Just about to embark on the 10 year barrister road; Please help!

consultech

Hi all,

I'm just 26, and am looking to re-join education this September as a mature student. I did Business and Legal studies in UCD about 5 years ago; However I only got to year 2 because of extenuating medical circumstances. I never went back. I have successfully passed about two-thirds of the UCD 1BCL subjects.

I am now looking to do pure law (4 years) in UCD or Trinity, go to the Inns, pay my dues after, and get practicing.

Can anyone give me some thoughts on the options available to me (appreciative of the fact that I'm gonna be paying fees wherever I choose to go), and perhaps the wisdom of doing what I'm planning to at this time, in light of the negative economic environment?

I'd like to be making some money in 8 or 10 years time, but I'm not sure what kind of money is par for the course (I'm aware that the topic of barristers' earnings is a very subjective figure).

Also, a key facet of mature applications is relevant work experience. Is there anything I can do to this end in the coming weeks (application close-off is 1st Feb)? Can anybody help me; or perhaps someone needs a run-around?!

Thanks in advance...

Tom Young

Pure Law = 4 Years;
King's Inns application and entrance exam - Summer of/at end of degree;
12 months Vocational Course at Inns = 1 year;
Call to Bar;
Deviling year = 1 year, norm 2 years; and
......

I can't offer you a job, but what I can say is good luck, work hard and have fun.

Tom

consultech

Tom Young wrote: »

Pure Law = 4 Years;
King's Inns application and entrance exam - Summer of/at end of degree;
12 months Vocational Course at Inns = 1 year;
Call to Bar;
Deviling year = 1 year, norm 2 years; and
......

I can't offer you a job, but what I can say is good luck, work hard and have fun.

Tom

... But I make a serious cuppa tea!? It's probably too late, but I'd take something work-experience related for the sake of a reference letter; I'm currently exploring my options with my old classmates and their contacts.

In seriousness, cheers for that. As said, I'm still in touch with a few of my old classmates and some of them (post-Inns) are whinging that it will take 5-7 years before they will be earning any money...

Tom Young

If I was in your position, I'd consider at very least applying for the Dip in Legal Studies which is two years part time at the King's Inns. If the ultimate goal is the BL degree and practice. You can also manage to work while doing this.

That is if you are in a hurry. The course itself is good and completely tailored to knowing and learning pure law relevant to the Vocational Degree Course.

Tom

impr0v

Do the KI diploma, it will save you two years of your life that you won't get back.

If you were an 18 year old looking for have a drunken blast for four years, or if you were eventually aiming to get a training contract in a big firm, then the pace and prestige of a pure law Trinners or UCD degree might help you. Since you plan on going to the bar, it really isn't worth your while. No one cares about your cv down there, and four years drinking will be too much for a person of your age. The diploma has more than enough law to put you on a solid footing.

consultech

impr0v wrote: »

Do the KI diploma, it will save you two years of your life that you won't get back.

If you were an 18 year old looking for have a drunken blast for four years, or if you were eventually aiming to get a training contract in a big firm, then the pace and prestige of a pure law Trinners or UCD degree might help you. Since you plan on going to the bar, it really isn't worth your while. No one cares about your cv down there, and four years drinking will be too much for a person of your age. The diploma has more than enough law to put you on a solid footing.

Would a 2 year diploma course provide enough of a solid grounding in law versus say Griffith's 3-year (16 hours pw) course? How many hours per week is the KI diploma? I'm obviously open to correction/education on this though...

The tone of your post suggests that it would perhaps be best described as "adequate" for the purpose of progressing to the KI proper. If this is the case; would this not work against me in the long run, or make it tougher in the Inns later-on?

You have also correctly assumed that I'm not in it for a piss-up, I would rather just get in and out ASAP (with enough knowledge), as I've already done all that in UCD. This is why Griffith's course has acquired some appeal in the last few days.

impr0v

consultech wrote: »

I don't understand how a 2 year diploma course can purport to provide enough of a solid grounding in law versus say Griffith's 3-year (16 hours pw) course? How many hours per week is the KI diploma? I'm obviously open to correction/education on this though...

The tone of your post suggests that it would perhaps be best described as "adequate" for the purpose of progressing to the KI proper. If this is the case; would this not work against me in the long run, or make it tougher in the Inns later-on?

You have also correctly assumed that I'm not in it for a piss-up, I would rather just get in and out ASAP (with enough knowledge), as I've already done all that in UCD. This is why Griffith's course has acquired some appeal in the last few days.

It depends how much you want it I suppose. If you want it bad enough then you'll learn no more in four years (or 16 hours per week) than you will in two. The diploma covers the core subjects that you need to ground a good solid understanding of the law.

Look at it this way. After two years of devilling you won't be able to pick your cases - you'll be happy with whatever technical application you get to make. Now chances are, presuming that UCD, Trinners or Griffith won't teach you all the law that you'll ever need, you'll have to go and research the relevant law in some detail before you make that application (if you value getting your career off to some sort of start).

Once you have a solid grounding you can build upon it in practice in this fashion. Things will make enough sense for you to be able to quickly understand the salient points of the argument that you're trying to make, even if you've never dealt with it before. An extra two years at college will only improve the amount of law that you're familiar with slightly, if at all (you can only learn and remember so much when you're trying to absorb it in a theoretical environment), and certainly not enough to justify an extra two years.

In contrast to the circumstances of the above scenario, if you go to Trinners or UCD you won't be finished two years of devilling; you'll just be starting them.

impr0v

To address your question re making it tougher at the Inns: no. If anything it will make it easier, if for no other reason that you'll be going into the Inns with a bunch of mates.

The BL degree is a very easy course to get through on common sense and paying some attention in class - there's relatively little law, just loads of practical activities (which actually supports the argument that I've made above).

consultech

impr0v wrote: »

It depends how much you want it I suppose. If you want it bad enough then you'll learn no more in four years (or 16 hours per week) than you will in two. The diploma covers the core subjects that you need to ground a good solid understanding of the law.

Look at it this way. After two years of devilling you won't be able to pick your cases - you'll be happy with whatever technical application you get to make. Now chances are, presuming that UCD, Trinners or Griffith won't teach you all the law that you'll ever need, you'll have to go and research the relevant law in some detail before you make that application (if you value getting your career off to some sort of start).

Once you have a solid grounding you can build upon it in practice in this fashion. Things will make enough sense for you to be able to quickly understand the salient points of the argument that you're trying to make, even if you've never dealt with it before. An extra two years at college will only improve the amount of law that you're familiar with slightly, if at all (you can only learn and remember so much when you're trying to absorb it in a theoretical environment), and certainly not enough to justify an extra two years.

In contrast to the circumstances of the above scenario, if you go to Trinners or UCD you won't be finished two years of devilling; you'll just be starting them.

Roysh, yeah. Well it could potentially be a runner, but jumping straight into an intense learning environment may not be the best thing, given I've been out in the wilderness for 4 or 5 years. I probably need to have a think, if the inns diploma is mad money it may not be a viable thing either. I'll need to have a look, the KI website is stalling for me at the mo too.

Cheers anyway impr0v, really appreciate the advice...

NoQuarter

impr0v wrote: »

It depends how much you want it I suppose. If you want it bad enough then you'll learn no more in four years (or 16 hours per week) than you will in two.

This is golden advice, as a final year griffith student, 16 hours per week are spent mostly daydreaming in class and the 2-3 weeks before exams are where all the law is crammed in, by myself, with the notes they hand out. So essentially(and i hadnt used my brain for 4 years before i started the course) i would rather just get the notes and have the exams a few weeks later, not a huge need to sit through the classes!

You say the inns diploma is mad money? So is 3 years in Griffith (circa €16,000 and after that you still have to go to the inns for a year and pay whatever that is, €8000ish i believe).

You only problem might be having to grasp the new terminology quickly, while in griffith I had time to absorb it all, eg statues, legislation etc.. all new words for non-law folk and it takes time to get it clear in your head without having to think about it.

Tom Young

The Inns Dip is not mad money, the hours are intense.

Benefits: Inns environment (older than Trinners, and by royal charter too!); base of class mates who will be colleagues; more access to practicing barristers (to get a master); dining; secret hand shakes; a smelly pub; and speed.

