Becoming a Solicitor with a Criminal Record

ThirdMan

Hi. I'm a mature student. I'm currently in my third year of law. I have a criminal record dating back five years. I was caught in possession of a small quantity of ecstacy. So it was personal use, not sale or supply.

I've never seriously considered becoming a solicitor, but until I'm told it's definitely not an option it will always be floating around in my head.

I know the Law Society ask that you reveal any criminal convictions as part of your application, so that sounds like it's possible.

But seriously, what can I expect to happen? And even if the Law Society allowed me to sit my FE1's, what are my chances of appearing even remotely employable? Does a 'drug' conviction carry more weight than other convictions?

Anyway, I'd appreciate any advice people might have. And don't be afraid to break the bad news; my default position for the past three years is that I'm day-dreaming.

McCrack

You are asked to declare any convictions when applying for consent to enter into Indentures with your proposed training solictor.

My belief is that they dont check for truth if you say none. In fact how could they check? They dont have access to the Garda PULSE system or the Courts Service records.

Now if you were going for a job with the CSSO or DPP for example you would be best advised to be upfront as I would think background checks would be done.

johnnyskeleton

ThirdMan wrote: »

Hi. I'm a mature student. I'm currently in my third year of law. I have a criminal record dating back five years. I was caught in possession of a small quantity of ecstacy. So it was personal use, not sale or supply.

I've never seriously considered becoming a solicitor, but until I'm told it's definitely not an option it will always be floating around in my head.

I know the Law Society ask that you reveal any criminal convictions as part of your application, so that sounds like it's possible.

But seriously, what can I expect to happen? And even if the Law Society allowed me to sit my FE1's, what are my chances of appearing even remotely employable? Does a 'drug' conviction carry more weight than other convictions?

Anyway, I'd appreciate any advice people might have. And don't be afraid to break the bad news; my default position for the past three years is that I'm day-dreaming.

I think it has to go to Law Society committee and each case is different. If it were me simple possession of ecstacy wouldn't make a difference, but then again it's not me. Of more concern would be fraud offences, perjury, interfering with the course of justice, etc, and of course murder rape treason genocide, etc. The length of time since and other good character references would help.

Peregrinus

Assuming you were young and foolish when you acquired this conviction, I don't think it's going to be an insurmountable barrier. They're much more worried about offences involving dishonesty, for obvious reasons.

I could affect your employability, if only because there must be some potential employers who would take a very censorious view. But you quite likely won't be asked about this in employment applications.

McCrack suggests you might get away with just lying about it to the Law Society. Don't. I don't know how likely it is that your lie would be discovered but, if it were discovered, it would be a much, much bigger problem for you than the possession conviction would ever have been. Dishonesty, remember.

Delancey

Almost every year the trawl of drug arrests at the Electric Picnic festival include trainee solicitors / barristers/law students.
The court reports from the sitting of Portlaoise District Court make for amusing reading as it seems these would-be lawyers get a special ' bollocking ' from the judge.

Never heard that any of them lost their careers though.

Our man in Havana

Judge Mary Martin never fails to entertain.

johnnyskeleton

Delancey wrote: »

Almost every year the trawl of drug arrests at the Electric Picnic festival include trainee solicitors / barristers/law students.
The court reports from the sitting of Portlaoise District Court make for amusing reading as it seems these would-be lawyers get a special ' bollocking ' from the judge.

Never heard that any of them lost their careers though.

Could be their careers never started, eh?

Lawyers, don't do drugs*.







*until you're qualified then snort enough to kill two tony montanas.

murrayp4

I'd say your main issue here is that you'd have to disclose it to your training solicitor as you need to declare your conviction in your contract (indentures) with him/her. It will depend on how he/she would feel about a minor drug conviction.

Regarding the law society, as said above DO disclose the conviction, you may be called in for an interview to the law society where they might seek more details but if it was a 'young and foolish' thing you'd probably be grand.

As a matter of interest was it a conviction or was the Probation Act applied?

krd

Since so many lawyers are dope fiends. How is it, you never hear a peep out of them in regards to the morality of the criminalisation of dope? And I don't mean little peeps in private - they don't count.

Prima Nocte

It's unlikely that it remains on the system after 5 years. You can always apply to the Gardai and find out what information they have on you under the freedom of information act. If it turns up clean I can't see any reason why you should mention it.

ThirdMan

murrayp4 wrote: »

As a matter of interest was it a conviction or was the Probation Act applied?

My solicitor told me it would be a conviction. But she also said that the judge had a history of applying the Probation Act in similar cases. So I'm not 100% sure that I have a conviction, but I'm just presuming I do. I'm applying to my local Garda Superintendent for a police report this week, and that usually takes three weeks, so watch this space...

