Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
deviling/practising problems - change needed?
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13622
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?0 -
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.The problem I then have is the costs, let's say you pass the 8 exams and secure a traineeship,
Your fees as in your blackhall fees? Why should they be expected to 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?
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.
I think JS mirrors my view on this issue.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.
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.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.
Reform for the sake of reform isn't really reform though.But definitively think there is need for reform.
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.johnnyskeleton wrote: »How exactly?
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13622
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?0 -
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.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.
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.
I will skip ahead and bundle this with another point, namely: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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
But does that really happen? The reality is, probably not; people go with who their solicitor tells them to go with.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 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.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.
Maybe I'm just being cynical... but yeah. The bar council gets a significant chunk of money by being the only game in town.
Why so? Because they will lose out in fees etc?
I agree totally. But underpaid and overworked sounds a lot better to me than not paid and not worked.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'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.
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.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?
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13622
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?0 -
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.johnnyskeleton wrote: »barristers already working outside of the law library system.
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.
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.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.0 -
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).0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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].0 -
Advertisement
-
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 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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13622
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.0 -
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.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13622
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.0 -
It would be interesting to see what the average income was of people from 1-10 years call. Never going to happen though.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
BornToKill wrote: »Seriously doubt that. How did you arrive at it?
cost of a privately funded pension equivalent to the PS| pension would account for the difference0 -
BornToKill wrote: »Seriously doubt that. How did you arrive at it?
Consider the value of
(a) pension, (b) holiday pay / entitlements (c) maternity leave (if applicable) (d) light and heat, office space paid for (e) secretarial etc.
That's a pretty reasonable comparator. It gets more "obvious" when you take "high ranking" public service positions and compare the real private cost of obtaining the above benefits. A "high ranking" position on, say, 100k, would need considerable more income in the private sector to secure the value of even the above (a) to (e) benefits.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
The OPs post seemed to me to be a cry for help in a profession where he/she is a sole trader. That's most unfortunate.
If you've a problem with a Master, particularly in 2nd year, follow JS's advice - drift away.
People who approach the legal profession in a way that a call to the Bar or solicitors roll, should confer on them some entitlement to be wealthy automatically, not to work hard or experience the various economic hardships that exist in other trades or professions are purely delusional.
People who wish to enter the profession should do so with a great degree of caution - particularly if they are in permanent, paid and pensionable jobs at this juncture.
There is a large pool of unemployed lawyers still out there. Even pretty good ones. As for barristers, sitting as one of a pool of 2,500 of the brightest people in the room, does not automatically mean that you're going to be briefed. Being briefed is one thing, getting paid is an entirely different kettle of fish.
There are a couple of phenomena in existence in the legal profession in Ireland at the moment, these are:
1. Unemployment;
2. Under employment;
3. Cost competition;
4. Hyper competition in certain instances e.g., the Bar; and
5. Over supply.
Hard work never killed anyone, nor did a legal education. If you are unsatisfied, take yourself off and try something else. If not, work hard.
The Legal Services Bill will to my mind have the effect of creating a massive amount of business for the insurance industry in Ireland. It will reduce access to justice, confuse the public and create a state of flux that will leave the entire profession in a complete mess for quite some time.
Tom0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
PS: I have some very special and vitriolic comments in relation to the Regulatory model which are best kept to myself for the moment.0 -
The Legal Services Bill will to my mind have the effect of creating a massive amount of business for the insurance industry in Ireland. It will reduce access to justice, confuse the public and create a state of flux that will leave the entire profession in a complete mess for quite some time.
Tom
Probably off topic, but does there come a point where we have to say "we don't care any more. We've given the public the best warning we can, and no-one is listening...so fine...lets see where it all ends up"? Indeed, the new focus on demonstrating precisely what time was spent doing what suits, I would assume, most of us quite well. Generally (especially in the lower Courts), the time spent massively outweighs the fees charged. One impact of the reforms may well be that whereas sensible charging is urged at the highest level (i.e. unexplained briefs not allowed), sensible charging is required at the lowest level (i.e. €200 just won't cut it for a day long debt case in the District). Then it will be precisely the kind of people who need access to justice to secure relatively modest returns who won't be able to afford it - quite like, in a sense, the US model where lawyers seem alright with the basic notion that "you pay for the hours I work, or I don't work". Personally, I'm alright with that (as its sickening to work 10 hours on a case, and have a client fight over paying you more than the €200 certified) but it will be interesting to see the reactions when the "I'm not taking that case without €X up front" becomes standard.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
Yes, and 28€ or less in criminal matters is 'criminal'.0 -
Probably off topic, but does there come a point where we have to say "we don't care any more. We've given the public the best warning we can, and no-one is listening...so fine...lets see where it all ends up"? Indeed, the new focus on demonstrating precisely what time was spent doing what suits, I would assume, most of us quite well. Generally (especially in the lower Courts), the time spent massively outweighs the fees charged. One impact of the reforms may well be that whereas sensible charging is urged at the highest level (i.e. unexplained briefs not allowed), sensible charging is required at the lowest level (i.e. €200 just won't cut it for a day long debt case in the District). Then it will be precisely the kind of people who need access to justice to secure relatively modest returns who won't be able to afford it - quite like, in a sense, the US model where lawyers seem alright with the basic notion that "you pay for the hours I work, or I don't work". Personally, I'm alright with that (as its sickening to work 10 hours on a case, and have a client fight over paying you more than the €200 certified) but it will be interesting to see the reactions when the "I'm not taking that case without €X up front" becomes standard.
Individuals do it all the time. No chance of it becoming standard. There is always someone who will take a brief for a low fee, or a chance of a fee.0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement