Kings Inns

chops018

Hi All,

I have a degree in Law, and I am nearly finished completing a Masters (LL.M) and was wondering around how much would it take to put yourself through the BL course?

With the state the country is in it looks like there will be no part time job options whilst doing this course, let alone being able to do any work as I have heard the BL course is very demanding and time consuming.

Anyway, what I am asking is: is the course financially feasible to a person with the education requirements and the drive to do it, unfortunately I do not have the money to do it. Are there any options available in which to get finacial aid?

Any people who have undertook this course I would be very grateful if they could give me their opinions of the content involved.

paky

any barrister ive met said that if they were in a position to decide what to do again they would of gone the solicitor route. barrister just doesnt seem to pay and aint worth the hassle

FreudianSlippers

paky wrote: »

any barrister ive met said that if they were in a position to decide what to do again they would of gone the solicitor route. barrister just doesnt seem to pay and aint worth the hassle

I've never heard this if I'm honest and I completely disagree with it... but to each their own.

Wolfe Tone

These days it is probably easier to become a solicitor, and then a barrister?

paky

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

These days it is probably easier to become a solicitor, and then a barrister?

that would make alot more sense.

FreudianSlippers

Why? It makes no sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

paky

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why? It makes no sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

well think about it. you'll be dealing with way more cases as a solicitor so you'll likely know more than a barrister does.

paky

paky wrote: »

well think about it. you'll be dealing with way more cases as a solicitor so you'll likely know more than a barrister does.

What?

Leaving aside the logical fallacy inherent there the entire sentence presupposes that the prospective solicitor even gets an apprenticeship.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

Leaving aside the logical fallacy inherent there the entire sentence presupposes that the prospective solicitor even gets an apprenticeship.

the solicitor been in full time employment and the barrister been free lance. what makes you think a barrister would have more expertise then a solicitor in that context?

paky

paky wrote: »

the solicitor been in full time employment and the barrister been free lance. what makes you think a barrister would have more expertise then a solicitor in that context?

The question was "which would be easier to become, a solicitor or barrister?".

You are assuming that someone has become a solicitor and then, in spite of all contrary evidence, also has full time employment and is working constantly.

That's a very poor assumption for solicitors today.

Wolfe Tone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why? It makes no sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

The gist of what I was told is that it is "easier" to qualify as solicitor and in turn its "relatively easy" to become a Barrister once you are a solicitor for five(?) or so years. I was told that by a junior council. She was of the opinion that her previous experience and contacts made as a solicitor made her a better barrister.

Personally I plan to just go for kings inns.

Wolfe Tone

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The gist of what I was told is that it is "easier" to qualify as solicitor and in turn its "relatively easy" to become a Barrister once you are a solicitor for five(?) or so years. I was told that by a junior council. She was of the opinion that her previous experience and contacts made as a solicitor made her a better barrister.

This definitely makes sense. Not necessarily true re: experience but definitely regarding contacts.

FreudianSlippers

They're different jobs though. Being a solicitor does not necessarily mean you're a good advocate. Most solicitors I've come across brick it at the thought of having to be on their feet.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

The question was "which would be easier to become, a solicitor or barrister?".

You are assuming that someone has become a solicitor and then, in spite of all contrary evidence, also has full time employment and is working constantly.

That's a very poor assumption for solicitors today.

what im 'assuming' is that solicitors deal with more cases on a daily basis than barristers do. being a barrister there is no guarantee that you will be working on a full time basis.

paky

paky wrote: »

what im 'assuming' is that solicitors deal with more cases on a daily basis than barristers do. being a barrister there is no guarantee that you will be working on a full time basis.

The same is true for a solicitor.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

The same is true for a solicitor.

this is true if you decide to set up your own practice after training otherwise i cant see why a firm or an employer wouldnt have you kept busy

paky

paky wrote: »

this is true if you decide to set up your own practice after training otherwise i cant see why a firm or an employer wouldnt have you kept busy

Have you got any concept of how hard it is for solicitors at the moment? Those lucky enough to get taken on as apprentices still face into an enormous difficulty when they complete that training in getting regular employment.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you got any concept of how hard it is for solicitors at the moment? Those lucky enough to get taken on as apprentices still face into an enormous difficulty when they complete that training in getting regular employment.

so whats your point?

paky

paky wrote: »

so whats your point?

