, so the hard slog wouldn't really worry me. I've looked into the Gamsat entrance exam, and I think I'd have a fairly good chance of passing it.

The only real obstacle for me are the fees on the course. Currently, they're 12780 + registration fee, and there's a strong chance that they will increase next year. So, I could be looking at 14/15k a year. Tbh, being a penniless student at the moment, there's no way I can afford those sort of fees. As well as that, if I did go back to college, I'd probably have to move back with my parents as I wouldn't be able to afford rent whilst paying those fees, and I'd feel like a bit of a sponger if I had to rely on my parents for the next 4/5 years.

dats_right wrote: »

It's funny isn't it the way the legal profession have been hounded by the zealot, fundamentalists in the the Competition Authority regarding access to the profession, notwithstanding the enormous explosion in new entrants to the profession, whilst they have at the same time completely ignored the state-backed and imposed barriers of entry to the medical profession. It's really nothing short of scandalous when you think about it!.

Yes, I made that exact point in a previous thread. It's ridiculous that the CA hounded the legal profession, yet didn't bat an eyelid at some of the other professions. I'd even consider the large fee itself to enter graduate medicine as a barrier to entry. And, it's not just medicine that's protecting itself: look at the limited number of places for architecture, dentistry, etc. Was there an increase in places for architecture during the boom years when more architects were needed? I seriously doubt it.

Having said that, I'd say it's only matter of time before the CA starts looking at the medical profession. People will soon realise that the legal profession is not what it once was, and will flock to medicine, dentistry, etc. Likewise, the CA will realise that having the open door policy in law has somewhat destroyed the profession, resulting in too many people chasing not enough work, and may turn their attention elsewhere.

dats_right wrote: »

Knowing many teachers, I can assure you that the difficulties that they will face are nothing compared to wannabe, trainee and newly qualified solicitors. Also their wages are pro-rata much higher than solicitors and they don't face the same pressures. They have the benefits of finishing at half two every day, long holidays, job security, a good pension and wages. In fact, I know of a handful of solicitors who gave up practice to become teachers for these very reasons.

Bottom line, for me is that medicine offers unrivalled, superb prospects and teaching offers good, solid prospects vis-a-vis the legal profession.

I have some friends that are teachers, both primary and secondary. They're not from law- went in from school. And yes, I'd agree with you that it's far, far easier to secure a teaching position than it is to obtain a trainee solicitor contract. I have a fairly good idea of what it takes to get a teaching job. One of my friends, spent a year after college, subbing in various schools before she secured the permanent pensionable position. Having said that, she was fairly picky, in that she wanted a specific school (which was close to home), and she got it after the year subbing. From what I can see, she has a very very comfortable life for someone in their mid-20s. Makes me wonder why I bother with all the obstacles in law.

I also agree that teaching wages are much higher than solicitors pro rata. In fact, I've seen some vacancies for solicitors in the civil service (5+ years pqe) and salary was similar, maybe slightly higher, than primary teachers.

The reason I said I had a slight hesitation about going into teaching is because there are going to be cutbacks in education, and invariably this means that recruitment of new teachers will be cut back. It probably won't be a huge cutback, but I'm guessing that it will probably be slightly harder to get into teaching in the next few years than it was five years ago. The cutbacks wouldn't worry me hugely, but it's just something to consider.
Actually, knowing my luck, I'd probably end up competing against loads of other law graduates who have decided to try their hand at teaching and end up in some sort of horrible, infinite deja vu scenario....:eek:

Maximilian wrote: »

I have a few friends who are surgeons. Not very affected by the economic conditions but it's a very very tough job, it really is. Not something to recommend unless you are committed completely to it. Hours suck.

Mind you, there are so many varied areas to choose from. I would imagine something like radiology is interesting (and a minimum of blood & guts)

Wouldn't be interested in surgery, or being a consultant. If I did pursue medicine, I'd probably opt for the GP course. Fairly secure, and quicker to qualify.

McCrack wrote: »

Medicine and Law? They're chalk and cheese.

To qualify in either you need a passion and aptitude, I cant personally see how a person could have both, (in saying that I do know of one barrister who practiced medicine before getting called) but it's very unusual.

I mean lawyers in the making tend to have enjoyed business, history, english in school and would be doctors the sciences and the practical subjects...maybe I'm off the mark but personally I shied away from maths/science and had and have a great interest in literature and history and still do to this day.

Are you just chasing the 'profession' status Johnny Utah?

No McCrack, I am not chasing the profession status. I have invested (maybe wasted?) a great deal of time, effort and (my parents) money in studying law. I thought that it was a well-respected, secure profession that would offer a comfortable standard of living- how wrong was I?

Anyway, I've spent nearly 12 months looking for a training contract, without even getting an interview. I graduated top of my class, passed fe1s, I have good grades, and I am currently doing a postgraduate course (which I don't really like but that's a different story). With those sort of qualifications, I think it's only a fair expectation that I would have a reasonable chance of securing a training contract. I think the fact is that there are just very few training contracts being handed in the current economic climate. Actually, the numbers have fallen on the ppc1 this year, and I reckon they will fall next year too. I don't have any connections in law, and maybe that's the problem because I've seen, and heard of, people walking into a training contract without having passed the fe1s. I never expected to walk into a training contract, or to get it after sending out a few CVs, I'm not that naive. I'm even prepared to do the training contract for free, but firms just aren't interested at present because they're not sure whether they can carry a new solicitor in 3/4 years time.

So what am I supposed to do? I have to consider my options because I can't wait around indefinitely for a training contract that may or may not materialise. I know it may mean going back to college to start at square one again, but what else can I do?







Re passion; I agree with Amazo's comments above. Honestly, I had passion when I was in college for certain subjects. I had a real interest in learning about certain areas, considering all the relevant angles on a question, providing my own evaluation. There were other subjects which I didn't like too. Even when I was studying for the FE-1s, again I had an interest in certain areas, and other areas didn't interest me at all. However, having spent the past year looking for a training contract, I find it hard to maintain a passion/interest for the law.

Maybe I'm a bit too pragmatic, but I realise that legal practices are a business, first and foremost. It's pointless having all the passion in the world, if you're not turning a profit, because the practice will only be too happy to replace you with someone who is more profitable. Furthermore, at this stage, I understand that it is quite unlikely that I will get an opportunity to practice in the areas where I do have a passion, (well for the first 10 years post qualification anyway). With that in mind, I find it hard to be optimistic about enjoying my work or having a strong passion for practising it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not going to be any good at it.

So, can you honestly say that you have a passion for every area of law, and would you have a passion for an area such as conveyancing?

dub_bhoy

Hey guys, just going to jump into the conversation here and ask a question which i posed over on the jobs forum ( http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055419864 ). Finishing college this year and i've a offer from one of the big 4 accountancy firms but i have also applied to the law firms (interviewed with one already and waiting to hear if i get through to next stage). In this climate would you consider it a better option to to qualify in tax/accountancy for 4 years and then maybe look at going into solicitors profession.thanks in advance for any help

nuac

imho tax and/or accountancy better option than law in present conditions and for the forseeable future.

McCrack

Johnny Utah you say you have the legal academics but have you actually ever worked in a practice in any capacity?

TheDemiurge

nuac wrote: »

imho tax and/or accountancy better option than law in present conditions and for the forseeable future.

Ditto. Accounting is a portable profession, can be used worldwide and in many different niches. Law is for the most part tied to the jurisdiction of origin and to succeed in any firm worth its salt these days you have to choose your little rut early on in your career and stick with it.

dazza21ie

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The only real obstacle for me are the fees on the course. Currently, they're 12780 + registration fee, and there's a strong chance that they will increase next year. So, I could be looking at 14/15k a year. Tbh, being a penniless student at the moment, there's no way I can afford those sort of fees. As well as that, if I did go back to college, I'd probably have to move back with my parents as I wouldn't be able to afford rent whilst paying those fees, and I'd feel like a bit of a sponger if I had to rely on my parents for the next 4/5 years.

Are you forgeting that the fees to become are solicitor are nearly 14k themselves and they increase annually. Less and less firms will cover these fees for trainees in the next few years.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I think the fact is that there are just very few training contracts being handed in the current economic climate. Actually, the numbers have fallen on the ppc1 this year, and I reckon they will fall next year too.

