deviling/practising problems - change needed?

redrolled

Hi All,

I’m a devil who is beginning to really regret their decision of becoming a barrister. There are a number of reasons but the main reason is that my wrists are literally tied by the bar council. I am not that young, I have commitments and people I need to support. I have saved up to devil, at one stage in the past I worked full time and held two part time jobs. Eventually I graduated, paid my law library fees and… became a slave… and this is not my first year…

I pay fees and get treated like crap.

I know there is a process to change masters, I also know that like most things in the bar council there is a “formal process” (which is usually bad) and an “informal process” (which is off the record). Once no one knows about it it’s ok. I’m not trying to be nasty or bitchy, just realistic. A guy I know changed masters using the informal process and he was the butt of gossip and jokes for a few weeks.

I also say my hands are tied because I can’t get any legal work. I make €9.85 an hour selling chips and kebabs to drunk teenagers on Friday and Saturday nights. The job probably offends the code of conduct that governs our profession.

The code of conduct says I am not allowed approach solicitors. I could be disbarred for doing so.

I am not allowed to ask for work. I could be disbarred for doing so.

I am not allowed to advertise. I could be disbarred for doing so.

I am not allowed to advocate on behalf of a client without being instructed by a solicitor YET the solicitor has a right of audience and if the solicitor is skilled enough they don’t actually need a barrister.

I am not allowed to use the skills and abilities that I have learnt throughout my life to make a career in the profession I want.

If, in the event I do actually get work but do not get paid then I have no real recourse. I don’t care anymore about the history or origins of the once noble profession, the cold frank reality is that we profess and vindicate the rights of other people yet we do not have the same rights as our clients. That just does not make sense.

In response, the phrase “you knew what you were getting into” is heard a lot. Maybe so, but you don’t really know until it’s too late, besides which, does that make it right? I feel we are at an important crisis point in the profession, I have seen it for myself at how many are just giving up. I regularly see advertisements for second hand wigs and gowns. There is talk about it now taking 5-7 years for a barrister to establish some form of practice with a bare minimum standard of living. I know of some law lecturers opening telling students not to bother entering the profession.


Recently, I went to a talk about the proposed legal services bill during which the bar council put forward its position to us. They agreed with the premise that legal fees should be reduced. What fees? I looked around and saw the room split in two. The more senior members were nodding in agreement whilst the younger members were glancing at each other in disbelief.

In that moment I realised that there was truth to the allegation that our profession is anti-competitive, not from a particular sector but from the more established people who do not want to change the status quo. If things were to change, become more competitive, then their solicitors might be poached, lured away by younger members who have the audacity to act above their station by trying to do things differently.

While I may not agree with the proposed legal bill, I do believe that at this stage any change is better then what we currently have. Young practitioners are dropping off at a rate never seen before, rumour has it that this year even fewer law students have indicated they are going to come down to the bar. These are desperate times and I do care about the profession… but I can’t for much longer…

The code of conduct says that I am not allowed to bring the profession into disrepute.

I believe the code of conduct is already doing that by forcing people like me to scrape and beg for a living.

Unbind my hands; let me fight for my right to seek work.

If I fail then so be it but at least I tried…

johnnyskeleton

It seems to me that a lot of barristers are paralysed by the choice of do nothing and see how it goes or make a stand. Its surprising that they have no one who is prepared to champion their cause.

Can I ask you, as a barrister, why this is so? Why if things are so bad, do so many of you comply with the acceptednorms?

By the way, my understanding is that if you are a second year devil, you can, rather than changing masters, simply drift away. I'm not sure if this is easier said than done or if it is just a whitewash, but it seems to me that if you just stop doing their work and see what happens, it can't be worse than being miserable.

Best of luck whatever you choose, and at the end of the day at least you can say you gave it a shot, no?

BornToKill

redrolled wrote: »

There are a number of reasons but the main reason is that my wrists are literally tied by the bar council.

Not literally tied surely? That would be truly weird.

Milk & Honey

BornToKill wrote: »

Not literally tied surely? That would be truly weird.

Along with being flaky about the code of conduct? Worried about a bit of slagging? Cant do simple arithmetic- 1,000+ unemployed solicitors cannot brief at all and another 2,500 underemployed solicitors cannot keep briefing an expanding bar?
Can't see a great future here.

nuac

Both sides of the profession, solicitors' and bar, are tough. Less work around, great competition. sadly I don't see it changing for the better anytime soon.

I am continually amazed at the rosy view of prospects in law amongst many who have no experience of it.

Kosseegan

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,



I pay fees and get treated like crap.

You pay a subscription, not fees.

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
I know there is a process to change masters, I also know that like most things in the bar council there is a “formal process” (which is usually bad) and an “informal process” (which is off the record). Once no one knows about it it’s ok. I’m not trying to be nasty or bitchy, just realistic. A guy I know changed masters using the informal process and he was the butt of gossip and jokes for a few weeks.

So what?

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
The code of conduct says I am not allowed approach solicitors. I could be disbarred for doing so.

You are not allowed tout. Neither are solicitors.

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
I am not allowed to advertise. I could be disbarred for doing so.

You are allowed have a website.

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
I am not allowed to advocate on behalf of a client without being instructed by a solicitor YET the solicitor has a right of audience and if the solicitor is skilled enough they don’t actually need a barrister.

A barrister is supposed to add value. Why should a solicitor spend his clients money for nothing?

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
I am not allowed to use the skills and abilities that I have learnt throughout my life to make a career in the profession I want.

What is stopping you?

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
If, in the event I do actually get work but do not get paid then I have no real recourse. I don’t care anymore about the history or origins of the once noble profession, the cold frank reality is that we profess and vindicate the rights of other people yet we do not have the same rights as our clients. That just does not make sense.

If you cannot figure out how to look after yourself, how do you expect others to trust you to look after them?

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
In response, the phrase “you knew what you were getting into” is heard a lot. Maybe so, but you don’t really know until it’s too late, besides which, does that make it right?

You were told what you were getting into, chose to ignore it and are now moaning.

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,
In that moment I realised that there was truth to the allegation that our profession is anti-competitive, not from a particular sector but from the more established people who do not want to change the status quo. If things were to change, become more competitive, then their solicitors might be poached, lured away by younger members who have the audacity to act above their station by trying to do things differently.

Solicitors are no fools and have an unerring instinct for finding the right barrister for the job. They are not easily enticed.

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,

The code of conduct says that I am not allowed to bring the profession into disrepute.

Nothing wrong with that. It is common to every profession except the priesthood.
I believe the code of conduct is already doing that by forcing people like me to scrape and beg for a living.
[/QUOTE]
The code of conduct doesn't force you to do anything. It simply limits what you can do, for your own protection and for that of your clients.

Procrastastudy

I've done a bit of research myself and have come to the following conclusions. I am happy to be corrected.

The UK has the same system as Ireland - Devilling has been "reformed" to allow the devils to scrape a meagre living by some sort of subscription payments by masters. It's not great but then it's meant to be tough starting out. I living can be made once you're in.

NI - Very tough to get in as they strictly limit numbers but once you are in you can make a living eventually if you're good enough and get the right breaks.