Downsides: Intensity; Less legal research/writing; time commitment and ....(someone else add them).


Tom

eagle_&_bear

right forget the older than trinners and royal charter stuff

its the quality of the education that should concern you where ever you go. You want some semblance of value and quality for money.

The benefits of doing the 2 year course are widespread: huge access to practising barristers, good access to masters, good lecturing standards, good class material, it will definately help you with protocol, you'll see judges around, you'll see senior counsel about, there are 3 courts in the Kings Inns and they sit at times and you can go in, it is a big boys club so getting familiar with the surroundings is a big plus and alot of the diploma people go onto do the BL and they do quite well in the exams, plus you'll all be colleagues so it really does help if you know some people from day 1 of the BL course.

makes no difference if you do the Dip LS or LLB/BCL - one in the same, its the BL which counts, absolutely nothing before (or even after). you can have every degree in the world but if you dont have the BL you cant open your mouth or even stand in court, get as many phd's as you want after and it wont change a thing. the BL is the benchmark! putting is plain and simple

The down sides of the Inns: its a very intense course, friends did it and its 4 nights a week, 6-930, strict attendance regime, 90% attendance is heavily enforced, the cost is a little prohibitive but the BL course is 12,500 so weigh it up.

Essentially you're paying alot of money but you DO get the quality and the standard of teaching that you would expect of a leading institution. In this case, you do get what you pay for. There's no way I could under estimate that.

The only othr down side is the fact that there's quite alot of material to cover every night/each week so you will need time at weekends to go over it. The Dip LS will cover each and every topic the BCL (4yr) /LLB (3yr) will cover in a shorter time period so make sure you have the time to give to the course or its money not well spent.

But its a fantastic institution

Davecrtmac

......you should really think about working in a set/with a barrister/law firm for about 6 months, like a total dog, 80 hrs a week, for no money with little or no respect just to get a feel for what it might be like !!!

...seriously tho, its a long hard road and all that will get you through it is a strong desire that it is what you want for your life - for whatever reason(s) that might be - best of luck with it all tho ..

dats_right

I am a law graduate, very soon to be newly qualified solicitor so obviously my comments don't hold as much weight as the likes of Tom Young, who I understand is a barrister, or others who have been through the King's Inns system. Nonetheless, I have many friends at the Bar and with almost ten years or so exposure to legal education in one shape or another of my own, I would tend to agree with the other posters who have suggested that the 2yr KI diploma is better for your purposes than a pure law degree. I do so on the basis that:

1. As another poster has suggested the exposure to the whole KI system, people and way of thinking. This should not be underestimated. I can assure you that no other law school (TCD being the closest) will expose you to the same type of learning environment. Essentially, if you want to be a barrister it seems a no-brainer to get as much exposure and teaching from the very institution who's sole purpose is as a barrister training school and the only one in the State at that.
2. The diploma is thought, as I understand it, in the main by practising barristers rather then traditional academics which will be a benefit in terms of getting to talk to and gain insight from practising barristers.
3. Furthermore, virtually everyone there will be intending at least to progress to the BL course and very many will intend proceeding to practise themselves. These people will be your contemporaries and colleagues of the future, the friendships you form here will in all likelihood last for the duration of your practising career and will be very important on a professional level. Whereas if you go to UCD, TCD, Griffith or wherever the fact is that most students will not intend becoming barristers and will be progressing to FE-1's or whatever.
4. The BL qualification is a degree in it's own right and is of far higher standing than a BCL or LLB anyway. So if it is a case of merely desiring to possess a degree rather than a diploma you will also do so under the KI system.
5. I am open to correction on this, but I am reliably informed that the pass rate for the BL entrance exams is higher amongst the KI diploma students than for those possessing approved undergraduate law qualifications.

The only negative as I would see it in choosing the KI diploma route is that if you decided for whatever reason not to progress to the BL course and leave the KI with just their diploma then the KI diploma is of limited enough value. However, if you are sure that the barrister route is for you than I wouldn't be put-off by this.

redout

Just out of interest how does the Devilling (1 Year) for a Barrister compare with the 2 year apprenticeship (training contract) a person wanting to become a solicitor must complete. From a previous thread here it was mentioned that the current situation was rather bleak at the moment with people finding it difficult to obtain a training contract.

