The Barristers

dats_right

BBC2 documentary following some young barristers. Any one been watching it, what you think?

Tom Young

I've seen two episodes and I think its not as bad as the Irish: "Legal Eagles" hatchet job that was undertaken.

The system of chambers is totally different to Ireland as is the pupilage regime. Last nights last 15 minutes was most interesting, it showed how during the event of a jury deliberation the advocates do really go through the 'ringer'.

I think some of the characters from the previous episodes were a little quirky.

Tom

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

Last nights last 15 minutes was most interesting, it showed how during the event of a jury deliberation the advocates do really go through the 'ringer'.

Is that the Old Bailey version of the pit?

Tom Young

LOL - Yeah, kind of.

looking4advice

It was nice to see a documentary done in an informative style rather than the ****e they churn out in this country - that doc. on Irish Barristers "legal eagles" had an agenda to show the pompous side of Barristers (which some of course are).

The English system seems better - ok the competition to get a pupilage is 1/5 but at least there is structure to a Barristers education. They spend 6 months shadowing and 6 months "on their fee". The Irish devils get a mixed bag of experience for they year and are then thrown into the deep end the year after.

johnnyskeleton

looking4advice wrote: »

It was nice to see a documentary done in an informative style rather than the ****e they churn out in this country - that doc. on Irish Barristers "legal eagles" had an agenda to show the pompous side of Barristers (which some of course are).

The English system seems better - ok the competition to get a pupilage is 1/5 but at least there is structure to a Barristers education. They spend 6 months shadowing and 6 months "on their fee". The Irish devils get a mixed bag of experience for they year and are then thrown into the deep end the year after.

I liked the one they showed last week with the family law barrister living in a small country house and driving a volkswagen. It shows that even if she is very well off there is no ostentation to her.

It's hard to say whether the English or Irish systems are better. Obviously it is better for pupils in England than it is for devils in Ireland, and there is the comfort of a chambers for more established practitioners, but the 1/5 figure is daunting. Seeing as the profession is based on ideals of independence, individual style and impartiality, I think the Irish system is more suited to foster these traits and also the Irish system allows the more unconventional people an opportunity that they might not get in the UK system.

Our man in Havana

What are the figures here as regarding barristers/pupillages?

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

What are the figures here as regarding barristers/pupillages?

There are about 2000 barristers; of these maybe 500-800 are junior counsel with at least 7 years practice, and of those about 100-150 are busy enough to comfortably have a devil. There are about 200 devils each year for the last few years, all of whom are taken on, but many of whom are taken on by masters who probably don't have enough work for a first year devil. In any event, pretty much anyone who wants to be a barrister and has the degree can be one.

a-ha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There are about 2000 barristers; of these maybe 500-800 are junior counsel with at least 7 years practice, and of those about 100-150 are busy enough to comfortably have a devil. There are about 200 devils each year for the last few years, all of whom are taken on, but many of whom are taken on by masters who probably don't have enough work for a first year devil. In any event, pretty much anyone who wants to be a barrister and has the degree can be one.

Succeeding is quite another matter. Sure get a B.L. but the odds of making it without family connections are getting less all the time.

a-ha

looking4advice wrote: »

It was nice to see a documentary done in an informative style rather than the ****e they churn out in this country - that doc. on Irish Barristers "legal eagles" had an agenda to show the pompous side of Barristers (which some of course are).

The English system seems better - ok the competition to get a pupilage is 1/5 but at least there is structure to a Barristers education. They spend 6 months shadowing and 6 months "on their fee". The Irish devils get a mixed bag of experience for they year and are then thrown into the deep end the year after.

Very true. In Ireland the system is so opaque that no one knows a thing about the person they have chosen as a master before they start. Even if you asked former devils they wouldn't be open with you, the omerta leave people vulnerable to exploitation. What is worse than working for free for two years? Working for free for someone who has no intention of helping your career in any way and who'll never pass you a crumb. This you only find out after.

Tom Young

Ok - You are clearly not having a good time at the bar.

dats_right

a-ha wrote: »

Very true. In Ireland the system is so opaque that no one knows a thing about the person they have chosen as a master before they start. Even if you asked former devils they wouldn't be open with you, the omerta leave people vulnerable to exploitation. What is worse than working for free for two years? Working for free for someone who has no intention of helping your career in any way and who'll never pass you a crumb. This you only find out after.

It's a fact of life that not everybody you meet you will get along with and by the sounds of it that's what happended here. Why did you work for the same master for two years anyway? Most of the people I know who had difficulties with their master stuck it out for 12 months and then lined up another master for the next 12 months. And besides, as you know barristers are an insanely paranoid lot, so your master probably views all colleagues, even very inexperienced ones, as a threat to his/her sources of work and is doing nothing more than protecting his/her turf, as they probably see it, it would be like letting you take the food from their mouth and you hardly expect them to do that now do you?

I don't know of any of the young barristers ,that I know, who expected to be making any money at the bar after 2 or 3 years, well none that would admit to it anyway. As for needing contacts to succeed? I genuinely don't believe that is true, whilst of course it helps, but if somebody is bad it ultimately doesn't matter how many contacts they have because the briefs will soon dry up. Nonetheless, I accept that it is more difficult to secure work without connections, but if you are good and can stick around long enough at the library by whatever means possible you will ultimately succeed. I know that our firm whilst more or less drawing from the same pool of barristers for most of our work, we would often, if one of these barrister's former devil had shown ability and isn't a pompous prat (as is unfortunately all too common with devils and young barristers- I find it is usually those who are least capable that have the biggest egos) we would send them a bit of work.

Nobody ever said success at the Bar was easy and it has traditionally always had many who cannot or are unwilling to persevere at it any longer and either leave the law altogether or get a job in some related area. Although I do accept that with the plethora of BL's being churned out by King's Inns every year now that it is perhaps even worse than previously

Our man in Havana

Is there a requirement to have a master at all?

dats_right

Bond-007 wrote: »

Is there a requirement to have a master at all?

I'm not a barrister, but as I understand it, in order for somebody who holds the degree of barrister-at-law to become a practising barrister they must become members of the Law Library and in order to do that they must undertake a 12 month devilling period, so the answer is yes (afaik). But, an additional or second period of 12 months is entirely optional, but from what I gather most prefer to obtain a second 12 month devilling period even though not compulsory.

Jo King

a-ha wrote: »

Very true. In Ireland the system is so opaque that no one knows a thing about the person they have chosen as a master before they start. Even if you asked former devils they wouldn't be open with you, the omerta leave people vulnerable to exploitation. What is worse than working for free for two years? Working for free for someone who has no intention of helping your career in any way and who'll never pass you a crumb. This you only find out after.

Why did you devil for two years? So you could have a chip on both shoulders? barristers are supposed to be resourceful. Solicitors only get them involved when the situation requires it. People who sit around bemoaning the fact that someone else is not doing anything for them usually have no initiative and are unlikely to be called on by a solicitor to hepl solve a problem.

a-ha

Jo King wrote: »

Why did you devil for two years? So you could have a chip on both shoulders? barristers are supposed to be resourceful. Solicitors only get them involved when the situation requires it. People who sit around bemoaning the fact that someone else is not doing anything for them usually have no initiative and are unlikely to be called on by a solicitor to hepl solve a problem.

Not having initiative is not a problem. I work ridiculously hard. I devilled for two different masters, neither have passed me work. This is not my fault or even theirs, with the numbers at the bar skyrocketing masters are more reluctant to help their devils. Every story does not have to have a happy ending folks.

The bar is a disaster for those without connections. It's all very well to say that anecdotally people can still make it without them. It is quite another thing to try and actually do it. Those at the bar know just how difficult that is. Barristers without connections have to lecture, tutor, research, write student manuals, give grinds in law, judge moots, write articles, books and deliver conferences to make a name. they work multiple jobs to try to compensate for the harder start they have. It takes at least five full years of long hours at a plethora of different jobs to make an impact (i.e. earn any kind of income), very few people have the physical, emotional or financial resources to pull this feat off. Increased numbers only makes the bar more elitist not less, the barriers to survial only go up. It is not a pleasant truth but trust me. I see it all around me everyday.

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

Not having initiative is not a problem. I work ridiculously hard. I devilled for two different masters, neither have passed me work. This is not my fault or even theirs, with the numbers at the bar skyrocketing masters are more reluctant to help their devils. Every story does not have to have a happy ending folks.

Maybe the problem is not so much a lack of connections as having 2 bad masters. That's unfortunate, but to be honest it could have happened to anyone irrespective of talent or connections.

a-ha wrote: »

The bar is a disaster for those without connections. It's all very well to say that anecdotally people can still make it without them. It is quite another thing to try and actually do it. Those at the bar know just how difficult that is.

I don't think that this should be accepted merely on your say so. Surely other people's anecdotes are just as valid as yours?

a-ha wrote: »

Barristers without connections have to lecture, tutor, research, write student manuals, give grinds in law, judge moots, write articles, books and deliver conferences to make a name. they work multiple jobs to try to compensate for the harder start they have. It takes at least five full years of long hours at a plethora of different jobs to make an impact (i.e. earn any kind of income), very few people have the physical, emotional or financial resources to pull this feat off. Increased numbers only makes the bar more elitist not less, the barriers to survial only go up. It is not a pleasant truth but trust me. I see it all around me everyday.

Barristers are warned that it is a very tough job in which few make it. The same warning could be said to actors, writers, artists, business people, resteraunteurs, just about any trade or profession where people have to rely on their own resources. If someone wanted to become a plumber now, knowing that employment & earnings prospects are low, but went ahead with it anyway, because it is what they want to do, I say fair play to them. Same being true of barristerrin'.

a-ha

The real problem I have been alluding to is that with the numbers at the bar continually increasing the present business structure is totally inadequate for people like myself. This is not a problem for the powers that be. They're kids wont face this problem and they will never have to compete with people who tried to make it on their own terms, because very few of them will. Ultimately, the bar continues to be the profession of the rich and well connected. Is this healthy, or beneficial to society. No.

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

The real problem I have been alluding to is that with the numbers at the bar continually increasing the present business structure is totally inadequate for people like myself.

While less people at the bar would, all things being equal, mean a greater opportunity for you to get work, that does not mean that the structure is unsound. They do not owe a duty to you to make sure you have enough work.

a-ha wrote: »

This is not a problem for the powers that be. They're kids wont face this problem and they will never have to compete with people who tried to make it on their own terms, because very few of them will. Ultimately, the bar continues to be the profession of the rich and well connected. Is this healthy, or beneficial to society. No.

I disagree with this. Do you have any proof to back up your assertions. I will not accept, based purely on your assertion that you are a barrister, that what you say is correct. It seems to me that a lot of people have succeeded at the bar through hard graft and skill, so unless you can prove (by evidence or otherwise) that your view is correct, it is open to debate.

Amazotheamazing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While less people at the bar would, all things being equal, mean a greater opportunity for you to get work, that does not mean that the structure is unsound. They do not owe a duty to you to make sure you have enough work.



I disagree with this. Do you have any proof to back up your assertions. I will not accept, based purely on your assertion that you are a barrister, that what you say is correct. It seems to me that a lot of people have succeeded at the bar through hard graft and skill, so unless you can prove (by evidence or otherwise) that your view is correct, it is open to debate.

Easy for someone with your connections to say...

a-ha

I think you have missed something. Barristers are totally dependent on others. You can't brief yourself. Nobody makes it without a hand up from somebody. You can help them as much as u like but u can't make them help you.

a-ha

I am not saying the numbers at the bar should be restricted. Although there should be quality control and this would have to be independently assessed in an accountable fashion. I think the sole trader model should be optional. We should be allowed to form partnerships and pool our resources.

drkpower

a-ha wrote: »

I am not saying the numbers at the bar should be restricted. Although there should be quality control and this would have to be independently assessed in an accountable fashion. I think the sole trader model should be optional. We should be allowed to form partnerships and pool our resources.

but isnt the whole point of barristers is that they are independent? otherwise why wouldnt big solicitors firms employ them to do advocacy/specialist work.

ultimately barristers as a distinct career in law will diminish - it makes little sense - there will still be room for talented senior counsels but the numbers will reduce - it is already beginning.

johnnyskeleton

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Easy for someone with your connections to say...