Ireland - Has always been difficult to "break in" despite being more accessible than the UK and NI. However way too many Barristers about, work had fallen off massively due to the death of the Celtic tiger.

There are definitely some reform needed in the Irish legal system as a whole. I don't personally think the proposed bill is the way forward. That said every profession is having the same issues at the moment. I remember interviewing Xmas temps (retail jobs) a couple of years back with 10+ years experience as Architects! There are many complicated issues here but the main one is a massive over supply.

EDIT:
Am I right is thinking the attrition rate (number that go an do something else) for new barristers is around 60-70%?

Reloc8

Being self-employed is tough.

/thread.

Delancey

The issue of over supply in both legal professions is well understood by most on this forum but nobody can agree on how this can be tackled.

Were the Law Society to ' cap ' student numbers there would be accusations of this action being calculated to keep Solicitors fees high and lest we forget the Competition Authority could take action. Previous mechanisms used to limit entry were subject to sucessful legal challenge.

Were Kings Inns to cap student numbers the same thing applies and in the meantime students of both professions pay heavy fees / dues / subscriptions ( call them what you want ) to enter a profession where its very hard to make a living.
Students complain about the costs and say the numbers should be limited but these are the same people who would cry foul were they kept out - they remind me of people demanding more stringent law enforcement and then bitch when they get done for speeding.

I have a relative who recently retired after a very sucessful career as a Barrister but I know he could not have stayed at the Bar in his early years were it not for his good fortune in being married to a woman of substantial ' independent means ' who financially ' carried ' their family.

dats_right

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I've done a bit of research myself and have come to the following conclusions. I am happy to be corrected.

The UK has the same system as Ireland - Devilling has been "reformed" to allow the devils to scrape a meagre living by some sort of subscription payments by masters. It's not great but then it's meant to be tough starting out. I living can be made once you're in.

Sorry, but England & Wales has a very different system in terms of how barristers practice and are trained. Very briefly, by this I mean barristers practice from sets of chambers rather than a central Law Library, and trainee barristers undergo a pupilage in chambers after their BVC course (this is the equivalent of the King's Inns BL course) .

Also unlike here where all BL's graduating from Kings Inns get to devil and qualify for practice, in the UK the vast majority (about 2/3rds) who do the equivalent BVC course do not get a pupilage and cannot practice. However those that do get a pupilage are paid by their chambers. However, getting a pupilage is no guarantee of succeeding as the pupil must then get a tenancy i.e. a permanent place is chambers to continue to practice. It's all swings and roundabouts really!

The chambers system is run to a large extent by clerks who distribute the work amongst the barristers within their chambers. This means the junior members of chambers are usually given their fair share of work and can make a living.

johnnyskeleton

Delancey wrote: »

The issue of over supply in both legal professions is well understood by most on this forum but nobody can agree on how this can be tackled.

Were the Law Society to ' cap ' student numbers there would be accusations of this action being calculated to keep Solicitors fees high and lest we forget the Competition Authority could take action. Previous mechanisms used to limit entry were subject to sucessful legal challenge.

Were Kings Inns to cap student numbers the same thing applies and in the meantime students of both professions pay heavy fees / dues / subscriptions ( call them what you want ) to enter a profession where its very hard to make a living.
Students complain about the costs and say the numbers should be limited but these are the same people who would cry foul were they kept out - they remind me of people demanding more stringent law enforcement and then bitch when they get done for speeding.

I have a relative who recently retired after a very sucessful career as a Barrister but I know he could not have stayed at the Bar in his early years were it not for his good fortune in being married to a woman of substantial ' independent means ' who financially ' carried ' their family.

A few things that could be done, such as masters paying for their devils fees, provision of a minimum income eg a few grand, or a rule that devils can bill for the work they do are good examples of this. On the one hand, it would ensure that there is at least some hope for junior barristers to make a few quid, but on the other it could be seen by the competition authority as discouraging barristers from taking on a devil, especially those barristers who have a lot of useful contacts and knowledge to pass to their devil but who don't really need a devil.

Perhaps a system whereby there are no fees for barristers in their first two years? As this cost is borne by the law library in general rather than the specific masters it would not discourage barristers from taking a devil. Equally, perhaps a system whereby solicitors are encouraged to give minor issues e.g. motions and such directly to devils rather than give them directly to the main barrister only for some random devil to show up in court anyway? I know a lot of solicitors get annoyed that they don't know who is going to turn up for them in court on any particular day.

On the other hand, the system of solicitors and barristers is highly personalized and I assume most solicitors would not be happy picking a random name from a list.

In any event, it is axiomatic that any efforts to assist barristers in their first few years is not going to act as a direct or indirect barrier to entry.

In reality, I don't think the ops ideas of advertising or approaching solicitors directly looking for work would be a good idea, because solicitors by and large would not like this. The advertising already there is not really affecting most solicitors choice of barristers, and logically if it were permitted it would mean that people like the op are drowned out of the market by the more established barristers who can pay more for advertising. The net result is more expense and less competitive advantage to the young barrister. Similarl, approaching a solicitor for work would seem desparate; solicitors want barristers who can provide specialist services not those who are eager to take cases.

However, I'll bow to the ops views in this area as he is the one in that position. I would just say that his views might need a bit of further consideration.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

The chambers system is run to a large extent by clerks who distribute the work amongst the barristers within their chambers. This means the junior members of chambers are usually given their fair share of work and can make a living.

I wonder though. Certainly they are given work by the clerks, but to whose advantage is this?

Consider the following scenario:

A snewly qualified olicitor contacts a chambers to do some small claims court / magistrates court / tricky pro bono work. The chambers gives them barrister X, the most junior member of the chambers, because he is eager to do any work, and the more senior barristers aren't bothered with that type of work. The solicitor is very happy with the work done by barrister X and, in turn, the chambers for providing him.

As the solicitors practice grows, he starts to get better paid high court / crown court / corporate work. Out of gratitude and because of good service in the minor matters, he decides to keep using the chambers and, in turn, wants barrister X. But the clerk, seeing that some better work is coming in, suggests that they switch to barrister Y, a more senior member. The solicitor may have sufficient loyalty to barrister X to keep them, but it wouldn't be too hard for a cunning clerk to scare the solicitor by reminding them that barrister X hasn't done this type of case before, but barrister Y has. Thus, chambers could lead to a system whereby the junior people are bringing in the work by doing the low paid stuff, while the se I or people are getting the cream.

Of course this can happen here too, but at least the loyalty built up by barrister X is their own, and they are not beholden to a clerk who can take their goodwill and divert it elsewhere.

Another scenario is where the junior person becomes so good at doing the low paid hard work that the clerks are reluctant to take them away from that. Legal work does not always have a correlation between pay and work/skill required and often times the easier work is of higher value than the lower paid to the barristers e.g. a high value straitforward high court case vs a complex district court case. For the solicitor as well as the chambers, having someone good doing the lower end work can mean repeat business. In our system as a barrister becomes busier he can select his preferred cases, but in a chambers they do not have such luxury. It is perhaps only when they become more influential in the chambers that they can select their work. Thus, a talented individual barrister may not rise as quickly in a chambers as they would here.

