How many PFOs have you got from solicitors firms?

willie mason

I'm on four at this stage: Arthur Cox, A&L Goodbody, Beauchamps and McCann Fitzgerald.

Just waiting for the inevitable from MOPs, William Fry and BCM Hanby Wallace.

My BBLS, 6 months work in a local solicitor's office and the LLM I'm doing can't even get me an interview. It's so depressing.

Jev/N

Got two technically, didn't get into the second round of interviews with Arthur Cox unfortunately and got one from McCanns also- have an interview with A&L however thank god, something to look forward to!

Still waiting to hear back from Frys, MOP, Maples and ODSE at the moment ...fingers crossed! It's fairly tough alright, although this is my first year applying so I can't really compare

johnfás

Rejected from Cox, A&L, Beauchamps... confused by Mason Hayes + Curran.

Interview at McCanns and still waiting for response from ODSE, MOP, BCM Hanby Wallace and Frys.

Punchesnpeaches

johnfás wrote: »

Rejected from Cox, A&L, Beauchamps... confused by Mason Hayes + Curran.

Interview at McCanns and still waiting for response from ODSE, MOP, BCM Hanby Wallace and Frys.

I've heard that Mason Hayes are recruiting their trainees from their summer interns.

bills

four- thats nothing. I have loads but then i was randomly applying to all law firms, about 50 at least i wud say!! Its amazing the no. that dont even reply.

Johnny Utah

I have hundreds (yes hundreds) of pfo letters from the last year. I have a collection the size of a phonebook at this stage. And Bills is right too, half of them don't even bother replying.

Regarding the commerical firms specifically, this year I've applied to the 20 biggest commercial firms (I have a small directory on commercial law firms in Ireland from a business magazine I read a few years ago, so I know which ones to apply to). Anyway, out of the big 5, I've already been rejected by three of them. I'm sure ye can guess which ones they are, but the thing that really annoys me is that they usually give a stupid line, such as 'we had a huge number of applications this year'. Wow, no $hit Sherlock, I bet you receive a huge number of applications every year. I wish they would give some geuine feedback. I put a bit of time and effort into the application form, and then they just send out the generic pfo response a week later. :mad:


To be perfectly honest, I think connections are vital to securing a training contract, even in the big commercial firms.

Dan133269

willie mason wrote: »

I'm on four at this stage: Arthur Cox, A&L Goodbody, Beauchamps and McCann Fitzgerald.

Just waiting for the inevitable from MOPs, William Fry and BCM Hanby Wallace.

My BBLS, 6 months work in a local solicitor's office and the LLM I'm doing can't even get me an interview. It's so depressing.

That's ridiculous, have you passed the fe1s aswell? What I don't understand is, what do the people who get interviews have? they can't have much more substantially, so is some turn of phrase or good answer on an application form?

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I have hundreds (yes hundreds) of pfo letters from the last year. I have a collection the size of a phonebook at this stage. And Bills is right too, half of them don't even bother replying.

Regarding the commerical firms specifically, this year I've applied to the 20 biggest commercial firms (I have a small directory on commercial law firms in Ireland from a business magazine I read a few years ago, so I know which ones to apply to). Anyway, out of the big 5, I've already been rejected by three of them. I'm sure ye can guess which ones they are, but the thing that really annoys me is that they usually give a stupid line, such as 'we had a huge number of applications this year'. Wow, no $hit Sherlock, I bet you receive a huge number of applications every year. I wish they would give some geuine feedback. I put a bit of time and effort into the application form, and then they just send out the generic pfo response a week later. :mad:


To be perfectly honest, I think connections are vital to securing a training contract, even in the big commercial firms.

I suppose they're just being polite, rather than saying we hired someone who meets our criteria, which is always a bit insulting to get after applying. I found the website www.legal500.com for listing out the biggest firms which would help with applying for traineeships. Have you got anything yet JohnnyUtah?

johnfás

I think there is an awful lot of luck as to whether one gets an interview at the large firms, they must sift through the applications at a rate of knots. I applied to one firm on a Friday and got rejected the following Tuesday after they apparently examined 600 odd applications.

At the same time I have an interview in January with one of the big commercial firms yet they didn't give me a moment's glance 6 months ago when I applied for their intern programme and I have not done anything of particular note since.

I haven't got any contacts in any of them either, makes it more difficult but c'est la vie. When you eventually make it you can be prouder of your achievements.