You don't know me.

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

I think you have missed something. Barristers are totally dependent on others. You can't brief yourself. Nobody makes it without a hand up from somebody. You can help them as much as u like but u can't make them help you.

Again, is it not fair to say that you missed out on being given "a hand up" from your masters?

Amazotheamazing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You don't know me.

Not yet John, but this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

johnnyskeleton

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Not yet John, but this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

In any event, a-ha has accepted that you don't have to have connections to make it at the bar in the other thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054932727

a-ha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In any event, a-ha has accepted that you don't have to have connections to make it at the bar in the other thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054932727

Sure, Johnny, but the point I made is that it is not impossible but nigh impossible. The fact that the odd unusual individual might accomplish this does not disprove the suggestion that the bar is elitist and that success is dependent on connections (such that those with family in the profession are virtually guaranteed survival). Sure it is possible. That is the wrong question. You should ask instead "is it likely?". I work in the environment and I have observed an extraordinary attrition rate for those without connections. I see that the odds of making it for someone without connections are very very marginal at best. It requires something quite extraordinary. If the public as a whole knew that the bar had organised itself in a fashion that made it virtually impossible for the kids of ordinary people (not rich, not connected) to make it they wouldn't be too impressed. Sadly, empty anecdotes about how "some" might still achieve the near impossible tend to obscure the bigger picture. See the drop out rate.

Tom Young

I have something of an alternative comment.

Many who enter the Bar do so at quite a young age, some between 22 and 26 without having had exposure to the stark realities of work, and work in a serious fashion. What I mean by a serious fashion might be: Sole Trading, not noting down the learning points from masters, not being courteous/mannerly, expecting work to 'come' to them. A couple of competing matters then all collide:

1. Age;
2. Corporate/business inexperience;
3. Bank rolling by generous (and possibly unconnected) parents; and
4. A misconceived notion that they fit and have a God given right to succeed without hard work.

I've seen younger barristers make sometimes almost fatal (but not negligent) errors in court which will not lead to repeat performances or briefs from certain generally benevolent solicitors, and indeed such errors do not assist advocates 'take the judicial temperature' or get a reputation for good manners in court

Additionally, many who took law have possibly seen their successful solicitor, medicine and architecture colleagues earn supernormal salaries in recent years, thus pressuring them more in relation to getting out there [away from the Bar], socialising and competing.

Those days are now gone if we look purely at law in the context of the downturn.

My own view is that the Bar is not for everyone. But it will accept everyone on merit.

Tom

PS: Conversely, I've briefed Barristers in the UK since the fusion of the professions over there and I've certain negative views in relation to going down that road. If fusion is merely an extended 'coffee club' then it simply will not work here. The Bars of Northern Ireland and Scotland have undertaken reviews which similarly have concluded that splitting is not a good idea.

Amazotheamazing

Tom Young wrote: »

I have something of an alternative comment.

Many who enter the Bar do so at quite a young age, some between 22 and 26 without having had exposure to the stark realities of work, and work in a serious fashion. What I mean by a serious fashion might be: Sole Trading, not noting down the learning points from masters, not being courteous/mannerly, expecting work to 'come' to them. A couple of competing matters then all collide:

1. Age;
2. Corporate/business inexperience;
3. Bank rolling by generous (and possibly unconnected) parents; and
4. A misconceived notion that they fit and have a God given right to succeed without hard work.

I've seen younger barristers make sometimes almost fatal (but not negligent) errors in court which will not lead to repeat performances or briefs from certain generally benevolent solicitors, and indeed such errors do not assist advocates 'take the judicial temperature' or get a reputation for good manners in court

Additionally, many who took law have possibly seen their successful solicitor, medicine and architecture colleagues earn supernormal salaries in recent years, thus pressuring them more in relation to getting out there [away from the Bar], socialising and competing.

