Barrister or Solicitor?

for-why?

Hi everyone,

I'm just finished a 4 year degree in Philosophy and Political Science. I've been considering a career in law for quite a while, but had been focused on the solicitor route and was intending on applying for training contracts come Septmeber. Now I'm definitely leaning more towards being a barrister. I've always thought it would suit my skill set better, but have been put off by people saying family connections and alot of money are needed to succeed and that the prospects of making a living out of it are not certain. The supposed 'security' of a solicitor in comparison attracted me in the other direction.

However, recently I've been speaking to various people who have pursued both routes. Those who have gone the solicitor route have cited a huge over-saturation of the market and difficulty in securing training contracts. They gave very balanced views of the profession, citing long lists of pros and cons. While I realise it's always been an extremely competitive field to break into, working thoughout my training contract for free and with limited job prospects is not appealling.

Those who have gone to the bar have portrayed the the Inns much more meritocratic than I had thought it to be, along with it having a very collegiate atmosphere where people are very much expected to help each other out. And while financial hardship is expected for a few years, I feel that people realise what they are getting themselves into and it pays off in the end, whereas this may not be the case with a solicitor as much. What would people's opinions on this be? Just to be clear, when I speak about making money I'm not looking at necessarily making my fortune, but rather gainfully earning a living and being financially independent as soon as possible.

Additionally, would anyone have any insight into the two year dip. at King's Inn for non-law graduates? How many people generally enroll, what are the hours required (both classes and independent study), anything else of use?

Thanks in advance for any useful input.

nuac

Before you get into solicitor/barrister comparisons seriously consider if there is anythng else you could do with your qualifications to date.

e.g. academic life or whatever. Legal practice in either branch of the profession has become very difficult, and I dont see signs of improvement.

seb65

nuac wrote: »

Before you get into solicitor/barrister comparisons seriously consider if there is anythng else you could do with your qualifications to date.

e.g. academic life or whatever. Legal practice in either branch of the profession has become very difficult, and I dont see signs of improvement.

Actually I've heard some say there are signs of improvement. If you're good at what you do, you'll succeed.

jblack

seb65 wrote: »

I would view a barrister with more respect than a solicitor.

Please explain why and on what grounds you have come to this opinion.

lawfilly

There are a few KI dippers here and a million and one threads! Ill paraphrase though comments I made on a previous thread!

It is a part-time course at night-time (5.45pm to 8pm) and alternative Saturday mornings (9.30 - 12.45pm)but the work load is that of a full-time student!
7 essays of 2500-3500 words in length and 7 exams both years of the Diploma. This is on top of optional homework and tutorial work, which you really need to do to maximize your learning.

You have to work hard. In general, the hours can feel long, you don't get much in the way of holidays (Two weeks at Christmas, two at Easter and the summer off after exams), the course is taught well, the manuals are good and it can be very social and fun (depending, of course, on your fellow classmates!!)
Its for those who want a fast track law degree or want to become a barrister! Its not really a 'hobby' course! Think barrister bootcamp!
Its almost 5000 euro per year.
I love it and really would not hesitate to recommend it.

McCrack

jblack wrote: »

Please explain why and on what grounds you have come to this opinion.

Don't feed the troll

Marcusm

seb65 wrote: »

Not to get into an age old debate, it is solely my personal opinion. I believe barristers are comparable to lawyers in the US, etc. I do not feel solicitors are on the same level, rather most are closer to paralegals. Highly experienced solicitors may be at to the lawyer level though.

Also, the amount of skullduggery that has come out about some pretty shady solicitors, especially for such a small country. That said, I'm, of course, in no way tarring the whole group with the same brush.

Besides, if barristers were not of a higher level, why would solicitors even bother employing them, since they have rights of court?

I'd be an advocate for merging the professions, the system is too costly and inefficient as it stands.

I'm neither a barrister nor a solicitor but have spent 10 years instructing both (multi millions of fees) and must say that I am shocked by the tone of your language. While it is correct that some solicitors may focus more on paper shuffling and the process of conveyancing (which can be done by lesser regarded professionals in many countries), simply dismissing solicitors as a whole as "paralegals" is gauche. As to why a barrister might be instructed by a solicitor, it is not that different in the US and other jurisdictions (not all lawyers are trial lawyers or have strong advocacy skills). Likewise in the medical profession, a physician might be able to diagnose the need for a knee replacement but a surgeon needs to reform the operation.

seb65

McCrack wrote: »

Don't feed the troll

I am most certainly not a troll. There's no need for that just because you disagree with my opinion.

Tom Young

seb65 wrote: »

I am most certainly not a troll. There's no need for that just because you disagree with my opinion.

He wasn't calling you that.

Marcusm

I'm not sure if the thread has been tidied up but I have an email notification of a response from Seb to my post.

Surgeons are not generally senior to physicians, they simply have different functions. It's not the case that they have seniority or are better regarded; they may have higher personal opinions of themselves!

As for US lawyers, I don't agree that only junior lawyers have little trial experience. I could give you the names of 50-100 Wall Street lawyers (not just working for banks but for large companies) who each probably earn $2m-$5m per annum (income not fees) but have never tried a case (other than in a mock/moot court).

Likewise, I could intrdouce you to 100 London solicitors who charge £700-£900 per hour. THe flipside of that being I know some barristers who can charge £80-100,000 just for a consultation!!

Some barristers can spend their life doing work as "menial" as many solicitors. I think it's not necessarily one branch or another but what you get to do in that branch.

(That being said, I've always wanted to be a barrister.)

Procrastastudy

I will say from the off that I don't fully understand the argument in regards to merging the professions but someone did say this to me and I thought it was worth sharing.

If you have only Lawyers like the US you will end up with a few large firms. As it stands in Ireland at the moment if you end up in a legal battle with, say the best IP barrister in Ireland, you can hire his nemesis and have a fairly level playing field.

If you merge the professions and allow these large firms to develop you will probably find the best people in a certain area working in the same firm and end up with no hope of winning.

That could be complete tosh but it seemed to make sense to my tiny little mind

Procrastastudy

Marcusm wrote: »

(That being said, I've always wanted to be a barrister.)

Admit it - it's the cape isn't it?

I realise you've carefully selected physicians because your aware of this fact but surgeons aren't doctors at all. Its another oddity of tradition.

Tom Young

It's. A. Gown.