The Barristers

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.