What did you do with your law degree?

dee8839

I've been told constantly that a law degree is a good base degree to have regardless of what occupation you follow in the end. Problem is, I'm in my final year and tbh, I want to be a solicitor. So badly. I even enjoy conveyancing work which I did for 8 months on work placement. I enjoy the practicality of it, not merely the academics.

But in the current climate it seems I'm chasing a pipe dream. I will graduate with an average enough degree it appears, and although I've applied for traineeships with the big law firms, after receiving my first rejection letter recently I'm not holding out much hope of an interview, the competition is just so fierce.

So my question to you fine people is, for those of you who completed your 3/4 year undergrad in law, what did you do next? A postgrad? Teaching? Another different undergrad? An apprenticeship? Kings Inns? Civil Service?

What did you do? I'm hoping to gain some inspiration. Because right now it just feels like I'm falling into a black hole with no prospect of climbing out of it.:(

johnnyskeleton

As far as I know, mine is behind the bookshelf somewhere. You can get it framed and put it on your wall if you want, but I think that's kinda pretentious.

Regarding jobs, there are roughly 4 routes to take:

1) Legal Profession - at the moment it is harder to become a solicitor than a barrister, but barristerring is fairly tough and I wouldn't recommend it unless you know the risks and are prepared to give it a serious go.

2) Quazi-Legal Profession - you can work as a legal researcher, in-house adviser, paralegal, legal secretary etc. Many of these jobs will go to people with professional qualifications as well, but you can certainly give it a shot.

3) Academics - if you want to be a legal academic, you will probably need further study/articles/professional qualification, but this is another route.

4) Non-legal jobs - a law degree is probably equivalent to an arts or general commerce degree. Any job described as a graduate opportunity (e.g. banks, insurance etc) might be interested. However, a lot of employers are suspicious of a law degree and will often ask if you have plans to leave after a year and go on to become a lawyer.

If you really want to be a solicitor, try to a) beef up your application with qualifications e.g. postgrad, law society diploma etc and b) get to know a few solicitors and work with them, even if it is only in a para-legal/legal secretary position. And of course, keep sending in the applications.

impr0v

Is there anything else you're interested in? Something that would have an overlap with law perhaps. If there was you could apply for a masters in it and get some workplace experience in the subject. It would be a lot easy after that to make yourself stand out in the applications to the big firms. You're a better asset to have if you bring some fundamental understanding of a practice area with you.

Dan133269

nothing, the dole!

dats_right

Remember the jokes of the 1980's? Well, here's the noughties version..

The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?"

The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"

The graduate with a business degree asks, "How much will it cost?"

The graduate with an arts law degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

Yes, indeed a law degree is the new arts degree... I remember some graffiti in the jacks beside the toilet roll dispenser in the UCD library that said; "Arts Degrees. Please take one". Oh, and how I used to snigger with a smugness; each time was like the first time I had ever set eyes on it, safe in the knowledge that my law degree was going to be this wonderful bit of paper, that would open doors quicker than a scumbag with a jemmy! Alas, I now realise that many of my friends who studied such art degrees ended up in great, interesting and well paying careers, well certainly the ones who didn't become lawyers or layabouts anyway! Whilst most of us legal geezers ended up studying forever to enter the profession and can't rub two bob together.. the injustice of it all..

bills

Not much!! People say oh your so well qualified but it hasnt helped me too much.
Tried the solicitor route but couldnt get a training contract - nearly broke my heart!! but im over it now- sort of!

Johnny Utah

dats_right wrote: »

Remember the jokes of the 1980's? Well, here's the noughties version..



Yes, indeed a law degree is the new arts degree... I remember some graffiti in the jacks beside the toilet roll dispenser in the UCD library that said; "Arts Degrees. Please take one". Oh, and how I used to snigger with a smugness; each time was like the first time I had ever set eyes on it, safe in the knowledge that my law degree was going to be this wonderful bit of paper, that would open doors quicker than a scumbag with a jemmy! Alas, I now realise that many of my friends who studied such art degrees ended up in great, interesting and well paying careers, well certainly the ones who didn't become lawyers or layabouts anyway! Whilst most of us legal geezers ended up studying forever to enter the profession and can't rub two bob together.. the injustice of it all..

I remember seeing that before as well. And, I remember thinking; well at least I'm studying law- a well respected and relatively secure profession........ how wrong was I:(

The truth is that we've have been shafted. All throghout my law degree, I was constantly reminded of how much lawyers were making, and how many doors would magically open once I got my precious law degree. Well, guess what- they didn't.:mad:

And then there's the great fe1 schools who take in students without telling them the realities they face if and when they do manage to pass the fe1s.

If I could go back in time, I'd study something completely different. Sorry to sound negative OP, but I'm just being honest.

Punchesnpeaches

dee8839 wrote: »

I've been told constantly that a law degree is a good base degree to have regardless of what occupation you follow in the end. Problem is, I'm in my final year and tbh, I want to be a solicitor. So badly. I even enjoy conveyancing work which I did for 8 months on work placement. I enjoy the practicality of it, not merely the academics.

But in the current climate it seems I'm chasing a pipe dream. I will graduate with an average enough degree it appears, and although I've applied for traineeships with the big law firms, after receiving my first rejection letter recently I'm not holding out much hope of an interview, the competition is just so fierce.

So my question to you fine people is, for those of you who completed your 3/4 year undergrad in law, what did you do next? A postgrad? Teaching? Another different undergrad? An apprenticeship? Kings Inns? Civil Service?

What did you do? I'm hoping to gain some inspiration. Because right now it just feels like I'm falling into a black hole with no prospect of climbing out of it.:(

Yes, it's hard to qualify as a solicitor, traineeships are scarce and newly qualifieds are finding it tough, but in fairness it is your 1st rejection letter. It's quite unusual to get offered a traineeship without any FE-1s. Plenty of my friends applied for traineeships in final year and didn't get interviews as plenty of the same people have traineeships now. I'm not saying it's easy, I know that it's extremely difficult so do think long and hard before you go the FE-1 route, but I don't think that I would give up after one rejection letter.

johnnyskeleton

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I remember seeing that before as well. And, I remember thinking; well at least I'm studying law- a well respected and relatively secure profession........ how wrong was I:(

Apart from the current difficulties in getting a job as a solicitor, surely you knew that an arts degree was as good as a law degree for becoming a solicitor, ever since that case (Abrahamson, was it)?

All throghout my law degree, I was constantly reminded of how much lawyers were making, and how many doors would magically open once I got my precious law degree. Well, guess what- they didn't.

Really? My memories are of people constantly reminding of how difficult a career choice law was and that it was only for the really dedicated. Surely most law degrees tell you how young barristers spend several years on the breadline and never really have job security, while there was massive competition for places in Blackhall Place.

And then there's the great fe1 schools who take in students without telling them the realities they face if and when they do manage to pass the fe1s.

To be fair, the vast majority of people who go to these schools do so because they have already made up their mind about doing the FE1s. They don't want career advice, and if given it will probably ignore it.

dats_right wrote:

]Whilst most of us legal geezers ended up studying forever to enter the profession and can't rub two bob together..

Some "legal geezers" turn a pretty penny, and I certainly wouldn't say that most can't rub two bob together.

Johnny Utah

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Apart from the current difficulties in getting a job as a solicitor, surely you knew that an arts degree was as good as a law degree for becoming a solicitor, ever since that case (Abrahamson, was it)?

Indeed.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Really? My memories are of people constantly reminding of how difficult a career choice law was and that it was only for the really dedicated. Surely most law degrees tell you how young barristers spend several years on the breadline and never really have job security, while there was massive competition for places in Blackhall Place.

Well, I can relate to the comment made by The Demiurge on the other thread, where she said something to the effect of: qualify, teach how to learn, teach how to qualify, etc, and the cycle continues.

Tbh, the career guidance at my college was pretty crap. The career guidance office simply didn't have a clue about the legal profession. Sure, in final year we got the usual talks on how difficult the Bar/fe1 exams, but they didn't really tell us anything we didn't know already. I spoke to a couple of barristers, both retired and practising, on my own and I'd say I learned more about life at the bar from my conversations with them. As well as that, they should give proper, meaningful career advice in first year from day one (or perhaps when they are applying to the colleges)- it may give someone the opportunity to pursue something else while they still can.

I stand over the previous comment, where we were constantly told that a law degree would open many doors for us. Well, it didn't- not for me anyway, and I'm sick of all these false promises. I remember having a converstaion with one of my lecturers in 1st year, and he told me how great a career in the legal profession was. And, I heard similar encouragement from other lecturers. I'm now in a postgraduate course, and I'm still hearing the same sort of bull$hit. If you don't believe me, then take a look at the spin on some of the law school websites for prospective students.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To be fair, the vast majority of people who go to these schools do so because they have already made up their mind about doing the FE1s. They don't want career advice, and if given it will probably ignore it.

Fair comment.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Some "legal geezers" turn a pretty penny, and I certainly wouldn't say that most can't rub two bob together.

I think dats right was referring to those in the early stages of a legal career- trainee/newly qualified/less than 3 years pqe- because he made the comparison that his friends who didn't pursue law were now in interesting, well-paid jobs. Speaking from personal experience, it's a fairly accurate comparison he made too; a lot of my friends outside law are doing well for themselves and seem to have little or no stress, whilst my friends from college seem to be finding it difficult in the early years of the legal profession.

dats_right

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I think dats right was referring to those in the early stages of a legal career- trainee/newly qualified/less than 3 years pqe-.

I didn't get the opportunity to clarify that myself, but they are exactly who I was referring to.

hada

By the way some people are talking here you would swear we (the legal profession) were in complete isolation with regards being the only ones with meagre job prospects.

Nurses, secondary school teachers, engineering, architecture, physiotherapy, speech & language therapy, psychologists and quantity surveyors are all professions which students qualify from every year and by and large, are completely pigeon holed in those respective profession - even though there is not a chance in the slightest of any significant uptake of NQs for the foreseeable future. Leaving them with absolutely positively zero hope of any gainful employment for the time being. I know this because as most of us, I have quite a number of friends in all these professions and all of them are either a) unemployed and depressed, b) considering shipping off to Australia or c) thinking of going back to education to further their degrees in the hope things will have picked up in the meantime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, stop whinging, get on with it and try and further yourself. The economy is sh1te for all of us - whether we graduated from Yale with an LLM or just started filling out traineeship application forms. Everyone is, as with most things in Ireland, going down the chute together.

ps. and I realise I sound quite cranky and blaise about it all, I do apologise. I'm after giving 3 hours of company law tutorials with a sore throat and head cold - not put me in the best of form.

johnnyskeleton

Well said hada, I was beginning to think I was the only person who didn't hate the legal profession.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Well, I can relate to the comment made by The Demiurge on the other thread, where she said something to the effect of: qualify, teach how to learn, teach how to qualify, etc, and the cycle continues.

Do you mean that our colleges are becoming like degree factories, churning out students like saussages?

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Tbh, the career guidance at my college was pretty crap. The career guidance office simply didn't have a clue about the legal profession. Sure, in final year we got the usual talks on how difficult the Bar/fe1 exams, but they didn't really tell us anything we didn't know already. I spoke to a couple of barristers, both retired and practising, on my own and I'd say I learned more about life at the bar from my conversations with them. As well as that, they should give proper, meaningful career advice in first year from day one (or perhaps when they are applying to the colleges)- it may give someone the opportunity to pursue something else while they still can.

There was no career guidence at all in college when I was there, except for a room with a retreating secretary and a load of pamplets. But you pick these things up subtly from lots of different places e.g. the milk rounds for the big firms, lecturers making stray comments, friends a few years ahead who have started practice etc, tutors etc. To be honest, I don't think it was in anybody's gift to tell you how things would turn out - no one can tell the future accurately and in any event, it is up to you to form a prediction based on the evidence to hand.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I stand over the previous comment, where we were constantly told that a law degree would open many doors for us. Well, it didn't- not for me anyway, and I'm sick of all these false promises. I remember having a converstaion with one of my lecturers in 1st year, and he told me how great a career in the legal profession was. And, I heard similar encouragement from other lecturers. I'm now in a postgraduate course, and I'm still hearing the same sort of bull$hit. If you don't believe me, then take a look at the spin on some of the law school websites for prospective students.

I'm sorry to hear that, for what it's worth I used to call a law degree an art+ degree - it's more or less the same hours as arts, and doesn't qualify you for anything more than an arts student (other than skipping the KI diploma) but it sounds kinda cool and you get to make up crazy laws and people believe you.

I think dats right was referring to those in the early stages of a legal career- trainee/newly qualified/less than 3 years pqe- because he made the comparison that his friends who didn't pursue law were now in interesting, well-paid jobs. Speaking from personal experience, it's a fairly accurate comparison he made too; a lot of my friends outside law are doing well for themselves and seem to have little or no stress, whilst my friends from college seem to be finding it difficult in the early years of the legal profession.

I know that was what he was referring to; so was I. I would consider decent money anything over the average wage of €36k, and if you earn more than that you can certainly rub two bob together. Very few young solicitors (less than 3 years PQE) who have a job are earning less than €30k, and there are a number of young barristers (less than 3 years PQE, and even more so if you take 3 years PQE post devilling) who earn that or more. The majority of young barristers don't, but there are a good few who do. So taking this group of lawyers, the majority of them do earn around or above the average wage, and can quite comfortably rub two bob together. There are even some trainees who get paid €30-32k. Moreover, they have the potential to get pay increases as the years go by, thus increasing the bob supply and eventually providing bobs for some lawyer-wives and lawyer-kids.

I know people who earn more than the average wage for doing very little work. Let them at it I says. Likewise, if someone wants to be a lawyer, bon chance. It would surprise me if law students are being told that they make easy money as lawyers because the overriding message in college for me was that you could make much better money doing other things. I suppose that's why a number of my contemporaries went on to become tax advisors etc.

dee8839

I think people are just getting jaded because its so tough out there at the moment. Its just a shame that I'm starting to feel that way before I even graduate! It doesn't help that I do Law and Accounting and am in the position at the mo where all my friends went the other route and are now signing 3 year contracts with firms while I have no immediate prospects (the letters continue to arrive). Yes I could have chosen accountancy. But I'd have been miserable, guaranteed. Instead I've chosen the law route, where I'm only about 90% likely to be miserable it would seem.

I'm now considering doing a Masters or some such just to pass another year of this damn crisis, but money doesn't grow on trees!! I'd love to just know what to do in May, should I go enjoy myself with my friends (who can all party the summer away secure in their jobs) and do the FE1s in April 2010 or is it idiotic to delay so long?! Its just the damned uncertainty of it.

I'm very glad to hear that not everyone who has commented is quite so negative. Its hard to keep positive at the moment but what good will anyone in my position get from negativity?

It'd be very easy to say I wish I could go back and do something else in college. But I don't, not really. Because I know law is what I'll be good at. Its just a shame that what I would almost deem to be my vocation is such a toughie! God I wish I enjoyed accountancy!:o

johnnyskeleton

dee8839 wrote: »

I'm very glad to hear that not everyone who has commented is quite so negative. Its hard to keep positive at the moment but what good will anyone in my position get from negativity?

It'd be very easy to say I wish I could go back and do something else in college. But I don't, not really. Because I know law is what I'll be good at. Its just a shame that what I would almost deem to be my vocation is such a toughie! God I wish I enjoyed accountancy!:o

They will probably say that they are just being realistic (by their version of reality), but you seem to be clear on the risks/difficulties involved. To put it in accounting terms for you, carry out a risk/benefit analysis and hope the best, prepare for the worst.

dats_right

JohnnyS,

There's not much point arguing with you because you seem to ignore the harsh facts and realities facing wannabes, trainees and NQ's. To be fair, I don't think that even Philip Burke or those at Griffith FE-1 school have as rosey a view of prospects for the profession as a whole, but particularly those at the early stages, as your goodself.

I am a trainee and many, many friends of mine are at the early stages of careers at both branches of the profession. Others on this forum have also stated their experience or background in the profession or otherwise. By so doing these posters comments can be put in context. You have repeatedly refused, despite being invited on numerous occasions, to even outline the briefest of details regarding your background, apparently on the basis 'that it doesn't matter, it's an anonymous forum, you could be the Chief Justice or a 1st yr student, etc, etc'.

I can only assume that:
a) You are at such an advanced stage in your legal career that none of the problems facing us affect you and that this is the reason why you repeatedly fail to recognise these very real difficulties effecting the rest of us (and no it's not just conveyancing experiencing problems!).
b) You have some vested interest in the current regime of hundreds and hundreds of students believing that a law career is viable and rewarding for everybody who pays the few grand to do a crash course.
c) You live in a parallel legal universe, maybe working in insolvency/corporate recovery and experiencing unprecedented growth or perhaps the state sector, whereby these current difficulties facing virtually every legal practice don't affect you.
d) You have no recent or up to date, if any, personal knowledge of the profession.