Tom Young

You get paid on a training contract, deviling is unpaid. 0, nil, zilch, nada, squat ....

redout

Tom Young wrote: »

You get paid on a training contract, deviling is unpaid. 0, nil, zilch, nada, squat ....

I recall it being mentioned in the other thread that people were now working for free (training contract) because of the current situation brought about by the ongoing economic climate. How difficult is it to obtain a 1 year devilling compared to a training contract ?

consultech

Thanks everyone for the advice thus far; you're all definitely clarifying (albeit temporarily complicating!) things for me regarding my choices.

The smart money for me at this point seems to be moving away from UCD/TCD; and towards GCD 3 year or the Inns 2 year diploma. GCD is approx. 16 hours per week, and the KI diploma is approx. 11 per week.

My initial thoughts on the KI diploma are that: It definitely sounds like a fantastic exposure to the "barrister" way of life, and indeed studying with your future peers seems like an intelligent thing to do. However surely there must be some loss of (presumably important) content with the KI diploma, given its markedly shorter nature? Or is it more of a "take-home" course, requiring far more out-of-hours reading etc?

Everyone's continued input is appreciated; Thanks again!

NoQuarter

consultech wrote: »

GCD is approx. 16 hours per week, and the KI diploma is approx. 11 per week.

Dont get too caught up in this, GCD lectures are scheduled for 16 hours per week, each lecture is 2 hours long so for example if a lecture started at 12, we would go till 12.50 approx, take a 10 min break and then maybe finish between half 1 and 1.45. So lets say learning time is 90 minutes per class which would be average, do the math and it works out as only 12 hours of actual learning, I would imagin the 11 hours at the inns would be much more intensive!

impr0v

redout wrote: »

I recall it being mentioned in the other thread that people were now working for free (training contract) because of the current situation brought about by the ongoing economic climate. How difficult is it to obtain a 1 year devilling compared to a training contract ?

There is no comparison. An agreement to devil with someone is by far the easier to come by, in the main because no money is required to change hands.

While there seemed to be more devils than there were eligible masters for a period a year or two ago, it's much less of a problem now.

impr0v

dats_right wrote: »

The only negative as I would see it in choosing the KI diploma route is that if you decided for whatever reason not to progress to the BL course and leave the KI with just their diploma then the KI diploma is of limited enough value.

This is a fair point.

Tom Young

consultech wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the advice thus far; you're all definitely clarifying (albeit temporarily complicating!) things for me regarding my choices.

The smart money for me at this point seems to be moving away from UCD/TCD; and towards GCD 3 year or the Inns 2 year diploma. GCD is approx. 16 hours per week, and the KI diploma is approx. 11 per week.

My initial thoughts on the KI diploma are that: It definitely sounds like a fantastic exposure to the "barrister" way of life, and indeed studying with your future peers seems like an intelligent thing to do. However surely there must be some loss of (presumably important) content with the KI diploma, given its markedly shorter nature? Or is it more of a "take-home" course, requiring far more out-of-hours reading etc?

Everyone's continued input is appreciated; Thanks again!

I think you're right re. "smart money".

The lecturers on the Diploma are all practicing Barristers, or I believe in one case a judicial assistant/fellow, but qualified as a Barrister.

The courses are certainly not 'take home' but I believe in the most recent review and modification the Course Leader (whom I know) overhauled the lecturing requirements to encompass manuals, which are pretty much right up to date with current law and legal trends.

The tutorials are targeted at results and also at pre-examination updates or sample questions. The tutors in some cases are the lecturers, but in the instance that a lecturer is not a tutor you'll find that the tutor is more than able to deliver.

Some of the bigger names on the private and indeed public academic staffs of the universities and colleges are on the staff. In my view/recollection, there are quite a few TCD lecturers and tutors e.g., EU Law and the Dip Course Leader. The other lecturers are very well known in the Company, Criminal, Constitutional, Evidence, Family, Equity, Admin, Land, Contract and Legal Systems Legal areas.