Johnny Utah

Dan133269 wrote: »

That's ridiculous, have you passed the fe1s aswell? What I don't understand is, what do the people who get interviews have? they can't have much more substantially, so is some turn of phrase or good answer on an application form?

I think john could be right- they probably get admin staff to fly through the CVs/application forms so fast that your or my application was probably glanced at for about 20 seconds by someone who couldn't give a rat's ass. Then when it gets to the interview stage, the partners review the application forms.

Although in saying that, I do know one fella that got into a top 5 firm through a contact. It wasn't a family contact either, and he hadn't even passed half of his fe1 exams.

Dan133269 wrote: »

I suppose they're just being polite, rather than saying we hired someone who meets our criteria, which is always a bit insulting to get after applying. I found the website www.legal500.com for listing out the biggest firms which would help with applying for traineeships. Have you got anything yet JohnnyUtah?

No, haven't even got an interview yet. I went to the training contract seminar there during the summer, and it was crazy how many were there, desperate for tips on how to secure a traineeship. I think the majority of people there had passed all the fe1s too. We were divided up into groups at the end, and I got talking to some girls (all had a law degree, fe1s, and one even had a masters from UCD- they told me that they'd been searching for a training contract for nearly two years at that stage!

Duffman

Don't get too disheartened by the PFOs, I know it's a bit crap but the recruitment methods of some of the Dublin firms are a total mystery.

A HR person from A&L told me a few years ago that she bins an application without reading it if she doesn't like the look of the handwriting. It doesn't necessarily need to be messy, she just may not like the look of it. I know they need to process hundreds of apps but as a recruitment policy that seems, well frankly, retarded.

I know someone who applied to some of the big Dublin firms and got PFOs all round, not even an interview. They then sent essentially the same application to the entire magic circle and the rest of the top firms in London and were offered a TC from all of them, immediately.

My point is that you shouldn't give up. If possible try to get feedback and find out if it is actually something to do with the contents of your application. I would say that jumping to conclusions about how people with connections get all the places is rubbish. The extent to which connections matter is really exaggerated. They might occasionally help someone get an interview but training contracts will only go to people who are suitably qualified for the job. These firms are businesses after all and falling back on the connections rant is just an excuse.

dee8839

Just need to rant about my own stupidity for a second. I'm in the middle of exams at the moment, final year, so I kept leaving the application for ODSE to the last minute, and I damn well FORGOT to put it in, after spending ages perfecting it!! If that's the way I carry on I hardly deserve a bloody TC.

Got rejections from Cox McCanns (whose application form was ridiculously limiting BTW, useless really) and A&L. Its really tough to be trying to study really hard for my exams, to get a good degree, which I apparently can then do absolutely nothing productive with.

I found out about Goodbody on Wednesday and I swear I actually had to just go home from the library and just have a bit of a silent panic attack for an hour or so. Then all I could do was shake it off and get back to it. Its just horrible to be getting these rejections at such a tough time.

As for next year, god only knows what to do. Masters don't seem to be worth the paper they're written on at this stage. I don't think contacts are a hell of a lot of good at the moment because, quite simply, there aren't even jobs for the truly great law graduates, let alone the slightly crap nephews and neices of partners.

On another note, I'd just like to congratulate johnfás on the interview, I remember when you posted a reply about getting a rejection absurdly quickly from one of the big 5, so glad to see things have looked up for you since. Best of luck.

Punchesnpeaches

johnfás wrote: »

I think there is an awful lot of luck as to whether one gets an interview at the large firms, they must sift through the applications at a rate of knots. I applied to one firm on a Friday and got rejected the following Tuesday after they apparently examined 600 odd applications.

At the same time I have an interview in January with one of the big commercial firms yet they didn't give me a moment's glance 6 months ago when I applied for their intern programme and I have not done anything of particular note since.

I haven't got any contacts in any of them either, makes it more difficult but c'est la vie. When you eventually make it you can be prouder of your achievements.

Luck is involved to a big degree. If a firm has an answer that quickly that means that there are a lot of people looking at the applications and it really depends on whose desk yours falls on.

Dan133269

Johnny Utah wrote: »

No, haven't even got an interview yet. I went to the training contract seminar there during the summer, and it was crazy how many were there, desperate for tips on how to secure a traineeship. I think the majority of people there had passed all the fe1s too. We were divided up into groups at the end, and I got talking to some girls (all had a law degree, fe1s, and one even had a masters from UCD- they told me that they'd been searching for a training contract for nearly two years at that stage!