Finally, I suppose there is always the possibility that you are the most extreme form of a panglossian optimist. Indeed, maybe the reasons why you will not divulge any background information regarding yourself is that you are grounding your opinions not from personal knowledge or experience but from nothing more than mere baseless optimism itself. On this point, I expect that you will delight us with some statistical information, perhaps that famous Courts Service report, to tell us how many new cases have been issued in the Courts and how it's really only conveyancing that is suffering. Afterall, you know what they say about statistics don't you? Nonetheless, add to list above as point; e) that you are really work for Big Brother's Ministry of Truth.

I'm sure the statistics will clearly illustrate in true Orwellian fashion that 2+2 does indeed equal 5. Clearly, the problem lies with everybody at the coalface who are obviously mistaken, in what; they see, hear and experience. Because despite what is happening before their very eyes, there are indeed wonderful prospects for trainees and newly qualifieds, there are no redundancies, wage-cuts or cuts in working time and there is a plentiful amount of jobs to go around..

hada

dats_right wrote: »

JohnnyS,

There's not much point arguing with you because you seem to ignore the harsh facts and realities facing wannabes, trainees and NQ's. To be fair, I don't think that even Philip Burke or those at Griffith FE-1 school have as rosey a view of prospects for the profession as a whole, but particularly those at the early stages, as your goodself.

I am a trainee and many, many friends of mine are at the early stages of careers at both branches of the profession. Others on this forum have also stated their experience or background in the profession or otherwise. By so doing these posters comments can be put in context. You have repeatedly refused, despite being invited on numerous occasions, to even outline the briefest of details regarding your background, apparently on the basis 'that it doesn't matter, it's an anonymous forum, you could be the Chief Justice or a 1st yr student, etc, etc'.

I can only assume that:
a) You are at such an advanced stage in your legal career that none of the problems facing us affect you and that this is the reason why you repeatedly fail to recognise these very real difficulties effecting the rest of us (and no it's not just conveyancing experiencing problems!).
b) You have some vested interest in the current regime of hundreds and hundreds of students believing that a law career is viable and rewarding for everybody who pays the few grand to do a crash course.
c) You live in a parallel legal universe, maybe working in insolvency/corporate recovery and experiencing unprecedented growth or perhaps the state sector, whereby these current difficulties facing virtually every legal practice don't affect you.
d) You have no recent or up to date, if any, personal knowledge of the profession.

Finally, I suppose there is always the possibility that you are the most extreme form of a panglossian optimist. Indeed, maybe the reasons why you will not divulge any background information regarding yourself is that you are grounding your opinions not from personal knowledge or experience but from nothing more than mere baseless optimism itself. On this point, I expect that you will delight us with some statistical information, perhaps that famous Courts Service report, to tell us how many new cases have been issued in the Courts and how it's really only conveyancing that is suffering. Afterall, you know what they say about statistics don't you? Nonetheless, add to list above as point; e) that you are really work for Big Brother's Ministry of Truth.

I'm sure the statistics will clearly illustrate in true Orwellian fashion that 2+2 does indeed equal 5. Clearly, the problem lies with everybody at the coalface who are obviously mistaken, in what; they see, hear and experience. Because despite what is happening before their very eyes, there are indeed wonderful prospects for trainees and newly qualifieds, there are no redundancies, wage-cuts or cuts in working time and there is a plentiful amount of jobs to go around..

You do realise that JohnnyS and myself have, at least on this issue, almost identical views.

Challenging JohnnyS's position in life has nothing to do with holding a valid opinion.

Let's see if you can challenge someone who has noted my resume in previous posts, so please apply your A-E to me and you will find that I am neither well established (in the grand scheme of things) nor ignorant to the current economic climate.

It's been said that Law is like an Arts Degree.

That of course would mean that it should lead to many different routes and outcomes if one wants it to be. We are not pigeon holed by and large. In fact we find ourselves in much better positions that the careers I have noted earlier in this thread.


ps. People have failed to ever mention, meet the TOP (and I mean top, truly great) lawyers in Ireland, UK, and the common wealth - these guys all love law. They don't practice law because there is lots of money, prestige, etc, they practice it because they love it.

This is why I don't agree with other posters - I truly love law. Maybe that is naive, but that is what will make me great, and separate me from others. And frankly I pity others who do law because they feel obliged to. This applies to every single profession, not just law.

Amazotheamazing

hada wrote: »

You do realise that JohnnyS and myself have, at least on this issue, almost identical views.

Challenging JohnnyS's position in life has nothing to do with holding a valid opinion.

Let's see if you can challenge someone who has noted my resume in previous posts, so please apply your A-E to me and you will find that I am neither well established (in the grand scheme of things) nor ignorant to the current economic climate.

It's been said that Law is like an Arts Degree.

That of course would mean that it should lead to many different routes and outcomes if one wants it to be. We are not pigeon holed by and large. In fact we find ourselves in much better positions that the careers I have noted earlier in this thread.


ps. People have failed to ever mention, meet the TOP (and I mean top, truly great) lawyers in Ireland, UK, and the common wealth - these guys all love law. They don't practice law because there is lots of money, prestige, etc, they practice it because they love it.

This is why I don't agree with other posters - I truly love law. Maybe that is naive, but that is what will make me great, and separate me from others. And frankly I pity others who do law because they feel obliged to. This applies to every single profession, not just law.