Again, it is very hard to comment on the two systems without seeing someone being involved in both. But it makes sense that chambers would have the same power structure as most other organisations ie the pyramid where those at the top make the most money relative to their efforts, while those at the bottom do a greater proportion of the work for less money. This was alluded to in a letter to the Irish times by a senior counsel last year. Of course, the criticism of the Irish bar is the same - too much lucrative work in the hands of the top few - but I don't see how that can be improved upon with chambers and it seems to me that it would make matters worse.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0921/1224304482219.html

Amazotheamazing

Delancey wrote: »

The issue of over supply in both legal professions is well understood by most on this forum but nobody can agree on how this can be tackled.

Were the Law Society to ' cap ' student numbers there would be accusations of this action being calculated to keep Solicitors fees high and lest we forget the Competition Authority could take action. Previous mechanisms used to limit entry were subject to sucessful legal challenge.

Were Kings Inns to cap student numbers the same thing applies and in the meantime students of both professions pay heavy fees / dues / subscriptions ( call them what you want ) to enter a profession where its very hard to make a living.
Students complain about the costs and say the numbers should be limited but these are the same people who would cry foul were they kept out - they remind me of people demanding more stringent law enforcement and then bitch when they get done for speeding.

I have a relative who recently retired after a very sucessful career as a Barrister but I know he could not have stayed at the Bar in his early years were it not for his good fortune in being married to a woman of substantial ' independent means ' who financially ' carried ' their family.

Easiest way to cap numbers is to make the exams much, much harder for both streams.

johnnyskeleton

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Easiest way to cap numbers is to make the exams much, much harder for both streams.

to what end though? I mean, you either know the law or you don't? Unless you are suggesting that there are people passing the professional exams who don't know the law, then I don't see what changes could be made there.

Besides, the trend appears to be to liberalise the professional qualification standards by the introduction of more places to obtain the qualifications. These new universities will be unwilling to toe the line in relation to making the exams harder to reduce the numbers qualfying.

Amazotheamazing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

to what end though? I mean, you either know the law or you don't? Unless you are suggesting that there are people passing the professional exams who don't know the law, then I don't see what changes could be made there.

Besides, the trend appears to be to liberalise the professional qualification standards by the introduction of more places to obtain the qualifications. These new universities will be unwilling to toe the line in relation to making the exams harder to reduce the numbers qualfying.

I'm only going on my experience, but imo, most trainees know how to pass exams, they only have loose grasp on the fundamentals of most areas of legal theory.

Delancey

But are the exams not hard enough as it is ? I read here ( I think ) that fail one FE 1 and you have to repeat the whole lot - is this correct ?

As for students having a poor grasp of fundamentals is this not what devilling /apprenticeships are supposed to remedy ?

FreudianSlippers

I don't necessarily see the harm in allowing barristers to work in-house or form chambers if they wish without huge change to the current system.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't necessarily see the harm in allowing barristers to work in-house or form chambers if they wish without huge change to the current system.

I should say that while I think a chambers system would be bad for new and prospective entrants to the profession, atthis stage they may as well allow it and stop all the messing.

In fact, if the bar council were smart, or got some good legal advice, they might realise that the new change will permit chambers to form and they can say "that's fine, but you're either a chambers barrister, a law library barrister or a complete freelancer". They could just set themselves up as one big chambers (or two - one for criminal lawyers and one for civil lawyers) and plough on from there.

I suppose the biggest indictment of the current system is that young barristers like FS have to get up at 9am on a Sunday morning. Surely that's contrary to the European convention on human rights?

Procrastastudy

Delancey wrote: »

But are the exams not hard enough as it is ? I read here ( I think ) that fail one FE 1 and you have to repeat the whole lot - is this correct ?

As for students having a poor grasp of fundamentals is this not what devilling /apprenticeships are supposed to remedy ?

My cynical and uninformed view is; the FE1 allow you to gain entry to a profession. That profession doesn't want anymore people so the FE1 are apparently getting very, very tough to prevent to many people qualifying.

The Kings Inns on the other hand (i) runs a diploma course - which becomes problematic if the graduates of this start failing the BL entry exams because they have been made too hard. (ii) charge (and presumably make a profit from) the BL course - so it's advantageous to make the exam hard enough to keep out the drooling dunder heads but easy enough to fill the lecture theatres!

Basically the "safety valve" for solicitors is the very hard FE1s, for Barristers it's not getting any work when you qualify.

ResearchWill

redrolled wrote: »

Hi All,

I’m a devil who is beginning to really regret their decision of becoming a barrister. There are a number of reasons but the main reason is that my wrists are literally tied by the bar council. I am not that young, I have commitments and people I need to support. I have saved up to devil, at one stage in the past I worked full time and held two part time jobs. Eventually I graduated, paid my law library fees and… became a slave… and this is not my first year…

I pay fees and get treated like crap.

I know there is a process to change masters, I also know that like most things in the bar council there is a “formal process” (which is usually bad) and an “informal process” (which is off the record). Once no one knows about it it’s ok. I’m not trying to be nasty or bitchy, just realistic. A guy I know changed masters using the informal process and he was the butt of gossip and jokes for a few weeks.

I also say my hands are tied because I can’t get any legal work. I make €9.85 an hour selling chips and kebabs to drunk teenagers on Friday and Saturday nights. The job probably offends the code of conduct that governs our profession.

The code of conduct says I am not allowed approach solicitors. I could be disbarred for doing so.

I am not allowed to ask for work. I could be disbarred for doing so.

I am not allowed to advertise. I could be disbarred for doing so.

I am not allowed to advocate on behalf of a client without being instructed by a solicitor YET the solicitor has a right of audience and if the solicitor is skilled enough they don’t actually need a barrister.

I am not allowed to use the skills and abilities that I have learnt throughout my life to make a career in the profession I want.

If, in the event I do actually get work but do not get paid then I have no real recourse. I don’t care anymore about the history or origins of the once noble profession, the cold frank reality is that we profess and vindicate the rights of other people yet we do not have the same rights as our clients. That just does not make sense.

In response, the phrase “you knew what you were getting into” is heard a lot. Maybe so, but you don’t really know until it’s too late, besides which, does that make it right? I feel we are at an important crisis point in the profession, I have seen it for myself at how many are just giving up. I regularly see advertisements for second hand wigs and gowns. There is talk about it now taking 5-7 years for a barrister to establish some form of practice with a bare minimum standard of living. I know of some law lecturers opening telling students not to bother entering the profession.


Recently, I went to a talk about the proposed legal services bill during which the bar council put forward its position to us. They agreed with the premise that legal fees should be reduced. What fees? I looked around and saw the room split in two. The more senior members were nodding in agreement whilst the younger members were glancing at each other in disbelief.

In that moment I realised that there was truth to the allegation that our profession is anti-competitive, not from a particular sector but from the more established people who do not want to change the status quo. If things were to change, become more competitive, then their solicitors might be poached, lured away by younger members who have the audacity to act above their station by trying to do things differently.

While I may not agree with the proposed legal bill, I do believe that at this stage any change is better then what we currently have. Young practitioners are dropping off at a rate never seen before, rumour has it that this year even fewer law students have indicated they are going to come down to the bar. These are desperate times and I do care about the profession… but I can’t for much longer…

The code of conduct says that I am not allowed to bring the profession into disrepute.