Those days are now gone if we look purely at law in the context of the downturn.

My own view is that the Bar is not for everyone. But it will accept everyone on merit.

Tom

PS: Conversely, I've briefed Barristers in the UK since the fusion of the professions over there and I've certain negative views in relation to going down that road. If fusion is merely an extended 'coffee club' then it simply will not work here. The Bars of Northern Ireland and Scotland have undertaken reviews which similarly have concluded that splitting is not a good idea.

I'd agree with most of that. College does not prepare people for the reality of working life, particularly in law, imo.

Every law course should have some form of co-op or training incorporated into it. It should also be a requirement to complete office experience prior to starting in blackhall, and possibly King's Inns too. It would give the student a grounding in the reality of law-work.

Fwiw, I don't think you could survive at the bar without substantial financial assistance in your early years. That alone means it places it outside the reach of a lot of people.

dermot_sheehan

As a junior member of the bar lacking in any contacts, I'm sort of hoping to succeed,

Going into it I knew that I'd be twiddling my thumbs for a few years, and it is like expected.


It's a great career even if you don't make tons of cash, the problem is though spending years without earning a penny.

Living at home with my parents I'm more fortunate then most in not having monthly rent to try and get together but its not a situation id like to be in for ever.

The main problem with the bar is how counsel is chosen to be briefed in certain cases. It's always a case of counsel the solicitor knows as they wouldn't want to chance a new person with an important case. This favours those with contacts (be it family or professional) who literally have their offices pilling full of briefs while many worthy barristers are idle.

a-ha

The notion that barristers don't succeed because 25-30 is too young to be working is frankly ridiculous. The barriers to entry are economic in part, can you think of any other profession where two years' unpaid traineeship is the norm? Secondly, the suggestion that barristers don't have experience of the working world etc is just insulting. All but the most privileged have worked elsewhere beforehand. I for one have seen lots of different working environments, I can list all of the jobs I've had if you like and we can both have a good laugh about some of the stranger employments I've had. Needless to say the list of my former employers runs to about a paragraph. I say don't think critically about the system, surely it's all the fault of those working for peanuts on the bottom rung of the ladder.

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

Sure, Johnny, but the point I made is that it is not impossible but nigh impossible. The fact that the odd unusual individual might accomplish this does not disprove the suggestion that the bar is elitist and that success is dependent on connections (such that those with family in the profession are virtually guaranteed survival). Sure it is possible. That is the wrong question. You should ask instead "is it likely?". I work in the environment and I have observed an extraordinary attrition rate for those without connections. I see that the odds of making it for someone without connections are very very marginal at best. It requires something quite extraordinary. If the public as a whole knew that the bar had organised itself in a fashion that made it virtually impossible for the kids of ordinary people (not rich, not connected) to make it they wouldn't be too impressed. Sadly, empty anecdotes about how "some" might still achieve the near impossible tend to obscure the bigger picture. See the drop out rate.

You reject my "empty anecdotes" and then proffer your own. Either you insist on a high standard of proof and provide statistical evidence or at least some credible authority or else we both rely on anecdotes.

I think the problem is your methodology. You are looking at the people who are leaving and saying "they have no contacts, that must be why they are leaving", but you should look instead at the ones who are not leaving, or more particularly, the ones who have already made it. Can you really say of them that they made it solely because of their relatives in the legal profession, or would it be fairer to say they are there because of talent, hard graft and maybe a bit of luck.

And of course the point remains that "contacts" is a fairly vague term. Does it mean a close relative who is a solicitor or does it mean the contacts that you build up during your devilling & early years of practice? Obviously barristers need some contacts with the people who give them work, and it is the purpose of devilling that you build up these contacts. Unless you want to provide empirical evidence to the contrary, I would argue that barristers who build up their contacts are just as likely to succeed (if not more so) than the ones who come to the bar with ready made contacts.

johnnyskeleton

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Fwiw, I don't think you could survive at the bar without substantial financial assistance in your early years. That alone means it places it outside the reach of a lot of people.