Strawberry Fields

ThirdMan wrote: »

My solicitor told me it would be a conviction. But she also said that the judge had a history of applying the Probation Act in similar cases. So I'm not 100% sure that I have a conviction, but I'm just presuming I do. I'm applying to my local Garda Superintendent for a police report this week, and that usually takes three weeks, so watch this space...

Generally you know when your on probation because you have to meet your probation officer who then files a report for the judge at your next court sitting. That was my experience.

MagicSean

Prima Nocte wrote: »

It's unlikely that it remains on the system after 5 years. You can always apply to the Gardai and find out what information they have on you under the freedom of information act. If it turns up clean I can't see any reason why you should mention it.

Where do people get this crap from?

ThirdMan wrote: »

My solicitor told me it would be a conviction. But she also said that the judge had a history of applying the Probation Act in similar cases. So I'm not 100% sure that I have a conviction, but I'm just presuming I do. I'm applying to my local Garda Superintendent for a police report this week, and that usually takes three weeks, so watch this space...

You'll need to pay more attention in court if you are going to be a solicitor. To be honest with you op, if a posession charge is the only blot on your record I would be surprised if you faced much trouble. There's a lot more badly behaved solicitors out there.

ResearchWill

godeas16 wrote: »

Generally you know when your on probation because you have to meet your probation officer who then files a report for the judge at your next court sitting. That was my experience.

The application of section 1 of the probation act and being under the probation service are two very different things.

Applying the probation act , short hand for section 1 (1) i of the Probation of offenders act 1907, which means that while convicted or pleads guilty, the matter is dismissed with out recording a conviction.

murrayp4

Prima Nocte wrote: »

It's unlikely that it remains on the system after 5 years. You can always apply to the Gardai and find out what information they have on you under the freedom of information act. If it turns up clean I can't see any reason why you should mention it.

There is no provision in Irish law for spent convictions (although a bill has been recently published), therefore once its on the system it stays on the system.

In relation to not disclosing it, one of the things about being a lawyer is that a level of integrity and (don't laugh) honesty is required....I'd imagine the Law Society would take a dim view of an individual who intentionally omitted information regarding a conviction on their indentures

krd

murrayp4 wrote: »

In relation to not disclosing it, one of the things about being a lawyer is that a level of integrity and (don't laugh) honesty is required....I'd imagine the Law Society would take a dim view of an individual who intentionally omitted information regarding a conviction on their indentures

When you're entering the US, you're given a form to fill in. One of the questions is have you ever been prosecuted for anything in relation to drugs. As far as I am aware, if you say yes at the point of entry, they put you back on the plane. Someone with a drug conviction has a choice - either go through the US embassy and try to get a Visa through there, or lie.

Now if you lie.

I knew someone who lied. They had a minor conviction for possession of cannabis. They went to the US on a work related trip. The lied on the entry form. A few weeks later they were arrested, on the basis they had lied (someone spiteful called up the US authorities). They spent the next three months in jail in New York. And then they were deported.

areyawell

Contact the gaurds to see what information they have on you.
http://www.garda.ie/controller.aspx?Page=1548

I think you record should be clear after five years but contact your local garda station and ask them as well. Only more serious crimes like rape and serious robberies, stabbings etc will stay on your record

Prima Nocte

murrayp4 wrote: »

There is no provision in Irish law for spent convictions (although a bill has been recently published), therefore once its on the system it stays on the system.

If it exists in other common law jurisdictions then their is no reason why it should not exist here therefore not mentioning it is a good option since the law here is outdated and unfairly discriminates. Somebody should not be branded a criminal all their lives for a minor offence.

murrayp4 wrote: »

In relation to not disclosing it, one of the things about being a lawyer is that a level of integrity and (don't laugh) honesty is required....I'd imagine the Law Society would take a dim view of an individual who intentionally omitted information regarding a conviction on their indentures

Ya the law society is a bastion of integrity :rolleyes:

ResearchWill

godeas16 wrote: »

Generally you know when your on probation because you have to meet your probation officer who then files a report for the judge at your next court sitting. That was my experience.

The application of section 1 of the probation act and being under the probation service are two very different things.

Applying the probation act , short hand for section 1 (1) i of the Probation of offenders act 1907, which means that while convicted or pleads guilty, the matter is dismissed with out recording a conviction.

swervring

Prima Nocte wrote: »

If it exists in other common law jurisdictions then their is no reason why it should not exist here therefore not mentioning it is a good option since the law here is outdated and unfairly discriminates. Somebody should not be branded a criminal all their lives for a minor offence.

I agree with you here that someone shouldn't be branded a criminal all of their lives for a minor offence, however the fact is that at the moment, there is no provision in Irish law for removal of any conviction from a person's record - at such I would imagine it would be ill advised to try to hide a past conviction, no matter how minor, on the grounds of dishonesty.