I believe the code of conduct is already doing that by forcing people like me to scrape and beg for a living.

Unbind my hands; let me fight for my right to seek work.

If I fail then so be it but at least I tried…

A lot to take in there. Well I assume you are devil in your first year, so in reality only a few months in. I am not going to talk about reform because every change will bring its own issues.

The biggest issue with the law for a person starting out on their own be it barrister or solicitor is the nature of the work and the way we get paid. The cycle from getting a nice circuit court brief to payment is about 2 to 3 years. So a lot of the work you will do in the next year you won't see a penny for a couple of years. It's a pain yes and if you don't have a family who can support you it's going to be very hard.

Hopefully you will get a few lucky breaks along the way, as I did, but to be honest in the first 3 years I earned less than the dole and I mean way less.

I'll tell you 2 stories one good one bad both happened in my 2nd year, the bad one I was with a solicitor friend of mine we had bumped into another solicitor friend and decided to go for coffee, I whispered to my friend "can you buy coffee" he replied "don't you have enough money for a coffee" to which I replied "of course I have enough to pay for a coffee just won't be able to pay the bus fare home if I spend it on coffee."

The second story was I was sent by my master to a criminal call over, the matter had to be listed in the first week as it had 5 defendants. My master could not do that week so told me to do the case, I said no but solicitor insisted I do it. It was a great way to run first case got an acquittal btw. But also the case ran for 6 days. Thankfully I took someone's advice and registered for Criminal Legal Aid as soon as I could.

All I am saying to you is that it will be difficult, (if it was easy everyone would do it). But if this is your first year then at least stick it out till the end of your third year if you can. A lot can happen in that time.

tiger_cub

I think one of the main issues is the huge numbers of graduates coming out of the universities and private colleges. The points for such courses are too low, the standards with the course are very low too.
would a solution not be to reduce the number of law graduates through places offered in university? also the fact that you don't even need a law degree to qualify as either a barrister or solicitor here now affects the complete over supply within both professions now?

Procrastastudy

tiger_cub wrote: »

I think one of the main issues is the huge numbers of graduates coming out of the universities and private colleges. The points for such courses are too low, the standards with the course are very low too.
would a solution not be to reduce the number of law graduates through places offered in university? also the fact that you don't even need a law degree to qualify as either a barrister or solicitor here now affects the complete over supply within both professions now?

I'm not sure what you base your assertion that the standard is very low on?

You also have to bear in mind that Law graduates don't have to become a Solicitor or a Barrister - its probably the best general degree to have.

The ability to take people into the professions from other disciplines is a major advantage. You can train a chemist on IP and patent law - you're unlikely to convince a Barrister to go back and do a Chemistry degree. It also broadens out the profession - ironic as it always seems to attract this reputation of being out of touch.

Delancey

tiger_cub wrote: »

I think one of the main issues is the huge numbers of graduates coming out of the universities and private colleges. The points for such courses are too low, the standards with the course are very low too.
would a solution not be to reduce the number of law graduates through places offered in university? also the fact that you don't even need a law degree to qualify as either a barrister or solicitor here now affects the complete over supply within both professions now?

Interesting point about requiring a Law Degree to become a legal practitioner , the thing is that the private colleges will be all too happy to ' ramp up ' their output of law graduates to meet any such requirement so in the long term I think it would not really address the over supply issue.

From reading this forum I think anyone seeking a legal career right now is crazy but clearly some are not deterred.
Is it really in the interests of the Law Society or Kings Inns to tell potential students ( and sources of income ) just how tough it may be for them to make a living ?

Procrastastudy

Sorry to keep replying on this thread but just thought I'd mention GCD tells us constantly! :eek:

I have friends in other institutions that also know the score. To be fair if you don't know very soon after starting the degree what the situation is like out there - you proably wont make it even in the best of times.

johnnyskeleton

I'm slightly concerned that the op hasn't posted again. I'm not sure any further debate will be of much use.

Amazotheamazing

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

You also have to bear in mind that Law graduates don't have to become a Solicitor or a Barrister - its probably the best general degree to have.

People often say this but has it any basis in reality?

ResearchWill

Delancey wrote: »

Interesting point about requiring a Law Degree to become a legal practitioner , the thing is that the private colleges will be all too happy to ' ramp up ' their output of law graduates to meet any such requirement so in the long term I think it would not really address the over supply issue.

From reading this forum I think anyone seeking a legal career right now is crazy but clearly some are not deterred.
Is it really in the interests of the Law Society or Kings Inns to tell potential students ( and sources of income ) just how tough it may be for them to make a living ?

I can assure you Kings Inns does tell students how hard it is ,it is made more than clear that it is as hard as it has always been to make a living in the early years of the Bar.

nuac

From the perspective of over 40 years as a solicitor

1. Bar and solicitors' profession vastly overcrowded

2. Work in many areas declining in either quantity or fee income

e.g. still lots of family law work around but if the family home cannot be sold, nobodyu gets paid,

3. Regulatory requirements daunting especially for solicitors

3. Parents and many new entrants think that qualifying as a lawyer ensures a quality of life and high earning capacity. Not true. The Tribunals gave the impression that we all earn thousands a day, every working day. Only a select few benefitted.

4. Many colleges of various types are pushing all sorts of law degrees claiming (3) above. Quite irresponsible.

the highly remunerative commercial work we hear about is confined to a few firms

To the poster I sugest you see out your devilling time at least

ResearchWill

nuac wrote: »

From the perspective of over 40 years as a solicitor

1. Bar and solicitors' profession vastly overcrowded

2. Work in many areas declining in either quantity or fee income

e.g. still lots of family law work around but if the family home cannot be sold, nobodyu gets paid,

3. Regulatory requirements daunting especially for solicitors

3. Parents and many new entrants think that qualifying as a lawyer ensures a quality of life and high earning capacity. Not true. The Tribunals gave the impression that we all earn thousands a day, every working day. Only a select few benefitted.

4. Many colleges of various types are pushing all sorts of law degrees claiming (3) above. Quite irresponsible.

the highly remunerative commercial work we hear about is confined to a few firms

To the poster I sugest you see out your devilling time at least

Agree with everything you say. In relation the family law issue and fees, I know of solicitors who know inform clients of possible costs and put a payment scheme in place a certain amount each month until the matter is resolved. I know if one solicitor who is doing this for a number of years now and on a regular enough basis when the matter concludes returns to the client a cheque if the standing order amount exceeds the bill.

Just a little story was talking to an old guy once who on discovering I practiced in law started to give out about the cost of family law proceedings, I informed him I did not do any family law. But he still went on about his daughters divorce if cost him x thousands, I asked when did the couple get married he said 198x I said was it a nice wedding he said yes lovely, I said did he pay for the wedding he said yes, I said to him he did not mind paying to get rid of her but has issues with paying to get rid of his son in law.

chops018

Just gonna give my two cents on the matter.

I have a degree in Law and a Master's (an LL.M). Don't agree with putting the points through the roof to go study law as many people have an interest in the law and why shouldn't they be allowed go study it and try excel in the area without getting 600 points.