That barristers and solicitors are in an equally difficult position with regard to regular work and saying that one is busier than the other by default is simply false.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

That barristers and solicitors are in an equally difficult position with regard to regular work and saying that one is busier than the other by default is simply false.

its not false. whats false is assuming that solicitor employment is the same as barrister employment. one is mainly freelance and the other is mainly secure.

paky

paky wrote: »

its not false. whats false is assuming that solicitor employment is the same as barrister employment. one is mainly freelance and the other is mainly secure.

I am perfectly aware of the nature of their employment. However anyone who thinks a newly qualified solicitor has secured employment as a matter of course is, at best, terribly misinformed.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

I am perfectly aware of the nature of their employment.

Are you sure?

Deleted User wrote: »

However anyone who thinks a newly qualified solicitor has secured employment as a matter of course is, at best, terribly misinformed.

thinking and assuming are both different things.

paky

paky wrote: »

Are you sure?



thinking and assuming are both different things.

Yes I am. Are you?

As for your second point it doesn't actually make any difference in that context.

FreudianSlippers

Lets try to keep it civil guys. paky, you're entitled to your opinion but it seems quite unfounded.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I am. Are you?

As for your second point it doesn't actually make any difference in that context.

it does actually. both arguments are based on different assumptions. one argument is based on the assumption that we are discussing an employed solicitor.
the other argument is based on the assumption that we are discussing unemployed solicitors.

as for what constitutes what someone thinks, is what the person believes to be fact as opposed to an assumption being based on a belief for the sake of argument which may or maynot be true

i await your response

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

well think about it. you'll be dealing with way more cases as a solicitor so you'll likely know more than a barrister does.

paky wrote: »

the solicitor been in full time employment and the barrister been free lance. what makes you think a barrister would have more expertise then a solicitor in that context?

paky wrote: »

what im 'assuming' is that solicitors deal with more cases on a daily basis than barristers do. being a barrister there is no guarantee that you will be working on a full time basis.

Actually, one of the generally accepted reasons for a split profession is that because solicitors have to deal with so many files and so many clients, they simply don't have the time or manpower to research complex issues of law. Nor will most small firms have sufficient access to caselaw, journals and textbooks to enable them to do the research.

It is precisely because barristers deal with fewer, more complex cases than solicitors that they are able to specialise and do the research. Most solicitors will maintain, rightly, that they could do the barrister's job if they had the time to do so but because they have so many clients to deal with, they don't have the time to do the research and it is more efficient for them to get barristers to do it than it is to do the research themselves, maintain a sufficient library and keep themselves current. Obviously there are notable exceptions, but as a general rule that is the system we have.

Alan Shatter has complained before that he is not allowed to lead a junior counsel in a case that he knows more about than any silk. And insofar as his point is that a solicitor can in fact be more knowledgeable and a better advocate than a barrister, he raises a good point. But looked at another way, if he wants to do the advocacy himself, what is the point of getting a junior barrister in. If you think about that one for a bit you might better understand the respective roles of barrister and solicitor.

paky wrote:

any barrister ive met said that if they were in a position to decide what to do again they would of gone the solicitor route. barrister just doesnt seem to pay and aint worth the hassle

Maybe they are better suited to the solicitor route and made a mistake in choosing the bar route. Different jobs don't suit everybody.

paky wrote: »

its not false. whats false is assuming that solicitor employment is the same as barrister employment. one is mainly freelance and the other is mainly secure.

The two are completely different alright, but solicitor employment is not mainly secure. Also, barrister work is entirely freelance as barristers cant form companies or partnerships. Perhaps that will change with the implementation of the competition authority's report.

paky

paky wrote: »

it does actually. both arguments are based on different assumptions. one argument is based on the assumption that we are discussing an employed solicitor.
the other argument is based on the assumption that we are discussing unemployed solicitors.