That is so disheartening, what are applicants supposed to do? Really shows how you need a big slice of luck in everything really. Also maybe applying for the smaller firms outside Dublin would be a different approach, at least they'd probably look at your cv seriously

Duffman wrote: »

A HR person from A&L told me a few years ago that she bins an application without reading it if she doesn't like the look of the handwriting. It doesn't necessarily need to be messy, she just may not like the look of it. I know they need to process hundreds of apps but as a recruitment policy that seems, well frankly, retarded.

I've heard of employers doing this before, I mean do people actually believe in graphology and all that nonsense? Next they'll be taking in applicants to measure their head size to determine intelligence. People like (the hr people) that honestly deserve to have it come back and bite them in the arse. Trying to think of a situation involving delicious irony . . . . .

dee8839 wrote: »

Got rejections from Cox McCanns (whose application form was ridiculously limiting BTW, useless really) and A&L. Its really tough to be trying to study really hard for my exams, to get a good degree, which I apparently can then do absolutely nothing productive with.

Ah don't get disheartened, chin up are you keen on working in the law or is just you think it's the best option now that you're in the subject. Personally I'd do anything as long as it pays well and has other good aspects like the hours, but it seems every other avenue is going to be as difficult as going down the solicitor route.

TheDemiurge

Can I throw my tuppence worth in here even though I went through this mayhem in the mid 1990s. Dan is right - you really at this time need to work out whether or not you actually do want to be working in the law at all. This is not to put anyone off from qualifying, but it has become a treacherous game to practice in, highly regulated and viciously competitive in terms of earning a living. It's a great qualification and highly useful but if I had my time over again I would have done accountancy as being more flexible a skill.

I wouldn't slag the big firms off too much for not giving you interviews - law firms, including the big ten, only exist if they have clients - and less clients means less business. Law doesn't exist in a bubble as a cast iron buffer against economic changes and hardships, but there is a perception that it does. It's only a transaction cost, at the end of the day.

The system here is unfortunately going the way of the US - if you don't get into a top ten firm and stick with a speciality, the employment and self-employment possibilities are few. You'll see many consolidations and mergers in law firms in the years ahead; the small and mid size firms will become less common and the market will become more of an oligopoly.

This is not to put anyone off who really wants to do it, but if you don't get it be assured that it is not the end of the world, by any means. Make sure you are doing this for the right reasons.

dee8839

Dan133269 wrote: »

Ah don't get disheartened, chin up are you keen on working in the law or is just you think it's the best option now that you're in the subject. Personally I'd do anything as long as it pays well and has other good aspects like the hours, but it seems every other avenue is going to be as difficult as going down the solicitor route.

I really do enjoy law, even conveyancing which I worked in for 8 months (typical I like the one area gone completely to the dogs now!) but I'm not sure how prepared I'd be for the harsh realities of the competitive legal industry. I'm just at a loss as to what else can be done with my life!

I'm actually doing Law and Accounting, and even though I despise accounting with every fibre of my being its gotten to the stage where I'm half sorry I didn't apply for the accountancy firms like all my friends, because at least then I might have 3 and a half years of security after which I could always get out of that game again. I haven't a clue what to do.

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Can I throw my tuppence worth in here even though I went through this mayhem in the mid 1990s. Dan is right - you really at this time need to work out whether or not you actually do want to be working in the law at all. This is not to put anyone off from qualifying, but it has become a treacherous game to practice in, highly regulated and viciously competitive in terms of earning a living. It's a great qualification and highly useful but if I had my time over again I would have done accountancy as being more flexible a skill.

I wouldn't slag the big firms off too much for not giving you interviews - law firms, including the big ten, only exist if they have clients - and less clients means less business. Law doesn't exist in a bubble as a cast iron buffer against economic changes and hardships, but there is a perception that it does. It's only a transaction cost, at the end of the day.

The system here is unfortunately going the way of the US - if you don't get into a top ten firm and stick with a speciality, the employment and self-employment possibilities are few. You'll see many consolidations and mergers in law firms in the years ahead; the small and mid size firms will become less common and the market will become more of an oligopoly.

This is not to put anyone off who really wants to do it, but if you don't get it be assured that it is not the end of the world, by any means. Make sure you are doing this for the right reasons.

You're right in all you say there, its just that I wish I'd known this 4 years ago. Or even a year ago. I might have made more of an effort with the other aspects of my course besides law, and I might have applied for jobs in tax or similar. But its too late now, at least for this year.