As I said above I've a degree and a masters, I love the area, it can be a pain at times but I like reading up on the various issues around Law, and I find it stupid that the profession is so hard and expensive to get into. I am sitting FE-1's at the moment and they are so needlessly hard it is unreal, not impossible though, as one person said if you know your stuff they can't fail you, but there is just so much to cover and with working and studying it is very hard. I do see where they are coming from though, they have to include the whole syllabus and ensure the prospective students have a good knowledge of the law in all areas.

The problem I then have is the costs, let's say you pass the 8 exams and secure a traineeship, if the place you secure the traineeship doesn't pay your fees and you are not rich then you will probably have to get a loan, and as we know if you are not rich and can't get a good guarantor then you might not even get a loan, what happens then? And when you are in blackhall it will be hard to support yourself also. It shouldn't be a profession whereby you have to have your father owning or being in a solicitor's office to ensure you will get through blackhall. I know I am moaning, and don't get me wrong, I am going to try get through these fe-1's and do my best to get a traineeship and get through blackhall as I really want to qualify as a solicitor as I love the area of law. But definitively think there is need for reform.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I should say that while I think a chambers system would be bad for new and prospective entrants to the profession, atthis stage they may as well allow it and stop all the messing.

I don't disagree that a pure chambers system would be a pain for new members, but at the same time; isn't it still "easier" for new members to the bar to work hard to find a job in-house or in a chambers than to sit around for 5ish years with nothing but debt for an uncertain future?

I think it would be much more advantageous after the Inns to set your sights on getting in a good chambers or else finding a job in-house. That way, you know within a few months to a year whether you have a secure job and a future at the bar.

In fact, if the bar council were smart, or got some good legal advice, they might realise that the new change will permit chambers to form and they can say "that's fine, but you're either a chambers barrister, a law library barrister or a complete freelancer". They could just set themselves up as one big chambers (or two - one for criminal lawyers and one for civil lawyers) and plough on from there.

I absolutely agree here. Once there is a truly independent oversight group that polices upholds a professional standard for barristers (and solicitors), I say let them do what they want as far as organisation goes.

If it makes more sense for a group of barristers to form a chamber, then let them. If it makes more sense for barristers to continue to exist in the bar council (effectively one big chamber anyway) then let them do that.
Others will get jobs in-house as barristers.

The only group I see with something to gain by sticking with the status quo is the bar council.

Will chambers or allowing barristers work in-house solve all problems for young people at the bar? Certainly not... but I think the biggest problem is the uncertainty (it certainly was/is for me).
Why don't you see this problem in the USA or Canada I wonder? Obviously the system is slightly different there, but is there something to learn from there that we can apply here. I ask that because certainly the UK system is not without its flaws and a carbon copy implementation of that system here without tweaking would be silly to say the least.

There have certainly been times this year and the previous couple that I wonder what the point is... If I'm going to have to end up emigrating or taking a job as an in-house "lawyer" because the bank account is empty and I have nothing in the pigeonhole (and my alternative is to work 2/3 jobs) then why bother fighting the inevitable? I should just go out and admit defeat and enter the corporate world.

I'm not trying to paint some big sob story and in all honesty I'm doing better than I thought I would be this year, but I feel that if there was a clear light at the end of the tunnel it would be much easier to put the head down and push on. I think of young doctors in this regard; sure, it's a long and hard slog but there is something to look forward to in medicine that is distinctly lacking from the legal profession in this country (or at the very least the bar as I have no insight into the lives of solicitors).

I suppose the biggest indictment of the current system is that young barristers like FS have to get up at 9am on a Sunday morning. Surely that's contrary to the European convention on human rights?

It most certainly is...
I must figure out how to get paid for this boards craic

johnnyskeleton

chops018 wrote: »

Just gonna give my two cents on the matter.

I have a degree in Law and a Master's (an LL.M). Don't agree with putting the points through the roof to go study law as many people have an interest in the law and why shouldn't they be allowed go study it and try excel in the area without getting 600 points.

As I said above I've a degree and a masters, I love the area, it can be a pain at times but I like reading up on the various issues around Law, and I find it stupid that the profession is so hard and expensive to get into. I am sitting FE-1's at the moment and they are so needlessly hard it is unreal, not impossible though, as one person said if you know your stuff they can't fail you, but there is just so much to cover and with working and studying it is very hard. I do see where they are coming from though, they have to include the whole syllabus and ensure the prospective students have a good knowledge of the law in all areas.

The problem I then have is the costs, let's say you pass the 8 exams and secure a traineeship, if the place you secure the traineeship doesn't pay your fees and you are not rich then you will probably have to get a loan, and as we know if you are not rich and can't get a good guarantor then you might not even get a loan, what happens then? And when you are in blackhall it will be hard to support yourself also.

Why are these problems always aimed at the legal professions? If you want to be a journalist, that's also a lot of hard work for little or no money until you make a reputation for yourself. If you want to become a GP doctor or a dentist etc you have to either buy out an existing practice or else set up a new one and hope you get the work. If you want to be an architect you have to compete massively for jobs that are not guaranteed to pay. All professions are hard.

Why? Because the supply of professionals exceeds the demand for their services, and far more people want to be in those professions than the professions can comfortably accommodate. This is not unique to the legal professions, even if it is more keenly felt there (although I'm pretty certain architects/engineers have it worse at the moment). It is not even unique to the recession, even though that probably makes matters worse for some.

But that is the nature of professions.

It shouldn't be a profession whereby you have to have your father owning or being in a solicitor's office to ensure you will get through blackhall. I know I am moaning, and don't get me wrong, I am going to try get through these fe-1's and do my best to get a traineeship and get through blackhall as I really want to qualify as a solicitor as I love the area of law.

Well it's not, so you can take that chip right off your shoulders. Sure, some solicitors help their children into the profession, but many many other solicitors are not the children of solicitors. If you think about the rapid expansion of both legal professions, solicitors and barristers would have to have a massive number of children in a very short space of time to accomplish this, and between the glasses of cheap claret this is not always possible.

I think it is also a great disservice to those solicitors who have no connections in law to simply assert that they have to rely on parental connections to be a solicitor. You are, effectively, denigrating the hard work of thousands of people in one go.

But definitively think there is need for reform.

How exactly?

FreudianSlippers

chops018 wrote: »

The problem I then have is the costs, let's say you pass the 8 exams and secure a traineeship,

As I understand it... happy bloody days! That's not easy, nor should it be. Neither is getting through med school, and you have a long way to go after that on little to no pay.

if the place you secure the traineeship doesn't pay your fees and you are not rich then you will probably have to get a loan, and as we know if you are not rich and can't get a good guarantor then you might not even get a loan, what happens then?

Your fees as in your blackhall fees? Why should they be expected to pay?
You're doing work experience or an apprenticeship with them. I would say the same thing about devilling; a nice tip at Christmas is always a welcome surprise, but the experience you get from a good master is worth more than them paying your fees.

The problem with any job where you have a year or two of "apprenticeship" is the uncertainty of work after that period. For solicitors, is it going to be easy to find a job? Probably not. But I don't think it's the place of firms hiring trainees to do anything but train them.