But your plan is to become an academic, so the realities of the business side of law aren't really relevant to you. The practicality of earning a living from law doesn't leave all that much space for the sentimentality about the love of the law.

dats_right

hada wrote: »

You do realise that JohnnyS and myself have, at least on this issue, almost identical views

Splendid, and your point is?

hada wrote: »

ps. People have failed to ever mention, meet the TOP (and I mean top, truly great) lawyers in Ireland, UK, and the common wealth - these guys all love law. They don't practice law because there is lots of money, prestige, etc, they practice it because they love it.

Is this a wind-up or are you seriously that naive? Besides, it's very easy to love something when you're getting paid a minimum of £1m stg per annum and that to be fair is only the average earnings of your average partner in MC firm in London not the true elite of elite of the profession. Also there are no 'TOP' lawyers in Ireland certainly by international standards anyway, because if they were that 'TOP' they would be in London or New York not in the comparative legal backwater that is Ireland!

Hada, with the greatest respect you sound like an idealistic 13 year old, with that nonsense about: 'truly loving the law... that is what will make me great, and separate me from others'. If I was interviewing people and I heard somebody tell me that I'd try not to laugh, send them the customary PFO and let them return to that magical, mystical and idealistic place from where they came of lala or maybe even hada land...

Concur 100% with Amazo.

maidhc

dats_right wrote: »

Is this a wind-up or are you seriously that naive? Besides, it's very easy to love something when you're getting paid a minimum of £1m stg per annum and that to be fair is only the average earnings of your average partner in MC firm in London not the true elite of elite of the profession. Also there are no 'TOP' lawyers in Ireland certainly by international standards anyway, because if they were that 'TOP' they would be in London or New York not in the comparative legal backwater that is Ireland!

Indeed. Was talking to a UK Barrister recently, and all he knew about law in Ireland was that no Magic Circle firm had an office here, because there was no point!

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

JohnnyS,

There's not much point arguing with you because you seem to ignore the harsh facts and realities facing wannabes, trainees and NQ's. To be fair, I don't think that even Philip Burke or those at Griffith FE-1 school have as rosey a view of prospects for the profession as a whole, but particularly those at the early stages, as your goodself.

Read my post just above yours - you really walked into that one. I could equally say that even young solicitors who are not being kept on come January are not as bleak and angry about the legal profession as you are.

dats_right wrote: »

I am a trainee and many, many friends of mine are at the early stages of careers at both branches of the profession. Others on this forum have also stated their experience or background in the profession or otherwise. By so doing these posters comments can be put in context. You have repeatedly refused, despite being invited on numerous occasions, to even outline the briefest of details regarding your background, apparently on the basis 'that it doesn't matter, it's an anonymous forum, you could be the Chief Justice or a 1st yr student, etc, etc'.

I can only assume that:
a) You are at such an advanced stage in your legal career that none of the problems facing us affect you and that this is the reason why you repeatedly fail to recognise these very real difficulties effecting the rest of us (and no it's not just conveyancing experiencing problems!).
b) You have some vested interest in the current regime of hundreds and hundreds of students believing that a law career is viable and rewarding for everybody who pays the few grand to do a crash course.
c) You live in a parallel legal universe, maybe working in insolvency/corporate recovery and experiencing unprecedented growth or perhaps the state sector, whereby these current difficulties facing virtually every legal practice don't affect you.
d) You have no recent or up to date, if any, personal knowledge of the profession.

While I don't want to give out personal information (and I maintain that I don't have to), at the same time am I really that enigmatic? Have you noticed me posting in many Intellectual Property threads? Have you noticed any criminal threads where I haven't posted? Have you read my sig?

I do however resent the suggestion that I have a vested interest in encouraging people to enter the legal profession, especially on the tenuous ground that it would encourage more people to study at a grind school. I could equally argue that you have a vested interest in deterring people from entering the profession so that you have improved employment prospects. I'm sure there are very few young barristers who don't wish they only let 50 new barristers qualify every year (provided of course that they can be one of the 50). I would also be pretty confident that a number of posters on this forum have suggested that the numbers qualifying should be curtailed to guarantee them a job for the foreseeable future.

dats_right wrote: »

Finally, I suppose there is always the possibility that you are the most extreme form of a panglossian optimist. Indeed, maybe the reasons why you will not divulge any background information regarding yourself is that you are grounding your opinions not from personal knowledge or experience but from nothing more than mere baseless optimism itself. On this point, I expect that you will delight us with some statistical information, perhaps that famous Courts Service report, to tell us how many new cases have been issued in the Courts and how it's really only conveyancing that is suffering. Afterall, you know what they say about statistics don't you? Nonetheless, add to list above as point; e) that you are really work for Big Brother's Ministry of Truth.

I don't give out personal information because:
1) I value my privacy
2) On an internet forum, it really doesn't make any difference because I can say whatever I want and moreover, the argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not because of asserted qualifications or experience behind them (the exception being Personal Issues and the like).

The best example I can give of point 2) is thepropertypin.com, where notwithstanding that most of them have less qualifications than the likes of Tom Parlon etc, they present some very compelling arguments.

What do they say about statistics? Surely statistics are better than nothing. It's the interpretation of the stats. Surely the fact that there have been more cases issued in 2008 than in 2007 and more in 2007 than in 2006 is of significance?

dats_right wrote: »

I'm sure the statistics will clearly illustrate in true Orwellian fashion that 2+2 does indeed equal 5. Clearly, the problem lies with everybody at the coalface who are obviously mistaken, in what; they see, hear and experience. Because despite what is happening before their very eyes, there are indeed wonderful prospects for trainees and newly qualifieds, there are no redundancies, wage-cuts or cuts in working time and there is a plentiful amount of jobs to go around..