I've also heard that there are course work essays on the syllabi now.

The Inns library is also very good and their IT systems are not too bad given the size of the place.

Other elements of learning at the Inns (apart from meeting colleagues, eating and drinking):

1. Mooting - Maidens, Jessop and Brian Walsh Compeitions;
2. Debating Societies - Entries to Times and other competitions;
3. Sporting Societies - GAA, Rugby etc.

Someone above mentioned access to Barristers and the difficulties going forward.

There was never a guarantee of getting a Master. From 2010, Masters will be required to finance elements of the entry to the Library and Fees for the Devil as well as making sure the Devil/Pupil get the time on his or her feet to make sure that the year is beneficial.

This is a good thing, but it will mean three things:

1. Masters will be more picky about getting Devils who are either experienced in their chosen area of practice, or not;

2. The demand for Masters may be even more ferocious and some Masters may opt out of the Master roll (in circumstances where maybe the wouldn't feel that they needed a devil or their practice may be mainly written or opinion work/Tribunals etc.); and

3. There may be more of an interview process (Not suggesting this was not the case in the past, but there were various methods of meeting, agreeing to take-on and vetting incumbent devils).

A thing to watch is the application form and criteria for the Dip. The Inns is strict on timing/limits and indeed the application may need to be accompanied by a certification of suitability/memorial - Though I think this might only apply to the BL Degree course.

Like anything in life, you will get out what you put in. There are decent prizes for certain subjects Dooge Prize for Family Law and Constitutional Law Prizes etc. The social life in the Inns is to be embraced, and if you do, you'll meet some fantastic people whether younger, of your own era, business people, civil servants etc. Engagement in it will be rewarding.

The Dip is tough from a timing perspective, e.g., 4/5 nights a week, but remember, it's more or less centred around the legal terms. So not too long.

The BL Entrance Exam has and is discussed here at length, usually before it. As exams go it is a marathon, 5 days in a row and various aspects of law included which can change: Contract - ?; Evidence - Cannon; Constitutional - O'Dowd; Tort - Ward and Criminal Law - O'Malley. Contract and Company tend to swap out depending on the exam boards requirements. The exams are set by the countries legal academics and externs are either professors or Senior Counsel. It's not too hard, but different to the FE1's and due to various elements the 5 day marathon is tiring, it also means that you can't cram really, its a case of having it in advance!

If you need to know anything else. Shove a post here or PM me.

Tom

sh_o

Another issue with the BL entrance exam is that (at least it used to be and I am not certain if it still is) you have to pass all 5 entrance exam topics in one go and I think you can only attempt this twice.

I started the Diploma in Kings inns when I was 26 too and the extra years can stand to you. The course has a very wide spread of ages which is an excellent mix.

A positive and maybe a negative side of the inns diploma is that you are training only with potential barristers as opposed to in a degree in university, a fair few of your friends from college _may_ eventually have briefing power in the firms they go to and start to send you work after you have been established for a few years.

All in all I would highly recommend the diploma in the inns. Going back to study is tough but you get back into the frame of mind very quickly.

Best of luck with it!

Communicationb

There is no practising barrister by the name of "Tom Young" in the Law Directory...;)

Thicktights

Communicationb wrote: »

There is no practising barrister by the name of "Tom Young" in the Law Directory...;)

Well fancy that! A praactising does not want to have his name on an internet discussion forum and uses a pseudonym. Whoever thought a barrister would have the cop on, the intelligence and the technical ability to do such a thing?

Tom Young

Yes, gosh imagine that. Now you should remember folks. I know who you are!

dermot_sheehan

Tom Young is in the Library, he's known by another name.

My username isn't in the directory but it would take zero digging at all to find out who I am (as Tom Young pointed out to me at a party),

it's going to be harder to get a master in upcoming years since the bar council has changed the rules so that your master must pay for your first year fees. Although this has the welcome benefit of ameliorating the poverty slightly, it will probably reduce the supply of masters.


Deviliing and subsequent working for no or little money is tough and people should be aware of what they are getting into. It would take minimum five years for most (some are lucky) to earn anything as a barrister although your time here isn't wasted if you subsequently go off and do something else.