And when you are in blackhall it will be hard to support yourself also. It shouldn't be a profession whereby you have to have your father owning or being in a solicitor's office to ensure you will get through blackhall.

I think JS mirrors my view on this issue.

I know I am moaning, and don't get me wrong, I am going to try get through these fe-1's and do my best to get a traineeship and get through blackhall as I really want to qualify as a solicitor as I love the area of law.

There are jobs out there... it won't be easy, but (and I'm not trying to be a smug git here) that should be incentive to work very hard when in blackhall.

But definitively think there is need for reform.

Reform for the sake of reform isn't really reform though.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How exactly?

The million dollar question really. I think the focus on King's Inns and BHP being the problem is misdirected. They should start by looking at the undergraduate law courses. Are they hard enough? There are some people in my year during my undergrad that I'm surprised they could feed themselves, let alone do the degree. There is most certainly a problem in some institutions where it's about regurgitation of information on the exams rather than actually engaging in "legal thought". So, step one: make undergrad law much more difficult.

The professional issue is obviously much more complex. I think at the outset they should start by allowing barristers to work in-house and form chambers if they so wish. But leave the bar council as it is and just see what happens.
I don't think it will result in some serious implosion of the profession in any way to be honest.

Forget about wigs and gowns and "accessibility" - in all honesty, it's populist faff anyway. Do we really want our courts to all operate like a version of Judge Judy? If you want to make it easier for lay litigants, make the rules more accessible and/or create a website that explains the court process clearly and in simple terms.

Make a truly independent government body to regulate both solicitors and barristers called the Legal Services Regulatory Authority. They ensure that complaints are investigated, prices aren't fixed and there is generally no bold behaviour. Make the Law Library and Law Society answerable directly to this LSRA; in turn the members of each profession are directly answerable to their applicable group.
In essence, not much changes on the day-to-day operation (for barristers, all members must be registered with the law library whether in the bar council, in-house or in chambers... the same for solicitors and the law society).
Each group takes care of group specific issues and discipline but is overseen and regulated by the LSRA. Complaints go directly to each body and the LSRA audits to ensure they were dealt with correctly and adequately.

I mean, the above is very rough... but it would be fairly easy and quick to implement and not too expensive really. It could be set for review after 2 years and problems addressed there.

chops018

In reply to the two of ye above. That's just the way I see it, my view may change, and it was interesting to read your insights and ye seem to have a lot more knowledge and experience on this stuff. However I don't agree on costs for the prospective solictors/barristers but I do agree with ye that Blackhall or KingsInns should not have to pay either.

With regard college being too easy, I don't agree with you there, at least from my perspective. My end of year exams for my degree had past fe-1 questions. My masters was very research based and was not at all easy.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder at all about the like's of solicitor's children getting in easier via there father, fair play to them, they still had to get their education aswell. However it is a simple fact that they do indeed get in easier, that's just the way it is, the same with everything from a father picking his son for a football team he manages over a better player etc. It's just a fact of life and I merely envy them, that is all. If I become a solicitor and have my own practice then my children will receive the same treatment if that happens that is :P .

Also I know it is the same boat for medicial practitioners and even plumbers and electricians and store managers, it is all about getting a good reputation. However you can't not admit that people would be turned off the profession from the cost and time it takes, not only this profession many others. I'm not there yet, and I hope to be in a couple of years so I can't say for sure but I'd say the best experience you get is when you are actually in training with a solicitor or a barrister and I would imagine that it is much more valuable than the copious amounts of info you have to learn for a 3 hour exam? What are your opinions on this?

I know also there are plenty and maybe even more that have became solicitor's/barristers without the above too and fair play to them. I am a little envious I'll admit as it is slightly harder for those not as financially stable unfortunately.

I will try my hardest to get through the exams and then try extremely hard to get a traineeship, I'm not going to give up because of the route you have to take to become one even though it is daunting from a financial perspective. But then again I suppose anything that is worth doing is the same, and if you are passionate about something then stuff like the above should not bother me, and for the most part they don't. I can't give an answer back as regards reform, I am concentrating on these bloody exams, if the previous comments came off as snotty they weren't intended to be, that was just my opinion of the professions from an outlook, not an empirical research.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't disagree that a pure chambers system would be a pain for new members, but at the same time; isn't it still "easier" for new members to the bar to work hard to find a job in-house or in a chambers than to sit around for 5ish years with nothing but debt for an uncertain future?

Not really. If the current perception that there is a large element of "who you know not what you know" to the bar at present is even partially true, then getting into a chambers wouldn't necessarily be related to the amount of work you do.

The suggestion that one has to hang around for 5ish years with nothing to do and no income has gained a lot of traction, but how realistic a viewpoint is it? One would not expect to see so many young barristers sticking to it if it really was that bad IMO.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it would be much more advantageous after the Inns to set your sights on getting in a good chambers or else finding a job in-house. That way, you know within a few months to a year whether you have a secure job and a future at the bar.

But after a few years you might get disillusioned with the lack of progress you make within the chambers if you are tasked with the lower end stuff. I'm not sure that 5 years of doing district court cases and masters court motions so that your more senior chambers buddies earn goodwill with those solicitors is any better than twiddling your thumbs for 5 years.

Also, what about the people who don't know if they have a secure job and future at the bar because they don't get into a chambers, but want to be a barrister anyway? Since people are doing that right now, presumably they will still be doing that if a chambers system is brought in, only it will make it even harder for those people to make it.

If it makes more sense for a group of barristers to form a chamber, then let them. If it makes more sense for barristers to continue to exist in the bar council (effectively one big chamber anyway) then let them do that.
Others will get jobs in-house as barristers.

On a pure competition law / free market point of view, the current system is actually a self imposed means of enforcing a perfect competition type of business model, where no one entity can grow so big as to dominate the market and where skill and price are the main factors in determining the market conditions. On the other hand, there is the perception that this interference is somehow responsible for high legal fees.

I dunno. It seems reasonably clear that a system of chambers will decrease the numbers of new entrants and will potentially increase the fees of the chambersses that dominate the market. So the only way in which a chambers will result in lowered costs is if there is a glass ceiling imposed upon junior barristers becoming more established and chambers will somehow fix this. I actually think it won't.

But, if the IMF/EU insist on lawyers being able to make more money, why shouldn't they be permitted?

The only group I see with something to gain by sticking with the status quo is the bar council.

Why so? Because they will lose out in fees etc?

Why don't you see this problem in the USA or Canada I wonder? Obviously the system is slightly different there, but is there something to learn from there that we can apply here. I ask that because certainly the UK system is not without its flaws and a carbon copy implementation of that system here without tweaking would be silly to say the least.

There are still problems in those systems, of overworked underpaid junior associates earning huge incomes for the senior partners and it is perhaps even harder to get into the professions in those countries. Even a quick look at the UK shows that a country with about 13-14 times our population has about 5 or 6 times the number of barristers and they arguably have a greater amount of legal work.

There have certainly been times this year and the previous couple that I wonder what the point is... If I'm going to have to end up emigrating or taking a job as an in-house "lawyer" because the bank account is empty and I have nothing in the pigeonhole (and my alternative is to work 2/3 jobs) then why bother fighting the inevitable? I should just go out and admit defeat and enter the corporate world.