At the coalface eh? Been in the High Court Personal Injuries list much recently? Or the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court? I think you're misrepresenting what I have said, I never denied that there are redundancies or wage-cuts, all I have ever asserted is that litigation is on the up, an assertion that I have backed with statistics and reasoned arguments.

Would you ever consider that there are people with a different experience to yours? I can accept a lot of what you are saying but you seem determined to assert that the legal profession is in the doldrums and anyone who disagrees with you is deluded or a VI. As I say, I can accept some of the things you have said, but then again I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I merely seek to counterbalance your tales of doom.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I merely seek to counterbalance your tales of doom.

Which is fair, but things are pretty dire for most.

Certainly the solicitors laid off in Cork in the past few weeks wouldn't agree with you, and they were not all conveyancers.

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

Which is fair, but things are pretty dire for most.

Certainly the solicitors laid off in Cork in the past few weeks wouldn't agree with you, and they were not all conveyancers.

The point being though that while it is quite bad for some people, for others it is not so, and for others still it is a great time to earn a crust. The people who have been hit worst are undoubtedly the least senior, but it is not the case that all trainees are not being kept on as newly qualified solicitors, and it is also not the case that the people who have been let go haven't been able to find somewhere else to work. It may be cold comfort to the Cork solicitors to hear it, but in tough times many fortunes have been made - if you look at the people who made a killing in the legal profession during the 90s early 00s, a lot of them started off in the 70s and 80s, when employment prospects were even more dire than they are now.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The point being though that while it is quite bad for some people, for others it is not so, and for others still it is a great time to earn a crust. The people who have been hit worst are undoubtedly the least senior, but it is not the case that all trainees are not being kept on as newly qualified solicitors, and it is also not the case that the people who have been let go haven't been able to find somewhere else to work. It may be cold comfort to the Cork solicitors to hear it, but in tough times many fortunes have been made - if you look at the people who made a killing in the legal profession during the 90s early 00s, a lot of them started off in the 70s and 80s, when employment prospects were even more dire than they are now.

I agree.

handbraker

as in a lot of areas the tuff thing is to get the first job then once u clock up a bit of experience there should be no stoppin you. if this is what u really want to do you should not settle for a career else where

Johnny Utah

hada wrote: »

By the way some people are talking here you would swear we (the legal profession) were in complete isolation with regards being the only ones with meagre job prospects.

Nurses, secondary school teachers, engineering, architecture, physiotherapy, speech & language therapy, psychologists and quantity surveyors are all professions which students qualify from every year and by and large, are completely pigeon holed in those respective profession - even though there is not a chance in the slightest of any significant uptake of NQs for the foreseeable future. Leaving them with absolutely positively zero hope of any gainful employment for the time being. I know this because as most of us, I have quite a number of friends in all these professions and all of them are either a) unemployed and depressed, b) considering shipping off to Australia or c) thinking of going back to education to further their degrees in the hope things will have picked up in the meantime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, stop whinging, get on with it and try and further yourself. The economy is sh1te for all of us - whether we graduated from Yale with an LLM or just started filling out traineeship application forms. Everyone is, as with most things in Ireland, going down the chute together.

Ah hada, this is just too easy.

Nurses/teachers; it has been said here before that it is easier to get a teaching position than it is to secure a training contract.You also have to acknowledge that nurses/teachers are in a secure, pensionable job for life. You're right when you say that in these careers a person will be pigeon-holed to a certain extent, but I think the job security will balance that out. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that teachers/nurses will have "zero hope of any gainful employment". I know a couple of teachers, both primary and secondary, and they are all employed and seemingly quite happy.

Engineering/Architects/Quantity Surveyors: Interesting that you should pick careers in the construction sector. It was inevitable that construction was going to face a downturn - I could have told you that five years ago (and that's probably why I never really considered a career in construction).

Psychologists: ever see what a good psychologist earns?

Physiotherapy/speech & language therapy: :rolleyes: How long does it take to become a physio?
(Not as long as it takes to become a solicitor anyway, that's for sure)

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There was no career guidence at all in college when I was there, except for a room with a retreating secretary and a load of pamplets. But you pick these things up subtly from lots of different places e.g. the milk rounds for the big firms, lecturers making stray comments, friends a few years ahead who have started practice etc, tutors etc. To be honest, I don't think it was in anybody's gift to tell you how things would turn out - no one can tell the future accurately and in any event, it is up to you to form a prediction based on the evidence to hand.

I never asked anyone to tell me how the future would pan out- I leave that sort of stuff to mystic meg, thanks.;)
However, I strongly disagree with you on the issue of career guidance. I firmly believe that law schools should provide proper career advice to its students. I understand why they don't want to do it- its in their interest to propel the myth, keep demand up, and ultimately keep themselves in a nice cushy job. I wonder how many law schools are telling their students about the current difficulties facing the legal profession.


RE the milk rounds for the big firms: I would take what they say with a large pinch of salt. Sure, those presentations are only there so they can tell you how great they are.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that, for what it's worth I used to call a law degree an art+ degree - it's more or less the same hours as arts, and doesn't qualify you for anything more than an arts student (other than skipping the KI diploma) but it sounds kinda cool and you get to make up crazy laws and people believe you.

I know that was what he was referring to; so was I. I would consider decent money anything over the average wage of €36k, and if you earn more than that you can certainly rub two bob together. Very few young solicitors (less than 3 years PQE) who have a job are earning less than €30k, and there are a number of young barristers (less than 3 years PQE, and even more so if you take 3 years PQE post devilling) who earn that or more. The majority of young barristers don't, but there are a good few who do. So taking this group of lawyers, the majority of them do earn around or above the average wage, and can quite comfortably rub two bob together. There are even some trainees who get paid €30-32k. Moreover, they have the potential to get pay increases as the years go by, thus increasing the bob supply and eventually providing bobs for some lawyer-wives and lawyer-kids.