We are actually discussing prospective employment rather than current employment. The prospect of someone going down either the barrister or solicitor route finding a fruitful career in either is equally difficult in the current climate. In fact I would wager, at least in the short term, the solicitor route is harder.

The distinction between what someone would achieve should they actually get to the stage where they are gainfully earning a living in terms of workload is actually quite irrelevant. The title of the thread is Kings Inns because we are speaking about future work, not current.

as for what constitutes what someone thinks, is what the person believes to be fact as opposed to an assumption being based on a belief for the sake of argument which may or maynot be true

i await your response

This is all off point so I won't bother.

paky

Deleted User wrote: »

We are actually discussing prospective employment rather than current employment. The prospect of someone going down either the barrister or solicitor route finding a fruitful career in either is equally difficult in the current climate. In fact I would wager, at least in the short term, the solicitor route is harder.

The distinction between what someone would achieve should they actually get to the stage where they are gainfully earning a living in terms of workload is actually quite irrelevant. The title of the thread is Kings Inns because we are speaking about future work, not current.





This is all off point so I won't bother.

i think johnnyskeleton has pretty much covered it

paky

paky wrote: »

i think johnnyskeleton has pretty much covered it

Finally a point on which we can agree.

NoQuarter

paky wrote: »

well think about it. you'll be dealing with way more cases as a solicitor so you'll likely know more than a barrister does.

Wow, just wow!

chops018

hey all,

it's good to see a debate on which is a better profession, but my question was not about this.

as i said i am interested in Kings Inns and want some info about the course, as regard finance, part time job, what the course demands and what the hours are like etc.

oh, and i understand is around €12,000 or thereabouts to attend if you pass the entrance exams, could someone who does not have this as i will be (hopefully) completed my masters be able to avail of financial aid of some sort?

Milk & Honey

You might qualify for a third level grant. There is a part time option available. If you cannot afford to do the course, how do you propose to set yourself up in practice?

FreudianSlippers

chops018 wrote: »

hey all,

it's good to see a debate on which is a better profession, but my question was not about this.

as i said i am interested in Kings Inns and want some info about the course, as regard finance, part time job, what the course demands and what the hours are like etc.

IMO you COULD do a part-time job and still pass the course - I just wouldn't recommend it.

Firstly, attendance is compulsory and if you pass below 90% you fail.
Secondly, there is a fair bit of work and preparation that go into each session; if you don't do it you're not only hurting yourself, but screwing up the session for the other 15 people in your group.
The hours aren't too bad in the course itself, you'll either be in an afternoon course of a morning course. IIRC afternoon is from like 11am to 1pm and then from 3pm to 5pm (or something like that).
Obviously this applies to full-time, modular course is totally different and of course with that you'd have no problem working almost full time from what I understand.

oh, and i understand is around €12,000 or thereabouts to attend if you pass the entrance exams, could someone who does not have this as i will be (hopefully) completed my masters be able to avail of financial aid of some sort?

Yes, somewhere around there. I think it was closer to €14,000 when I was there. You'll probably have to factor in another €1,000 for the parking at the Inns as well. As for finance, KI doesn't offer financial aid as far as I know. You'll either need to source a bank loan or the grant Milk & Honey mentioned. Also, you'll need to consider Milk & Honey's query regarding setting up in practice

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You might qualify for a third level grant. There is a part time option available. If you cannot afford to do the course, how do you propose to set yourself up in practice?

chops018

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMO you COULD do a part-time job and still pass the course - I just wouldn't recommend it.

Firstly, attendance is compulsory and if you pass below 90% you fail.
Secondly, there is a fair bit of work and preparation that go into each session; if you don't do it you're not only hurting yourself, but screwing up the session for the other 15 people in your group.
The hours aren't too bad in the course itself, you'll either be in an afternoon course of a morning course. IIRC afternoon is from like 11am to 1pm and then from 3pm to 5pm (or something like that).
Obviously this applies to full-time, modular course is totally different and of course with that you'd have no problem working almost full time from what I understand.