EC1000

Dan133269 wrote: »

Also maybe applying for the smaller firms outside Dublin would be a different approach, at least they'd probably look at your cv seriously

Many people like myself who have no interest in corporate law only apply to firms that are outside Dublin. I've sent out roughly 150 CVs at this point and not even an interview. I thought that my PhD would get me at least a foot in the door for a chat but the lack of places coupled with the huge number of applicants at the moment is frightening.....

willie mason

EC1000 wrote: »

Many people like myself who have no interest in corporate law only apply to firms that are outside Dublin. I've sent out roughly 150 CVs at this point and not even an interview. I thought that my PhD would get me at least a foot in the door for a chat but the lack of places coupled with the huge number of applicants at the moment is frightening.....

I'd say a PhD would be almost a negative when applying to a small firm.

I don't have much interest in the non-commercial side, having worked in it for 6 months. People in Irish business in general are unused to the cyclical nature of economies. A dramatic cut in graduate recruitment will just mean a shortage of skilled people in a few years time, meaning employers will be forced to pay a premium for experience/expertise. This downturn is bad but it's not the end of the world, I just wish a few more people would realise that.

partyguinness

There is simply no recruitment going on. Why does everyone seem to be applying to big 5??

That is too obvious plus you dont necessarily get a good training and then they boot you out. Try smaller firms and you will get more exposure to different types of law.

I did my training with a sole practitioner and I was really thrown in at the deep end. When I was in Blackhall I was miles ahead of my classmates from MOP or Cox as they had spent a year in funds!! Now they cant get a job in anything but funds which is a bitch for them as they want to move down the country. No small country or town firms will touch them.

Dont assume that any of the 'Big 5' are the best for you in the long run and try to look outside the obvious.

stepinnman

Here here...my thoughts exactly.

I don't know what this obsession with the "Big 5" is all about. Unless you want to be completely pigeon-holed as a funds/listings/m&a Solicitor you'll get a far broader training in a smaller General Practice Firm.

The proof really will be in the pudding now though..As with all firms the "big 5" are shedding most Trainees and these are now on the jobs market looking for the same jobs that Trainees from the smaller firms are after. I appreciate that the big 5 have a certain caché but if you're hiring in a 2-man General Pratice you want someone who knows how to run a conveyance/P.I./Probate file not someone who's spent two years looking at a senior colleage progress an M&A file!

I might sound bitter but believe me I'm not..I didn't apply to any of the so-called top firms as I wanted to qualify as a Solicitor not a glorified Accountant/Auditor etc..

partyguinness

Anothe plus about being in a small firm is that you are more appreciated..more responsibilty..I am only answerable to my clients..my own office/secretary and 200-300 files of all sorts from conveyancing/District/Circuit Court and High Court litigation'Family/Employment/company/probate....I have complete control over every file from start to finish...and its in my home town...if I had trained in a Big 5 firm I would not have got a job here..and would be stuck around Baggot Street being ripped off at every turn...and all for what...to work 70 hrs a week and to make someone else partner!!!

stepinnman

partyguinness wrote: »

...to work 70 hrs a week and to make someone else partner!!!

"Work" in the loosest sense of the word. I know a lot of Trainees in the Big Firms who have eventually admitted that a lot of their "work" consists of being there until their supervising partner leaves for the evening. There's a big difference between working for 70 hours and being at work for 70 hours!

McCrack

[POST SNIPPED due a complaint]

Dan133269

EC1000 wrote: »

Many people like myself who have no interest in corporate law only apply to firms that are outside Dublin. I've sent out roughly 150 CVs at this point and not even an interview. I thought that my PhD would get me at least a foot in the door for a chat but the lack of places coupled with the huge number of applicants at the moment is frightening.....

You have a phd and you can't get an interview anywhere?? what's your phd in?

willie mason wrote: »

I'd say a PhD would be almost a negative when applying to a small firm.

why?

Regarding the bashing of the big 5 firms, an important thing is that they'll pay for the pp1 and pp2 courses, most smaller firms would not am i right in saying? that's an awful lot of money that most recent graduates wouldn't have. As well, they probably pay a lot better than smaller firms outside Dublin

partyguinness

Dan133269 wrote: »

You have a phd and you can't get an interview anywhere?? what's your phd in?



why?