I'm not trying to paint some big sob story and in all honesty I'm doing better than I thought I would be this year, but I feel that if there was a clear light at the end of the tunnel it would be much easier to put the head down and push on. I think of young doctors in this regard; sure, it's a long and hard slog but there is something to look forward to in medicine that is distinctly lacking from the legal profession in this country (or at the very least the bar as I have no insight into the lives of solicitors).

Well I suppose this is a slightly different issue to a consideration of a prospective entrant. However, if chambers were introduced tomorrow and you wanted to enter one, what are the practical steps involved? I mean, you would be competing with hundreds of others in a similar position to you, and in the short term would it mean anything other than the additional expenses of having to obtain premises, staff etc? There is no guarantee that in the short term any system of chambers would introduce a minimum wage system like they have in the UK. In fact, it would most likely be increased fees for no discernable gain, no?

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not really. If the current perception that there is a large element of "who you know not what you know" to the bar at present is even partially true, then getting into a chambers wouldn't necessarily be related to the amount of work you do.

The suggestion that one has to hang around for 5ish years with nothing to do and no income has gained a lot of traction, but how realistic a viewpoint is it? One would not expect to see so many young barristers sticking to it if it really was that bad IMO.

Agreed. I'm not trying to suggest that there is nothing to do for 5 years, there certainly is some amount of work out there... but nowhere near enough for many (most?) sub 5 year barristers to make a living wage based on doing only that job.

I would also disagree that the bar is a "who you know" profession. It certainly helps in the short-term with meeting solicitors and getting handovers, but long term I don't think a son or daughter of someone has an advantage.

Chambers will certainly not solve the difficulties facing the young bar but then again not everyone will want to be in one. It's all hypothetical obviously, but I always imagined that if they were introduced tomorrow morning, you'd see some people going into chambers but many staying where they are as "self-employed" members of the bar council.

Would it be a competitive market to get into a chamber? Of course! It should be... but there is nothing stopping you from continuing as you are.
I'm not even saying that I would join one necessarily; I just don't see why we are not allowed to.

But after a few years you might get disillusioned with the lack of progress you make within the chambers if you are tasked with the lower end stuff. I'm not sure that 5 years of doing district court cases and masters court motions so that your more senior chambers buddies earn goodwill with those solicitors is any better than twiddling your thumbs for 5 years.

I will skip ahead and bundle this with another point, namely:

There is no guarantee that in the short term any system of chambers would introduce a minimum wage system like they have in the UK. In fact, it would most likely be increased fees for no discernable gain, no?

100% true that my argument in favour of chambers/in-house is based entirely on the presumption that there would be a minimum wage entitlement.

However, if there was one, like in all other jobs if you are fed up with your "entry level" position, you are certainly free to join another chamber that would move you up or go it alone again in the bar council.

It's not a perfect proposal, granted, but could anyone argue that our current system is perfect? Maybe, I suppose, but I doubt you'd hear it from many barristers of less than 5 years call.

Also, what about the people who don't know if they have a secure job and future at the bar because they don't get into a chambers, but want to be a barrister anyway? Since people are doing that right now, presumably they will still be doing that if a chambers system is brought in, only it will make it even harder for those people to make it.

The honest answer is "I don't know". The way I see it, allowing chambers to form only affords more options. All barristers would still have the option of doing what they already do - surely this would be preferable to many who are already at the bar.

On a pure competition law / free market point of view, the current system is actually a self imposed means of enforcing a perfect competition type of business model, where no one entity can grow so big as to dominate the market and where skill and price are the main factors in determining the market conditions. On the other hand, there is the perception that this interference is somehow responsible for high legal fees.

But does that really happen? The reality is, probably not; people go with who their solicitor tells them to go with.

I dunno. It seems reasonably clear that a system of chambers will decrease the numbers of new entrants and will potentially increase the fees of the chambersses that dominate the market. So the only way in which a chambers will result in lowered costs is if there is a glass ceiling imposed upon junior barristers becoming more established and chambers will somehow fix this. I actually think it won't.

I don't necessarily see a decrease in numbers as a bad thing. I'm sure there are plenty of barristers who would like the security of an in-house job as a barrister.

Why so? Because they will lose out in fees etc?

Maybe I'm just being cynical... but yeah. The bar council gets a significant chunk of money by being the only game in town.

There are still problems in those systems, of overworked underpaid junior associates earning huge incomes for the senior partners and it is perhaps even harder to get into the professions in those countries. Even a quick look at the UK shows that a country with about 13-14 times our population has about 5 or 6 times the number of barristers and they arguably have a greater amount of legal work.

I agree totally. But underpaid and overworked sounds a lot better to me than not paid and not worked.

I'm going to look like a total swat here, but I love my job... I just wish I got paid to do it and I could do it every day. I'd actually gladly sit in the Master's Court all day and do motions. lol I'd probably only really want to do that for a limited period of time... but the point is that I actually like doing this job when I get work.

Well I suppose this is a slightly different issue to a consideration of a prospective entrant. However, if chambers were introduced tomorrow and you wanted to enter one, what are the practical steps involved? I mean, you would be competing with hundreds of others in a similar position to you, and in the short term would it mean anything other than the additional expenses of having to obtain premises, staff etc?

I agree, it's slightly veered off topic, but I think it's still relevant because these are the questions and issues that new entrants are worried about.

In any event, I have no idea how it would work. I'm not necessarily an advocate of the idea of being in a chamber... I really just believe that we should have the choice to continue as a "self-employed" barrister, join a chamber or work in-house. Obviously there are potential downsides but I don't see why, if people wanted to make/join one, they couldn't.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I agree, it's slightly veered off topic, but I think it's still relevant because these are the questions and issues that new entrants are worried about.

In any event, I have no idea how it would work. I'm not necessarily an advocate of the idea of being in a chamber... I really just believe that we should have the choice to continue as a "self-employed" barrister, join a chamber or work in-house. Obviously there are potential downsides but I don't see why, if people wanted to make/join one, they couldn't.

Let me then ask another question, for those who are in favour of a chambers system, what exactly is stopping them? At present, they can't do so while remaining members of the law library, and that is possibly also going to be true once the new legal services bill comes through, and I think Dermot referred to a number of barristers already working outside of the law library system. If that is the case, why can't they do so now? Will a judge object to hearing from them if they are not members of the law library?

Are they really just waiting for the blessing of the bar council before they make a move, or are there more obscure reasons at play that an outside observer would not necessarily appreciate, do you know?

benway

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

barristers already working outside of the law library system.

It's an issue - you don't have right of audience if you aren't a practicing barrister/solicitor, signed up with the Law Library - have seen this come up before.

The >Legal Services Bill< *could* be a game-changer, surprised it hasn't featured more prominently in this discussion. Should allow barristers and devils to do certain legal work on the side, with direct access to the public.

73.—No professional code shall operate to prevent a barrister from providing legal services in relation to a matter, other than a contentious matter, where his or her instructions on that matter were received directly from a person who is not a solicitor.