OP I'd say your best bet, if something shows up on the information you get from the Guards, is just to ask the Law Society directly if such a conviction is going to prevent you from becoming a Solicitor. I'm sure you wouldn't be the first person to ask.

ResearchWill

Prima Nocte wrote: »

If it exists in other common law jurisdictions then their is no reason why it should not exist here therefore not mentioning it is a good option since the law here is outdated and unfairly discriminates. Somebody should not be branded a criminal all their lives for a minor offence.



Ya the law society is a bastion of integrity :rolleyes:

Just because a law exists in another common law country does not mean the legal situation can or should be ignored here. In fact to use that argument we all should have been paying local council tax for years as such a law exists in another country.

While a person may have a valid complaint about the law society, to start a legal career with a unnecessary lie, does not bode well for any hope the profession has for the future.

Strawberry Fields

ResearchWill wrote: »

The application of section 1 of the probation act and being under the probation service are two very different things.

Applying the probation act , short hand for section 1 (1) i of the Probation of offenders act 1907, which means that while convicted or pleads guilty, the matter is dismissed with out recording a conviction.

How often in working practice is S1 applied without reference to the probation service for offences involving the possession of class A drugs?
As part of my probation there was a period of supervision before the matter was discharged by the district court judge under the probation act.
My offence was similar if not worse but was accepted as a minor offence.

ResearchWill

godeas16 wrote: »

How often in working practice is S1 applied without reference to the probation service for offences involving the possession of class A drugs?
As part of my probation there was a period of supervision before the matter was discharged by the district court judge under the probation act.
My offence was similar if not worse but was accepted as a minor offence.

I have never seen a reference to the probation service if section 1 (1) i is being used. The section says the charge is "dismissing the information or charge;" I have even seen this done for relatively serious offences.

The norm that I have seen, is judge convicts and then goes onto dismiss the charge based on "1.-(1) Where any person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence punishable by such
Court and the court thinks that the charge is proved, but is of opinion that, having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health, or mental condition of the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation, the court may, without proceeding to conviction, make an order either –"

While the court may involve the probation service in a section 1 (1) i, I have never seen it done, hence why a person who has had the section applied may not know.

Subsection ii may involve probation service, but its rarely used in DC. ii discharging the offender conditionally on
his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour and to appear for conviction and sentence when called on at any time during such period, not exceeding three years, as may be specified in the order.

Strawberry Fields

You may have never seen it done but it happens because it happened to me.

Procrastastudy

Prima Nocte wrote: »

If it exists in other common law jurisdictions then their is no reason why it should not exist here therefore not mentioning it is a good option since the law here is outdated and unfairly discriminates. Somebody should not be branded a criminal all their lives for a minor offence.

OP is not only looking for a job based on trust he's looking for a job in the legal profession. Being dishonest is the stupidest option. He can declare it or hope that the spent convictions bill becomes law before he has to declare it. That said I'm sure in one of the bazilion caveats he'll have to declare it at some point.

I also wonder why you specifically draw the attention to Common Law jurisdictions. Common Law jurisdictions don't universally have this type of legislation. Ireland for a start obviously, but there is also Ghana. Every other state in the EU does however - surely a better argument?

the culture of deference

ResearchWill wrote: »

The application of section 1 of the probation act and being under the probation service are two very different things.

Applying the probation act , short hand for section 1 (1) i of the Probation of offenders act 1907, which means that while convicted or pleads guilty, the matter is dismissed with out recording a conviction.

Check with the garda to see if you got a DPOA or a conviction. Did you have to pay a fine or give a donation?

dats_right

As I understand the position, the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill will not and indeed the equivalent UK legislation does not apply to certain professions, such as the legal profession. Meaning that trainee solicitors regardless of any proposed changes in the law will still be required to disclose all criminal convictions regardless of how long ago the conviction was imposed. This is as I understand it the same position that applies in the UK.

ThirdMan

MagicSean wrote: »

You'll need to pay more attention in court if you are going to be a solicitor.

It happened in 2006. I was 21 years old, and terrified to find myself standing in front of a judge. I just wanted to get out of there and go home, so forgive me for not taking notes.

Anyway, thanks for all the replies everyone. There's no chance of me lying to either the Law Society or any future employer. That's not my style. I'm finished college in two years, so I'm simply weighing up my options.

Thanks again.

Procrastastudy

ThirdMan wrote: »

It happened in 2006. I was 21 years old, and terrified to find myself standing in front of a judge. I just wanted to get out of there and go home, so forgive me for not taking notes.

Anyway, thanks for all the replies everyone. There's no chance of me lying to either the Law Society or any future employer. That's not my style. I'm finished college in two years, so I'm simply weighing up my options.

Thanks again.

Just go down the barrister route instead. The cape makes it all worth it imo. Joking aside why not approach some places now about internships and see what they say about the conviction. You're unlikely to find a training contract after college anyway without some sort internship/extracurricular whatsit.