That's what part time jobs, lecturing, saving for years before hand and, ultimately, overdrafts are for. You need to have either a) a big warchest (and to be fair, there are a lot of people who come to the bar late in life financed by an early pension or the profits from their earlier businesses) or b) a willingness to work 60-80 hours a week just to keep your head above water for a few years. It is not outside the reach of a lot of people, it's just that for most people, the level of effort and risk are not worth the potential benefits, which is fair enough. But do not confuse dedication with financial assistance.

gabhain7 wrote: »

As a junior member of the bar lacking in any contacts, I'm sort of hoping to succeed,

Going into it I knew that I'd be twiddling my thumbs for a few years, and it is like expected.

It's a great career even if you don't make tons of cash, the problem is though spending years without earning a penny.

That's it, take a risk, and if it doesn't work out, chalk it up to experience. And if it does, then you're doing the job you want to do, perhaps even for a fairly high level of remuneration.

gabhain7 wrote: »

The main problem with the bar is how counsel is chosen to be briefed in certain cases. It's always a case of counsel the solicitor knows as they wouldn't want to chance a new person with an important case. This favours those with contacts (be it family or professional) who literally have their offices pilling full of briefs while many worthy barristers are idle.

Well make sure that when the time comes for solicitors to select counsel, your name and face immediately spring to mind (for all the right reasons).

a-ha wrote: »

The notion that barristers don't succeed because 25-30 is too young to be working is frankly ridiculous.

I think Tom's point was about experience rather than age in the strict sense. You could have a very worldly 25 year old, or a very naieve 38 year old, but as a general rule you are more likely to get more experienced 38 year olds than you are experienced 25 year olds.

a-ha wrote: »

The barriers to entry are economic in part, can you think of any other profession where two years' unpaid traineeship is the norm?

Yeah, pretty much any profession where you start up on your own e.g. actor, writer, resteraunteur.

a-ha wrote: »

I say don't think critically about the system, surely it's all the fault of those working for peanuts on the bottom rung of the ladder.

It is what it is, it was not designed as such, it evolved that way. Is there room for improvement - sure, but from the point of view of someone seeking to enter the profession you're faced with a choice - knowing how it is do you take a risk or do you do something else?

a-ha

A bogus comparison, writers, actors and restaunters do not work for others in their professions for free for two years. A better comparison would be accountants and solicitors, who's training and education is very similar to our own. In competition terms the non payment of devils is both a barrier to entry and an anticompetitive market failure. One serious difficulty for devils is that when they are on their feet in court there are rarely any solicitors watching, just legal executives and other devils.

a-ha

Sorry for the poor spelling, typing on my phone can be tricky

mountainyman

a-ha wrote: »

A bogus comparison, writers, actors and restaunters do not work for others in their professions for free for two years. A better comparison would be accountants and solicitors, who's training and education is very similar to our own.

quite false , demonstrably so. Your training and education is quite different from that of accountants and solicitors who are supposed to be employed by other professionals during their education.

Further the structure of the accountant's and solicitor's profession is redically different from that of a barrister in that they are not all self employed.

Writers and actors do generally work for free for 2 years.

a-ha

mountainyman wrote: »

quite false , demonstrably so. Your training and education is quite different from that of accountants and solicitors who are supposed to be employed by other professionals during their education.

Further the structure of the accountant's and solicitor's profession is redically different from that of a barrister in that they are not all self employed.

Writers and actors do generally work for free for 2 years.

Neither writers nor actors work for free for somebody else.

While barristers are ultimately self-employed (as are solicitors who set up their own practice) when they are devilling they are working for somebody else 9-5 and are just the same as any other trainee, be it solicitor or accountant, except that they don't get paid.

Jo King

a-ha wrote: »

Neither writers nor actors work for free for somebody else.

While barristers are ultimately self-employed (as are solicitors who set up their own practice) when they are devilling they are working for somebody else 9-5 and are just the same as any other trainee, be it solicitor or accountant, except that they don't get paid.