Personally, I've spent the best part of ten years doing legal support roles, wanting to qualify as a barrister but thinking it unfeasible. For better or worse, I'm doing the exams this year, hoping that the regulatory changes will help - remains to be seen whether the Bill will watered down significantly - both professions are against large elements of it. Although I did speak to a member of the Bar Council last week who openly admitted that there are massive systemic issues that need addressing, so maybe there's hope for positive change.

FreudianSlippers

The problem is that there is too much overlap between the bar council (effectively a big chamber) and the law library itself.

You don't have to be a member of the bar council... there are some that aren't (not many) but you cannot work in-house and still be a member of the law library.



I think the reason there hasn't been much discussion of the LSB is that it is a pretty poor piece of legislation. There are measures that could be introduced now that would solve some of the perceived issues supposedly "fixed" by the bill. It seems, rather, that the bar council is just opposed to any change (despite them saying otherwise, I've seen no alternative proposals).

Milk & Honey

benway wrote: »

It's an issue - you don't have right of audience if you aren't a practicing barrister/solicitor, signed up with the Law Library - have seen this come up before.

.

The right of audience of a barrister comes from the call to the bar by the Chief Justice, nothing to do with membership of the law Library.

benway

Sorry, when I said member of the Bar Council, I meant a Bencher. He pretty much admitted everything OP says, and that we all know to be true, estimated that it now takes ten years to start making a living, and said that change was needed. Somehow doubt that's a consensus opinion, though.

redrolled wrote:

Recently, I went to a talk about the proposed legal services bill during which the bar council put forward its position to us. They agreed with the premise that legal fees should be reduced. What fees? I looked around and saw the room split in two. The more senior members were nodding in agreement whilst the younger members were glancing at each other in disbelief.

One of my friends said the same thing a couple of years back, that there are really two bars - the high rollers and everyone else, and that the interests of each group are divergent, to say the least.

I would agree that the Bill is lacking in real substance, but at the same time I think there are enough small changes in there to give me hope of eking out some kind of living in the early years - under the current arrangement there's simply no way it would be possible.

The fact is that I don't think the Inns, or the Law Society for that matter, are going to reform without being pushed. Sure, the Bill was pretty weak when published, and will be weaker still when promulgated, but it's something. Or am I being a fool in thinking this? ... [not trying to hijack the thread or anything].

benway

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The right of audience of a barrister comes from the call to the bar by the Chief Justice, nothing to do with membership of the law Library.

I recently saw a case involving a NI barrister had been called to the Bar but refused to devil here, having already done his pupillage up North, and accordingly wasn't granted membership of the Law Library. The Silk on the other side made an issue of this on the basis that the NI barrister allegedly has no right of audience, and the case was adjourned to allow them to sort it out.

Milk & Honey

benway wrote: »

I recently saw a case involving a NI barrister had been called to the Bar but refused to devil here, having already done his pupillage up North, and accordingly wasn't granted membership of the Law Library. The Silk on the other side made an issue of this on the basis that the NI barrister allegedly has no right of audience, and the case was adjourned to allow them to sort it out.

Did the court actually make a ruling? An adjournment means at the least that membership of the Law Library is not a sine qua non for audience. The Supreme Court would have run the NI barrister out is short order if there was. More likely they did not want to embarrass the Silk.

benway

Nope, no ruling either way - NI barrister was to make contact with the Law Library to see if they could come to an arrangement. Will keep an eye out for it when it comes up again - was in the High Court, btw.

What I took away from it is that you need to play ball with the Law Library if you're going to appear in a contentious matter, or they can make your life pretty uncomfortable, one way or another.

johnnyskeleton

benway wrote: »

Sorry, when I said member of the Bar Council, I meant a Bencher. He pretty much admitted everything OP says, and that we all know to be true, estimated that it now takes ten years to start making a living, and said that change was needed. Somehow doubt that's a consensus opinion, though.].

Ten years to make a living? Sure it seems to be well documented that young barristers did it tough in their first few years, but 10 years really? I suspect that what the bar council person and an average joe consider to be making a living are two completely differet things.

Reloc8

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ten years to make a living? Sure it seems to be well documented that young barristers did it tough in their first few years, but 10 years really? I suspect that what the bar council person and an average joe consider to be making a living are two completely differet things.

What would be the 'average joe' figure and what do you think would be the 'bar council' figure in your view ? Just curious.

johnnyskeleton

Reloc8 wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ten years to make a living? Sure it seems to be well documented that young barristers did it tough in their first few years, but 10 years really? I suspect that what the bar council person and an average joe consider to be making a living are two completely differet things.

What would be the 'average joe' figure and what do you think would be the 'bar council' figure in your view ? Just curious.

to make a living as a young professional, I would say means somewhere between mid twenties to average industrial wage. Enough to pay the rent, food, bills and a reasonable level of discretionary spending, or enough to scrape by if nippers are a factor.

In the context of the other poster saying the bar council fellow said it takes 10 years to make a living wage, it sounds like they're talking six figures or some other aspirational figure. Enough to live a more stereotypical barristers life.

The idea that the majority of barristers under ten years practice aren't earning a "living wage" meaning not able to pay their bills seems implausible. Excluding those in the first few years, if that is the case you must wonder why so many stick at it.

FreudianSlippers

It would be interesting to see what the average income was of people from 1-10 years call. Never going to happen though.

Reloc8

Most stick with it in the hope of garnering a large income eventually and also because they have invested a lot of time and effort into the process of qualification, and the early years of practice. The longer you go at it the harder it is to walk away. Also in the current climate legal professionals don't have very many employment options or at least options in which they use their qualification.

If you're talking about a gross income after expenses before tax of mid twenties to mid thirties (I think average industrial wage is 35k in 2011), it would be true to say that very few barristers achieve this in their first five years in practice.

Its also true that very few 10 year practitioners earn a 6 figure gross income net of expenses. To be clear, that's not to say that they don't earn a living or are 'entitled' to a higher one.

There's also the huge uncertainty and risk involved in the profession. Those income figures above don't take into account any pension contributions or income protection in the event of illness, or any effort to put away some money to fall back on, all of which affect disposable income.

The risk and uncertainty are however voluntarily adopted - no one makes you enter practice as a barrister, and you go in with your eyes open.

Kosseegan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

to make a living as a young professional, I would say means somewhere between mid twenties to average industrial wage. Enough to pay the rent, food, bills and a reasonable level of discretionary spending, or enough to scrape by if nippers are a factor.

In the context of the other poster saying the bar council fellow said it takes 10 years to make a living wage, it sounds like they're talking six figures or some other aspirational figure. Enough to live a more stereotypical barristers life.

The idea that the majority of barristers under ten years practice aren't earning a "living wage" meaning not able to pay their bills seems implausible. Excluding those in the first few years, if that is the case you must wonder why so many stick at it.

Barristers are self employed and must fund their own retirement. An income of 100k is only equivalent to 50K in the public sector when this is taken into account. Many High Court registrars effectively earn more than the barristyers appearing in the courts in fron of them.

BornToKill

Kosseegan wrote: »

Barristers are self employed and must fund their own retirement. An income of 100k is only equivalent to 50K in the public sector when this is taken into account

Seriously doubt that. How did you arrive at it?