Regarding the bashing of the big 5 firms, an important thing is that they'll pay for the pp1 and pp2 courses, most smaller firms would not am i right in saying? that's an awful lot of money that most recent graduates wouldn't have. As well, they probably pay a lot better than smaller firms outside Dublin

I dont think there is anyone bashing the big 5 firms. Yes they do pay fees and pay better.

I think the point being made is that being refused by the 'Big 5' is not the be end and end all. There are plenty of firms out there and trainees should keep their options open and not blinker themselves or confine themselves.

At the end of the day its the same qualification and training in the a 'Big 5' has its negatives. I know plenty of qualified solicitors who have stated they wish they hadnt gone to a 'Big 5' firm because they got pigeon-holed and found their options extremely limted when they wanted to move elsewhere.

maidhc

Dan133269 wrote: »

You have a phd and you can't get an interview anywhere?? what's your phd in?

That is unsurprising. The Irish legal profession don't place a huge value on people with an "academic" backgound in comparison to other countries, in particular civil law countries. I don't agree with that, mind you.

EC1000

PhD is in Science - I know it's of absolutely no relevance whatsoever so I'm not expecting it to get me a job or anything! Have no regrets about doing it though - its nice to have a different perspective on things.

Amazotheamazing

I've said it here before, but it might bear repeating.

Ask yourself, honestly, how hard you want to work.

Be honest, do you want to work 70 hours a week?

I don't, hence I'm happier in a small firm.

Sangre

Ah, the annual kick in the teeth that is the rejection letters. Trust me, we've nearly all been there.

First time I tried after final year/1st round of feedbacks I got very few interview and did a few average interviews with no success. No luck in the intern programme afterwards.

The second time I got one from virtually all the firms I applied to (barring 1 of the big 5) and thankfully got an offer or two as well too boot. So have hope! Many people take more than one round of applications to get into a firm they want.

If you have no luck, and you're sure you want to follow the solicitor route then have a look at how you can improve your CV, talk to loads of successful interviewees and anyone you know in HR/Law who can advise you.

partyguinness

maidhc wrote: »

That is unsurprising. The Irish legal profession don't place a huge value on people with an "academic" backgound in comparison to other countries, in particular civil law countries. I don't agree with that, mind you.

The legal profession as a day-to-day career is very much hands on and is not about studying case-law or reading judgments.

Only about 5% of what you learn in university is of any relevance when it comes to the actual practice of law. That is why having a Masters or even PhD is generally not seen as advantageous..in fact some might see it as a hinderance in that the candidate might be too bogged down in theory and may not be able for the day to day rigours. What is does show is application and diligence.

Practising as a lawyer is very much about being a project manager. I spent a few summers on building sites with a painter and to be honest..that actual prepared me more that any law degree (BCL and LLB).

I think that is why many 'academic' law students get a rude awakeninig when they go into practice because it is nothing like they imagined. A lot of them will drop out.

guerito

Sorry to go of-topic, but has anyone heard from William Fry, MOP or Dillon Eustace? I've heard back from Cox and Goodbody but not those three.

Cheers

partyguinness

I am concerned about the amount of people applying to the 'Big 5' who do not seem to know how their recruitment program works.

Do you not realise they get 99.9% of their trainees directly from the Universities when they are still undergraduates?

Outside of that you have virtually no chance of getting in.

Sangre

partyguinness wrote: »

I am concerned about the amount of people applying to the 'Big 5' who do not seem to know how their recruitment program works.

Do you not realise they get 99.9% of their trainees directly from the Universities when they are still undergraduates?

Outside of that you have virtually no chance of getting in.

Ehh, no.

hada

partyguinness wrote: »

I am concerned about the amount of people applying to the 'Big 5' who do not seem to know how their recruitment program works.

Do you not realise they get 99.9% of their trainees directly from the Universities when they are still undergraduates?

Outside of that you have virtually no chance of getting in.

you need to check your sources son and come back here and make a post that resembles something half sensible.

hada

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I've said it here before, but it might bear repeating.

Ask yourself, honestly, how hard you want to work.

Be honest, do you want to work 70 hours a week?

I don't, hence I'm happier in a small firm.

I want to earn more money.

I want to work on bigger deals.

I want to work with some of Ireland's best solicitors in the hope I too will become a great specialised solicitor.

Hence, I'm happier in a larger firm.

partyguinness

hada wrote: »

you need to check your sources son and come back here and make a post that resembles something half sensible.

Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?