Numbers on this years PPC1 are only down around 10% on last year.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I don't have any connections in law, and maybe that's the problem because I've seen, and heard of, people walking into a training contract without having passed the fe1s. I never expected to walk into a training contract, or to get it after sending out a few CVs, I'm not that naive. I'm even prepared to do the training contract for free, but firms just aren't interested at present because they're not sure whether they can carry a new solicitor in 3/4 years time.

Your able to work for 2 years for free on top of paying your fees. Is that any different to going back to college to study medicine?

Have you exhausted all avenues when applying for a training contract e.g. applied to big firms, applied to small firms, applied to urban and rural firms, done temp work to get office experience, applied for secretarial positions etc?

I don't really think it weighs too much on a firms mind what they can or can't do in 3/4 years time. I think most firms are worrying about what they can or can't do today. Employing an extra person is out of the question in alot of places.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

So what am I supposed to do? I have to consider my options because I can't wait around indefinitely for a training contract that may or may not materialise. I know it may mean going back to college to start at square one again, but what else can I do?.

Set yourself a deadline e.g. if i haven't got a training contract by june 09 then i will give up, and then try everything you think might work in getting that contract. There is no point wondering in 10 or 20 years time whether you gave up too easily.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

So, can you honestly say that you have a passion for every area of law, and would you have a passion for an area such as conveyancing

I personally enjoy conveyancing but don't really like areas like family law. Everybody has their own preferences. Unless you really want to get into a niche area then there is no reason for it to take 10 years to work in the area you prefer.

Johnny Utah

McCrack wrote: »

Johnny Utah you say you have the legal academics but have you actually ever worked in a practice in any capacity?

Yes, a few years ago I spent a summer during college in a firm in Cork, and I have it included on the CV. However, I wouldn't consider it wothwhile experience tbh. As I'm sure you're aware, there's not much you can do when you're not qualified.

dazza21ie wrote: »

Are you forgeting that the fees to become are solicitor are nearly 14k themselves and they increase annually. Less and less firms will cover these fees for trainees in the next few years.

I'm aware the fees for the ppc1 + ppc2 are around 14k. The fees for grad medicine are 14/15k a year, every year over the four year degree. So, that's about 60k in total (and that's leaving aside the fact that the fees may well increase from one year to the next; so it's possible that the fees may be around the 20k mark in 4th year). After the medicine degree, then there's the fees for the GP course (and God only knows how much they are). And as well as that there's obviously money needed for things like books, uniforms, various memberships, etc. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post, but the fees are definitely 14k each year for grad medicine. [If they were merely a single payment of 14k over the four years, then I (and half the graduates in the country) would jump at it.]

dazza21ie wrote: »

Numbers on this years PPC1 are only down around 10% on last year..

Yes, I know.

dazza21ie wrote: »

Your able to work for 2 years for free on top of paying your fees. Is that any different to going back to college to study medicine?

Yes, completely different. (1) At this stage, it will be quicker for me to qualify as a solicitor than to go back to college to study medicine. (2) As I stated above, the fees for ppc are far, far smaller than the fees required for medicine. And, I don't mind working for little/no money in the short term.

The 14k for the ppc is fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Tbh, I'm more concerned with getting into blackhall than wondering how I pay the fees for it. If I do manage to get into Blackhall, then the fee won't be a problem- I'll get a bank loan if needs be and I'll repay it fairly quickly. It's a pretty small figure when you compare it with medicine which would be at least 60+k.

dazza21ie wrote: »

Have you exhausted all avenues when applying for a training contract e.g. applied to big firms, applied to small firms, applied to urban and rural firms, done temp work to get office experience, applied for secretarial positions etc?

I think so. I've applied to hundreds of firms at this stage- big, small, all the corporate firms, small rural practices.

Over the past year, I've been applying for legal support/legal executive/legal assistant/secretarial positions, and it just seems impossible for me to get anything like that. What I find is that they are looking for legal executives with 2+ years experience, and aren't interested in law graduates/fe1 students because they know that they'll be gone the minute they get a training contract. I've gone into the legal recruitment agencies looking for temping work in a legal office, but they're just not interested.

So, what else can I do?

dazza21ie wrote: »

I don't really think it weighs too much on a firms mind what they can or can't do in 3/4 years time. I think most firms are worrying about what they can or can't do today. Employing an extra person is out of the question in alot of places.

Yes, that's a fair point. I was just thinking of a scenario where a trainee worked for free during the TC, and then upon qualifying, being told that they couldn't afford to keep him on. I think a lot of practices would not like to be put in a difficult position like that in 3 years time, so might be a bit hesitant in taking on a trainee who is willing to work for free. However, you're probably correct in saying that most firms are more concerned about the present climate.

dazza21ie wrote: »

Set yourself a deadline e.g. if i haven't got a training contract by june 09 then i will give up, and then try everything you think might work in getting that contract. There is no point wondering in 10 or 20 years time whether you gave up too easily.

I already have set a deadline, and time is rapidly running out.

dazza21ie

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Yes, a few years ago I spent a summer during college in a firm in Cork, and I have it included on the CV. However, I wouldn't consider it wothwhile experience tbh. As I'm sure you're aware, there's not much you can do when you're not qualified.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. There are many secretaries around the country carrying out conveyances, probate etc without ever having spent a day in college learning the theory to the whole process. Technically this is blocking up the system for people like yourself.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The 14k for the ppc is fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Tbh, I'm more concerned with getting into blackhall than wondering how I pay the fees for it. If I do manage to get into Blackhall, then the fee won't be a problem- I'll get a bank loan if needs be and I'll repay it fairly quickly. It's a pretty small figure when you compare it with medicine which would be at least 60+k.

The only problem at the moment is there is no guarantee of getting work as a solicitor when qualified unlike medicine. However it will be 2012 at the earliest before you qualify. The numbers qualifying over the next few years will reduce and hopefully the economy will pick up so job prospects should be better than they are now.

Johnny Utah

dazza21ie wrote: »

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. There are many secretaries around the country carrying out conveyances, probate etc without ever having spent a day in college learning the theory to the whole process. Technically this is blocking up the system for people like yourself.

So, are you saying that secretaries are carrying out legal work, such as probate, without any qualifications/experience?

If so, how would I get such a position?



As I said before, most recruiters and law firms just don't seem interested in people with less than 2 years experience or those going the fe1 route.

For example, take a look at this job advertisement for a legal executive; they're not even interested in newly qualified solicitors....:eek: (Are things really that bad?)


http://www.jobs.ie/ApplyForJob.aspx?Id=877944

dazza21ie wrote: »

The only problem at the moment is there is no guarantee of getting work as a solicitor when qualified unlike medicine. However it will be 2012 at the earliest before you qualify. The numbers qualifying over the next few years will reduce and hopefully the economy will pick up so job prospects should be better than they are now.

I sure hope so.....

impr0v

Meghen Group wrote:

This lucrative opportunity involves general researching, drafting and debt recovery responsibilities for a well established firm. Based in their debt recovery department, you will be working with some of Dublin's top legal minds in a meaty role that will allow you to use your initiative in a fast-paced environment.

This opportunity will suit a career legal executive - this will be your dream role. Unfortunately this role will not suit Newly Qualified Solicitors or past, present or future students of FE 1 examinations.

In exchange, a negotiable salary with benefits is available for the right person immediately!

I hate the Meghan Group and the wording of that advertisement infuriates me. If the current downturn forces a few recruitment agencies out of business there will at least be some sort of silver lining.

johnnyskeleton

impr0v wrote: »

I hate the Meghan Group and the wording of that advertisement infuriates me. If the current downturn forces a few recruitment agencies out of business there will at least be some sort of silver lining.

Surely a newly qualified solicitor will be as capable as if not more so than a legal exec with 2-3 years experience?

impr0v

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely a newly qualified solicitor will be as capable as if not more so than a legal exec with 2-3 years experience?

One would think so, but I can only presume that 'some of Dublin's top legal minds' reckon that an NQ would soon leave as soon as they got an offer of something more substantial, as has been suggested by some earlier posters.

maidhc

impr0v wrote: »

One would think so, but I can only presume that 'some of Dublin's top legal minds' reckon that an NQ would soon leave as soon as they got an offer of something more substantial, as has been suggested by some earlier posters.

A legal exec will accept her (his) lot, do the typing, do the donkey work and generally do what they are supposed to.

A solicitor won't, because they expect more.