Yes, somewhere around there. I think it was closer to €14,000 when I was there. You'll probably have to factor in another €1,000 for the parking at the Inns as well. As for finance, KI doesn't offer financial aid as far as I know. You'll either need to source a bank loan or the grant Milk & Honey mentioned. Also, you'll need to consider Milk & Honey's query regarding setting up in practice

Thanks for the detailed reply and it's good to hear from someone with experience. Although I would really love to do this course and become a Barrister, financially it looks like it's not for me. At least at this point in time.

But hey I'm only 22, I've plenty of time, just concentrate on finishing my Masters (LL.M) first!

paky

NoQuarter wrote: »

Wow, just wow!

you dont have say much to show how thick and ignorant you are

NoQuarter

paky wrote: »

you dont have say much to show how thick and ignorant you are

I know it only took me your first post to realise!

crystalmice

I was looking into Kings myself and my understanding, which may not be correct so anyone who knows better please correct me, was that as a post 3rd level qualification you are able to get a 'masters grant' (thats not what its called but dont know the actual name) to the amount of 6k, or half the course fees, if you are eligible for a full maintenance grant from your local council and have not already done a masters.

also, just to clarify, that would be in lieu of the maintenance grant, not in addition to it.

Tom Young

crystalmice wrote: »

I was looking into Kings myself and my understanding, which may not be correct so anyone who knows better please correct me, was that as a post 3rd level qualification you are able to get a 'masters grant' (thats not what its called but dont know the actual name) to the amount of 6k, or half the course fees, if you are eligible for a full maintenance grant from your local council and have not already done a masters.

also, just to clarify, that would be in lieu of the maintenance grant, not in addition to it.

Be careful here. I am not 100% sure but I have heard instances where such grants are not allowed based on means. I think these were local authority. Do not rely on same being carte blanche available.

crystalmice

Tom Young wrote: »

Be careful here. I am not 100% sure but I have heard instances where such grants are not allowed based on means. I think these were local authority. Do not rely on same being carte blanche available.

Thanks for the correction, I didnt mean to mislead, I read what I posted on a website a while back but cant remember where exactly, It did sound a bit good to be true alright!

legaleagle10

From my research...its the complete opposite, new solicitors are sc*ewed, most of my friends cant get training or work as a solicitor, atleast with Barrister you know what your getting into for the first few years.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

These days it is probably easier to become a solicitor, and then a barrister?

legaleagle10

Hi Chops, I went through the same dillema and chose Barrister route.

As I said in my last post, from my own experience and friends that are recently qualified as solicitors, alot of them (not all though) cannot get any work or training. My mate works in a company (not law) and she is qualified solicitor doing completely unrelated legal work as she cant get a job.

Atleast with the Barrister route you know you'll probably earn pittance for the first 3 years but, if you're a decent Barrister, the work will come eventually, with being a solicitor in today's market, IMO, i think its much harder and that opinion comes from speaking to experienced solicitors.

I think what it boils down to is the route of all evil- MONEY..but look, you can always get yourself a part time job, the two courses (KI & Blackhall) are both the guts of €13,000, so no difference in price there. Its the options afterwards you have to way up, are you willing to sit in an unrelated law job as a qualified solicitor or go down in the courts being a Barrister earning little or nothing at the start but atleast you are around law? On the up side you said you're 22 PLENTY of time to think about it, and who knows the economy maybe better in 5 years time and you'll still only be 27 and the solicitor route could be back on course

chops018 wrote: »

hey all,

it's good to see a debate on which is a better profession, but my question was not about this.

as i said i am interested in Kings Inns and want some info about the course, as regard finance, part time job, what the course demands and what the hours are like etc.

oh, and i understand is around €12,000 or thereabouts to attend if you pass the entrance exams, could someone who does not have this as i will be (hopefully) completed my masters be able to avail of financial aid of some sort?