I know people who earn more than the average wage for doing very little work. Let them at it I says. Likewise, if someone wants to be a lawyer, bon chance. It would surprise me if law students are being told that they make easy money as lawyers because the overriding message in college for me was that you could make much better money doing other things. I suppose that's why a number of my contemporaries went on to become tax advisors etc.

Only a very small number of trainees would earn 30k. Probably only those in the top 5 commercial firms, and I know only too well how difficult it is to get into those firms. I guess that most trainees would probably earn the Law Soc recommendations, and perhaps a significant number of trainees are working without a wage.

"Very few young solicitors (less than 3 years PQE) who have a job are earning less than €30k".......... Ah JohnnyS, I like the way you qualified that statement. And, you nearly got away with it.
So if there is an increasing number of young, unemployed solicitors, then wages for this group should fall- would you agree?
It was reported here recently that it is expected that newly qualified salaries will drop to the E30k mark. I consider that to be a pretty poor wage when you consider the time, effort, money involved in qualifying.

dats_right wrote: »

JohnnyS,

There's not much point arguing with you because you seem to ignore the harsh facts and realities facing wannabes, trainees and NQ's. To be fair, I don't think that even Philip Burke or those at Griffith FE-1 school have as rosey a view of prospects for the profession as a whole, but particularly those at the early stages, as your goodself.

I am a trainee and many, many friends of mine are at the early stages of careers at both branches of the profession. Others on this forum have also stated their experience or background in the profession or otherwise. By so doing these posters comments can be put in context. You have repeatedly refused, despite being invited on numerous occasions, to even outline the briefest of details regarding your background, apparently on the basis 'that it doesn't matter, it's an anonymous forum, you could be the Chief Justice or a 1st yr student, etc, etc'.

I can only assume that:
a) You are at such an advanced stage in your legal career that none of the problems facing us affect you and that this is the reason why you repeatedly fail to recognise these very real difficulties effecting the rest of us (and no it's not just conveyancing experiencing problems!).
b) You have some vested interest in the current regime of hundreds and hundreds of students believing that a law career is viable and rewarding for everybody who pays the few grand to do a crash course.
c) You live in a parallel legal universe, maybe working in insolvency/corporate recovery and experiencing unprecedented growth or perhaps the state sector, whereby these current difficulties facing virtually every legal practice don't affect you.
d) You have no recent or up to date, if any, personal knowledge of the profession.

Finally, I suppose there is always the possibility that you are the most extreme form of a panglossian optimist. Indeed, maybe the reasons why you will not divulge any background information regarding yourself is that you are grounding your opinions not from personal knowledge or experience but from nothing more than mere baseless optimism itself. On this point, I expect that you will delight us with some statistical information, perhaps that famous Courts Service report, to tell us how many new cases have been issued in the Courts and how it's really only conveyancing that is suffering. Afterall, you know what they say about statistics don't you? Nonetheless, add to list above as point; e) that you are really work for Big Brother's Ministry of Truth.

I'm sure the statistics will clearly illustrate in true Orwellian fashion that 2+2 does indeed equal 5. Clearly, the problem lies with everybody at the coalface who are obviously mistaken, in what; they see, hear and experience. Because despite what is happening before their very eyes, there are indeed wonderful prospects for trainees and newly qualifieds, there are no redundancies, wage-cuts or cuts in working time and there is a plentiful amount of jobs to go around..

Very good post. I reckon it's either A or B.
But you know what the ad on TV says- it's not always A or B. Sometimes there's also C. Carlsberg don't do Walter Mittys, but if we did we'd call him johnny skeleton. (joke)

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't give out personal information because:
1) I value my privacy
2) On an internet forum, it really doesn't make any difference because I can say whatever I want and moreover, the argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not because of asserted qualifications or experience behind them (the exception being Personal Issues and the like).

The best example I can give of point 2) is thepropertypin.com, where notwithstanding that most of them have less qualifications than the likes of Tom Parlon etc, they present some very compelling arguments.

What do they say about statistics? Surely statistics are better than nothing. It's the interpretation of the stats. Surely the fact that there have been more cases issued in 2008 than in 2007 and more in 2007 than in 2006 is of significance?

And therein lies the difference. If you were willing to provide some compelling arguments regarding career advice in the legal profession, then you would have some credibility. Instead, you make general, vague statements, such as 'litigation is up', or trainees can earn 30k. These statements do not give a true reflection of the current state of the legal profession. These little snippets create the impression that life is great for young solicitors, a view which is clearly at odds with the majority of other posters here- law students, trainees, newly qualifieds, and practitioners with years of experience behind them.

Furthermore, when other posters provide opinions/advice based on their own personal experience on the legal discussion forum, inevitably you reply by questioning them on every little detail, yet you're not willing to provide any details whatsoever of your experience or qualifications. So, johnnys, I think it's time to come clean and tell us what your experience in the legal profession is (you don't have to be specific- you can be vague like some of your posts:D).

Jo King

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Ah hada, this is just too easy.




Furthermore, when other posters provide opinions/advice based on their own personal experience on the legal discussion forum, inevitably you reply by questioning them on every little detail, yet you're not willing to provide any details whatsoever of your experience or qualifications. So, johnnys, I think it's time to come clean and tell us what your experience in the legal profession is (you don't have to be specific- you can be vague like some of your posts:D).

johnny has commented that some of the lecture rooms in the Kings Inns are smelly. He has also referred to "our fees" as being on a case basis as opposed to an hourly basis. He has also pleaded for solicitors to give junior barristers a "leg up". From the above it seems that Johnny has attended the Kings Inns. If he has gone into practise he is only in the early stages.

johnnyskeleton

Johnny Utah wrote: »

However, I strongly disagree with you on the issue of career guidance. I firmly believe that law schools should provide proper career advice to its students. I understand why they don't want to do it- its in their interest to propel the myth, keep demand up, and ultimately keep themselves in a nice cushy job. I wonder how many law schools are telling their students about the current difficulties facing the legal profession.