Duffman

I would say the posters on current intakes who are working with loads of people who weren't recruited from undergrad courses are probably in a better position to determine that. We can all claim to be speaking from personal experience. You're wrong.

You suggest that you trained 11 years ago. Things have clearly changed.

I think applicants are probably disheartened enough already without being told that they have a 0.1% chance of getting a TC if they're not in college. What an odd thing to claim.

maidhc

partyguinness wrote: »

Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?

I'm only recently trained and I do believe you are correct. The big firms like to have a tabula rasa rather than something which might have opinions. Understandable to be fair.

Sangre

partyguinness wrote: »

Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?

I know countless people who got a TC in the big 5 and weren't recruited directly from undergrad. In fact the minority of my friends did, most had to wait until they had some postgrad, work experiences or a masters.

I only have to look at the people in my final year in UCD who got TC to know your 99.9% 'fact' is just scare-mongering. Of course it happens a fair bit but nowhere near the extent you say.

maidhc

Sangre wrote: »

I know countless people who got a TC in the big 5 and weren't recruited directly from undergrad. In fact the minority of my friends did, most had to wait until they had some postgrad, work experiences or a masters.

I only have to look at the people in my final year in UCD who got TC to know your 99.9% 'fact' is just scare-mongering. Of course it happens a fair bit but nowhere near the extent you say.

No, but the reality is if you are in final year, with good results from UCD/UCC/TCD/UCG you are probably in a better position than someone a few years older with a Masters and possibly coming from a different discipline.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with that, but that is the reality. However, I'm not sure if working in a "big 5" is quite what people make it out. If you are happy to be independent, take a few risks and make things up as you go along you will do fantastic in any firm.

TheDemiurge

This is such a difficult question. Ideally yes a mixed practice is better for training purposes, but does that translate into jobs? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............which means Big 5 or 10. Opportunities in general practice seem to be fewer.

Any trainees that I know of now who are in the commercial firms seem indeed to have been headhunted from college, and were working as apprentices before even having passed the FE1s.

maidhc

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............

And their jobs are now in a particularly precarious situation. I'm all for specialisation, I do my best to specialise in IT/IP law (to the extent of getting a job in the area but ultimately turning it down for various reasons), but, I think you need to be careful not to back yourself into a corner, and most importantly to work in area YOU like rather than where there is a demand.

Amazotheamazing

hada wrote: »

I want to earn more money.

I want to work on bigger deals.

I want to work with some of Ireland's best solicitors in the hope I too will become a great specialised solicitor.

Hence, I'm happier in a larger firm.

So why not go to a serious law centre like London? I few weeks back you were going on about how you wanted to be an academic, now you want to a big earner? Delicate balance.

Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.

EC1000

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.

+1!

hada

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

So why not go to a serious law centre like London? I few weeks back you were going on about how you wanted to be an academic, now you want to a big earner? Delicate balance.

Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.

Delicate balance it is - hence why consultancy would be my preferred route. Practice a few days a week, lecture the remaining.

London would be ruin the balance entirely - a mininum of 9 billable hours per day (Dublin "top 5" is more in the region of 6 1/2 hours).

dats_right

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............which means Big 5 or 10. Opportunities in general practice seem to be fewer.

Whilst there has undoubtedly been, in the legal recruitment business, a plethora of banking jobs there had also been an enormous amount of property jobs, particularly commercial prop. I don't disagree that opportunities in general practice are now fewer but this has really only been the case since the property implosion. Okay, since PIAB most GP jobs were conveyancing rather than litigation, but jobs were still there up until the relatively recent past.

dats_right

hada wrote: »

Delicate balance it is - hence why consultancy would be my preferred route. Practice a few days a week, lecture the remaining.

London would be ruin the balance entirely - a mininum of 9 billable hours per day (Dublin "top 5" is more in the region of 6 1/2 hours).

Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive. Unless of course you are somebody with significant prior practice experience winding your practice down after years and years of hard slog or alternatively, are a genuine academic heavyweight who the firm can call on every once in a while for a second opinion (think someone like Prof. Wylie). Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world. You see that's what specialist barristers are for and, if you visit the Bar Council website you will see the amount of young and not so young barristers with more letters than the alphabet after their names, many of whom, no doubt harboured such naive plans as your good self at some stage.