Brother Psychosis

kings inns was 12,560 last year, think blackhalls is a bit more expensive. as for solicitor v barrister, a friend of mine is applying for training contracts at t moment and out of twenty odd letters he sent out, he got one response - a four page letter saying why he shouldn't bother becoming a solicitor because theres no work. its the same for a barrister, but the difference is, if you persevere as a barrister, work will eventually come, but solicitors either have to get in with a firm before they can work and absolutely noone is hiring

bedstuybosco

hello all

I was just wondering about when you are "called to the bar" what happens next?

Is there a thing called "deviling". Somebody mentioned to me that in order to practice you have to do it?


Does it have to be done straight away?

Are you still qualiied as a Barrister wihout doing it?

regards

The standard required to pass the bar in Ireland is "fit to practice". From the day you are called to the Bar you are qualified to take your own briefs and act in contentious matters.

In practice a first year devil will spend a year as the pupil (devil) of a more experienced barrister (master) who will help them learn the practicalities of the bar as well as educate them in practical advocacy, drafting and expose them to solicitors and colleagues.

Once "called" a barrister may choose to devil in any given legal year and there is no requirement for when this be done.

Hope that helps.

bedstuybosco

But is there some people who just qualify as barristers yet never practice?

It seems to me it would be quite difficult to "devil" as far as i know you have to do it for free?

This would be particulary difficult for those who do the barrister at law by way of they part time modular. The reason they are doing it part time is probably down to financial constraints and familly reasons. How then could they give up work ... and devil for free?

I suppose its how much you want it and what financial backing you have.

There are people, quite a few of them, who qualify but never practice for all sorts of reasons. I know quite a few people did it to enhance their qualifications for their own workplaces.

I can't speak as to whether or not deviling is "free". That's a matter between each Devil and their Master but, as a general rule, payment is not expected as the overall benefit you gain by doing the work is vastly disproportionate to any payment you may receive in general.

As barristers are all self-employed the alternative is to begin to practice immediately but you'll have no work to do unless you are very lucky and have solicitors willing to brief you straight away. The benefits of a good devil year are immeasurable and making the commitment to do it, though difficult, can be very rewarding.

bedstuybosco

Thanks kayroo

Ive no doubt the deviling is invaluable ...

If one does decide to devil does it have to be in dublin or can it be with another barrister on a circuit elsewhere?

Also does the deviling have to be done straight away or could you leave it a year or 2?

Thanks for the info

Brother Psychosis

i think you can start to devil up to five years after leaving KI.

you have to do a minimum of 100 court days in dublin during the year, which basically means you have to do it in dublin, but you can devil with someone who practices in dublin and somewhere on circuit. most people now do two years, one in dublin and one on the circuit of choice

johnnyskeleton

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

you have to do a minimum of 100 court days in dublin during the year,

Where did you hear that from? I thought the guideline for masters was that they had a minimum of 75 days in court (any court) in a year, but that was no more than a guideline.

Many specialised practitioners wouldn't spend 100 days in court in a year. Some would hardly set foot in court, but would be no less successful.

gene the cow

Hiya, instead of starting a new thread in re to Kings Inns I thought I'd put my query on this relating thread. I am planning to do the entrance exams in August but the cost of Kings Inns in general sometimes freaks me out. In order to focus entirely on the exams I'd like to get the cost of living clear in my head. I was thinking if I could just pay for four nights a weeks accommodation and then return to my home town on Friday evenings to work for the weekend it would be doable, financially. I don't see the point in paying up for an apartment for the nine months when you take away the breaks its more like seven months and I will be travelling home every weekend...am I mad to be looking up hostels and cheap hotels to avoid the lump sums involved in renting?Anyone else out there do/ing something similar?Anyone care to share there experience with renting whilst attending Kings Inns?

Brother Psychosis

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where did you hear that from?

i know from friends experience that, although the bar council have nothing official, there is a "recommendation" that devils spend at least 100 court days in dublin, but it seems to be enforced in different measures.

as for accommadation, there are people who have made long term agreements with b+b's, worth looking into