I don't think I ever argued that colleges shouldn't provide career guidance and suggest that you want me to believe that so that you can pursue your strawman argument against me. What I did say in that part you quoted is that no one can predict the future for you, and career guidance at best can only tell you how things are, not how things will be when you leave college.

This idea that colleges are somehow supporting a myth about the legal profession is a novel one, but I don't think there is much substance to it. Most law students decide to study law because they want to or because of their perception of the legal profession. You seem to suggest that the colleges go out and try to get people to enroll.

Only a very small number of trainees would earn 30k. Probably only those in the top 5 commercial firms, and I know only too well how difficult it is to get into those firms. I guess that most trainees would probably earn the Law Soc recommendations, and perhaps a significant number of trainees are working without a wage.

I didn't say trainees would earn 30k. You have to stop trying to ascribe views to me that I do not hold.

So if there is an increasing number of young, unemployed solicitors, then wages for this group should fall- would you agree?

No because solicitor is a profession not an innate quality. If you are unemployed you do not count in the stats. Certainly the wages for young unemployed solicitors would be less than 30k, but it would be the same as young unemployed builders, doctors etc.

It was reported here recently that it is expected that newly qualified salaries will drop to the E30k mark. I consider that to be a pretty poor wage when you consider the time, effort, money involved in qualifying.

Well that's a value judgement and if you're not happy to work for 30k pa you should try a different profession.

Very good post. I reckon it's either A or B.
But you know what the ad on TV says- it's not always A or B. Sometimes there's also C. Carlsberg don't do Walter Mittys, but if we did we'd call him johnny skeleton. (joke)

Oh well if you say (joke) then that's alright.

And therein lies the difference. If you were willing to provide some compelling arguments regarding career advice in the legal profession, then you would have some credibility. Instead, you make general, vague statements, such as 'litigation is up', or trainees can earn 30k.

You seem incapable of comprehending that by simply asserting that it is tough to be a solicitor at the moment you seem to think that you are stating facts but you are stating opinion. I am not here trying to give career advice, all I am doing is pointing out parts of other peoples arguments that I disagree with. I don't know why yourself and dats_right are so eager to ascribe some ulterior motive to my posts, but you should understand that if someone else has a view different to yours, they are not automatically wrong, and repetition does not make something true.

These statements do not give a true reflection of the current state of the legal profession. These little snippets create the impression that life is great for young solicitors, a view which is clearly at odds with the majority of other posters here- law students, trainees, newly qualifieds, and practitioners with years of experience behind them.

Maidhc agrees with me! Just because my views are in the minority does not make them of lesser value. Surely people can read the thread and make their own minds up? For what its worth, your own comments could be applied mutates mandates to yourself, in that you are constantly pushing a negative view of the legal profession, and expounding your specific poor experience to the general. It could equally be said that your views do not give a true reflection either as you are only speaking from your asserted personal experience.

Furthermore, when other posters provide opinions/advice based on their own personal experience on the legal discussion forum, inevitably you reply by questioning them on every little detail, yet you're not willing to provide any details whatsoever of your experience or qualifications. So, johnnys, I think it's time to come clean and tell us what your experience in the legal profession is (you don't have to be specific- you can be vague like some of your posts:D).

The argument stands or falls on its own merits. I will question their views, as they will question mine, and I will gladly expound on anything that I have said. I have given my reasons before as to why I don't give out personal details, and since you are not prepared to address them (they are on the last page of this thread) I am not going to reiterate them.

Also, and I don't mean to be unduly cruel here, you by your own admission are someone trying to get a trainee contract. Therefore, your own experience in the legal profession is nil. I don't hold this against you, provided you make rational and coherent points.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maidhc agrees with me! Just because my views are in the minority does not make them of lesser value. Surely people can read the thread and make their own minds up? For what its worth, your own comments could be applied mutates mandates to yourself, in that you are constantly pushing a negative view of the legal profession, and expounding your specific poor experience to the general. It could equally be said that your views do not give a true reflection either as you are only speaking from your asserted personal experience.

The problem to some extent is that for the past x no of years doing law, passing the fe1s and getting a training contract was a relatively easy way to get into a lucrative profession. This is no longer the case.

A law degree should be recognised as just a very vague starting point, it is only a 3 year course in most colleges, and really qualifies you for nothing. But it is not a bad place to start..

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

The problem to some extent is that for the past x no of years doing law, passing the fe1s and getting a training contract was a relatively easy way to get into a lucrative profession. This is no longer the case.

A law degree should be recognised as just a very vague starting point, it is only a 3 year course in most colleges, and really qualifies you for nothing. But it is not a bad place to start..

Exactly - the only thing that I would add to that is that there have been a number of people be they lecturers, practitioners or whoever who have constantly warned law students that law is a difficult stressful career.

Bren1609

I'm an accountant and have worked on a few law society audits this year. The trainees or apprentices I meet on site always tell me "how hard it was to get this this job". However, I cant help but get the feeling that some of them wanted to become a solicitor/lawyer for the sake of being a solicitor/lawyer. I think Ally McBeal might be partly to blame. My best friends gf started doing law in griffith college this year, i think she just woke up one morning and decided go back to study law.

Although the situation is as bad, there is alot of people doing accountancy at the moment. Most institutes have changed the entry requirements and the exams are considered not to be as difficult as they used to.