I would imagine that the only way for you to juggle both academia and legal practice is to become a barrister and even that isn't perfect, but at least it is a little more realistic and doable than combining practice as a solicitor in a commercial firm with academia.

johnfás

There seems to be alot of selling of people's own sector going on here. I can only speak for myself but I would imagine the same applies to alot of people here. I do not know precisely which area I want to practise in because I have not been through Blackhall yet, nor I have not experienced the work enough first hand. Most of us apply to the big firms in the first instance because they are the easiest to apply to. You go onto their website and they have a section all about how one can apply to be a trainee there, you fill out your application form and you bang it in.

The smaller firms on the other hand are far more difficult to work out. From a personal point of view I wanted the results from my first FE1s before I sent out my CV to the smaller firms. This was particularly the case because my primary degree is not law. On that basis I can now send my CV in outlining the good result that I got in my Postgraduate Diploma in Law and that I passed half my FE1s at the last sitting. Being able to state this when I apply to a smaller firm, which has no express process of recruitment, is surely to my advantage.

The level of discussion here about the big firms is far more indicative of their applications procedure and their early deadlines for application than a hostility towards smaller firms, which I agree with you in many ways (but not all) will give you a better training. I spent last summer in a 4 partner firm and got fantastic hands on experience, far better than some of my friends got in the big firms.

Most of us starting out don't exactly get the impression we are going to have a huge choice on our menu of potential apprenticeship positions in any case.

hada

dats_right wrote: »

Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive. Unless of course you are somebody with significant prior practice experience winding your practice down after years and years of hard slog or alternatively, are a genuine academic heavyweight who the firm can call on every once in a while for a second opinion (think someone like Prof. Wylie). Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world. You see that's what specialist barristers are for and, if you visit the Bar Council website you will see the amount of young and not so young barristers with more letters than the alphabet after their names, many of whom, no doubt harboured such naive plans as your good self at some stage.

I would imagine that the only way for you to juggle both academia and legal practice is to become a barrister and even that isn't perfect, but at least it is a little more realistic and doable than combining practice as a solicitor in a commercial firm with academia.

First of all, I'm not going to turn this into a pissing competition which I think you are trying to do.

secondly

dats_right wrote: »

Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive.

Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.

dats_right wrote: »

Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world.

Yes dats_right, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to get my LLM, PhD and then walk up to Cox, McCann, Clifford Chance, etc, and demand a position as a consultant. :rolleyes:

Did it ever enter your mind that I would like (realise I have) to spend a considerable time establishing myself in academic circles before I could even be considered and have absolutely no problem doing this??

Evidently not.

This thread is going off point.

ps. Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts --> Oh come off it.

maidhc

hada wrote: »

Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.

I am in the position where I could go either way, e.g. into academia or practice. I asked an emminent professor from the UK at a conference I was at recent of his opinion on combining the two. He said "you can't have two masters".

Again, you will note in mainland europe it is not uncommon for lawyers to have PhDs engage in research, but still work for firms such as linklaters. We have a different tradition here, and I think you need to be very careful not to go too far down the academia route if you actually want to work for McCann Fitz etc (I don't know about Clifford Chance, in fairness they are in a different league to the Irish firms!)

hada

maidhc wrote: »

I am in the position where I could go either way, e.g. into academia or practice. I asked an emminent professor from the UK at a conference I was at recent of his opinion on combining the two. He said "you can't have two masters".

Again, you will note in mainland europe it is not uncommon for lawyers to have PhDs engage in research, but still work for firms such as linklaters. We have a different tradition here, and I think you need to be very careful not to go too far down the academia route if you actually want to work for McCann Fitz etc (I don't know about Clifford Chance, in fairness they are in a different league to the Irish firms!)

I completely understand you're point of view maidhc but I wouldn't totally agree with the whole "You can't have two masters" opinion.

When I was studying for my undergrad one of the best lecturers in the faculty was a full time barrister also. And for all intensive purposes, he was a full time lecuter also (if there ever is such a thing). Combining both isn't impossible.

Look at Tom Courtney at Cox (chair of Company Law Reform Group, author, FE1 examiner, etc) There are multiples of examples besides this.

What I'm trying to say is there isn't any hard or fast rules to combining both, but like many others I would suspect, I have a game plan, of course it is dynamic and of course there are variables depending, but show me a plan that doesn't have such elements.

Not quite sure why people are getting so caught up with my life plan either, but I'll take it as a complement!

Johnny Utah

/Back on topic........


Got 4 more PFO e-mails/letters this week.


Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?....... Very depressing:( Seems hopeless at this stage