Barristers are self employed when they devil. They are entitled to take on work of their own and charge for it. They are not in the same position as trainee accountants and solicitors who cannot work on their own account. They devil in order to learn their job and acquire skills and knowledge they can use in their own practise.

nuac

A-ha - you say rarely any solicitors watching when devils appear, only legal executives.

I am often in the Circuit COurt or provincial sittings of HIgh Court. In those courts solicitors attend rather than legal executives. Solicitors do take note of the performance and possible ability of new barristers, and meet them aprés court..

Re devilling it is as good as system as any. A conscientious barrister will ensure his/her devil is involved in consultations with solicitors and with clients, and to gain confidence by dealing with motions etc. I have seen such and am aware that some experienced barristers have a waiting list for devils.

It is asking a bit much to expect the barrister to pass on some of his business but due to double booking, cases running over etc, briefs will often be handed over. Also some experienced barristers become seniors and their current or former devils may pick up some of that barristers work.

Most barristers give a good service to their clients. They are not geared for the overheads and admin that would be incurred in taking on employees.

I don't think devils should complain at not being paid if they are gaining in experience - and the famous contacts. The bar is rather a short course compared to others. Some on the job trainng should be accepted.

a-ha

nuac wrote: »

A-ha - you say rarely any solicitors watching when devils appear, only legal executives.

I am often in the Circuit COurt or provincial sittings of HIgh Court. In those courts solicitors attend rather than legal executives. Solicitors do take note of the performance and possible ability of new barristers, and meet them aprés court..

Re devilling it is as good as system as any. A conscientious barrister will ensure his/her devil is involved in consultations with solicitors and with clients, and to gain confidence by dealing with motions etc. I have seen such and am aware that some experienced barristers have a waiting list for devils.

It is asking a bit much to expect the barrister to pass on some of his business but due to double booking, cases running over etc, briefs will often be handed over. Also some experienced barristers become seniors and their current or former devils may pick up some of that barristers work.

Most barristers give a good service to their clients. They are not geared for the overheads and admin that would be incurred in taking on employees.

I don't think devils should complain at not being paid if they are gaining in experience - and the famous contacts. The bar is rather a short course compared to others. Some on the job trainng should be accepted.

Qualifying at the bar is not a short course. I spent seven years as a student. I'm in my third year now. It's almost ten years since I started. As for solicitors appearing on Circuit. I practice in Dublin. While I take work on circuit when asked I am not based on circuit.

mountainyman

It takes a year to get the bar. It is a short course. You aren't a student when you are devilling some get work.

a-ha

mountainyman wrote: »

It takes a year to get the bar. It is a short course. You aren't a student when you are devilling some get work.

I'm not sure I should bother replying to something so poorly researched.

Here it is. If you have a law degree (four years) another year (used to be two). Therefore, minimum is five.

If you have a non law degree it is four year degree (non law) plus KI diploma (2 years) plus B.L. degree (1 year).

For both of the above...you might be a B.L. after but two years devilling are the norm. When you take the joining fee, library fee, wig gown, food, rent, phone bills, stationary, computer etc. you'll be making a loss of about €10,000 as a first year devil. It is unlikely that you will earn more than €500.

If you want to earn more money, you need to lecture. Good luck finding lecturing work anywhere without a masters degree.

If you want to do more than lecture part time (paid by the hour), you should try to get a job in one of the universities. You will not be hired without a PhD.

Both of the above suggestions are just to help you have enough income to continue practice at the bar. It will take five years at the bar to make anything resembling a living.

Short eh?

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

Qualifying at the bar is not a short course. I spent seven years as a student. I'm in my third year now. It's almost ten years since I started.

Can be done in as short as 3/4 years now (mature student 2 year diploma & 1 year degree or 3 year degree (NUI/Griffith)). Even under the old 2 year diploma, 7 years is a fairly long time.

a-ha wrote: »

As for solicitors appearing on Circuit. I practice in Dublin. While I take work on circuit when asked I am not based on circuit.

I don't think nuac was talking about you as much as about barristers in general.