ThirdMan

the culture of deference wrote: »

Check with the garda to see if you got a DPOA or a conviction. Did you have to pay a fine or give a donation?

Had to pay a fine. €1000. That works out at about €66 per pill. :P

MagicSean

Prima Nocte wrote: »

If it exists in other common law jurisdictions then their is no reason why it should not exist here therefore not mentioning it is a good option since the law here is outdated and unfairly discriminates. Somebody should not be branded a criminal all their lives for a minor offence.



Ya the law society is a bastion of integrity :rolleyes:

Are you just here trolling? It has been explained that there is no provision for spent convictions in ireland. You cannot rely on the laws of other countries to do what you want. That suggestion is borderline retarded.

the culture of deference

ThirdMan wrote: »

Had to pay a fine. €1000. That works out at about €66 per pill. :P

Yea you have a conviction. You must disclose it. I think you will have problems travelling abroad too.

littlemac1980

I don't think the Spent Convictions Bill (if it is enacted) will affect your position anyway.

As I understand it, all the Spent Convictions Bill would do is allow a Court to treat a subsequent conviction as a First offence from the point of view of the penalty imposed, e.g. If you are caught Drink Driving (and convicted) a long time ago you won't get the increased penalty if convicted again.

I'd presume if you are asked "Were you ever convicted of a Criminal Offence?" - the answer would remain the same regardless of the Spent Convictions Bill.

Open to correction by someone who has time to read the Bill in detail, I gave it a cursory glance a couple months ago. The above is really just what I expect its effect is.

ResearchWill

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I don't think the Spent Convictions Bill (if it is enacted) will affect your position anyway.

As I understand it, all the Spent Convictions Bill would do is allow a Court to treat a subsequent conviction as a First offence from the point of view of the penalty imposed, e.g. If you are caught Drink Driving (and convicted) a long time ago you won't get the increased penalty if convicted again.

I'd presume if you are asked "Were you ever convicted of a Criminal Offence?" - the answer would remain the same regardless of the Spent Convictions Bill.

Open to correction by someone who has time to read the Bill in detail, I gave it a cursory glance a couple months ago. The above is really just what I expect its effect is.

Section 5 of the Bill

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a person has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Act, regarded as a spent conviction, he or she shall not be required by—
(a) any rule of law, or
(b) by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement which purport to require the person to disclose the conviction or any circumstances ancillary to the conviction,
to disclose that conviction or the circumstances ancillary thereto.
(2) Where, otherwise than before a court, a question is put to a person purporting to seek information in relation to the person’s previous convictions or the circumstances ancillary thereto and the person has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Act, regarded as a spent conviction, then, subject to the provisions of this Act—
(a) the question shall be regarded as not applying to the spent conviction and the person may respond accordingly, and
(b) the person shall not incur any liability or be otherwise prejudiced in law because he or she did not disclose the spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary to that conviction.

Prima Nocte

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Just go down the barrister route instead. The cape makes it all worth it imo. Joking aside why not approach some places now about internships and see what they say about the conviction. You're unlikely to find a training contract after college anyway without some sort internship/extracurricular whatsit.

What, are you saying that barristers don't have to diclose this kind of information prior to entering the bar? Well if that is the case, it would confirm what a reformed drug addict told me that a practising barrister was once a full time junky and theif...

ResearchWill

Prima Nocte wrote: »

What, are you saying that barristers don't have to diclose this kind of information prior to entering the bar? Well if that is the case, it would confirm what a reformed drug addict told me that a practising barrister was once a full time junky and theif...

Barristers have to disclose any issue of such a nature.

Prima Nocte

ResearchWill wrote: »

Barristers have to disclose any issue of such a nature.

I thought so

Procrastastudy

Prima Nocte wrote: »

What, are you saying that barristers don't have to diclose this kind of information prior to entering the bar? Well if that is the case, it would confirm what a reformed drug addict told me that a practising barrister was once a full time junky and theif...

No I was using it as a poor excuse to use the word cape instead of gown, however I assume, based on no knowledge, that once a barrister was called to the Bar such convictions would be less of as issue as he is self employed and not reliant on a HR department screening a bazzilion CVs.

In all honesty I see absolutely no reason a reformed drug addict shouldn't be a barrister; in fact I, personally, think the more diversity we have in the legal system the better. I was quite surprised by Frank Murphy's recent comments that young residents of Ballymun just assume that there was zero chance of them entering the legal profession no matter how well they did academically.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

No I was using it as a poor excuse to use the word cape instead of gown, however I assume, based on no knowledge, that once a barrister was called to the Bar such convictions would be less of as issue as he is self employed and not reliant on a HR department screening a bazzilion CVs.

In all honesty I see absolutely no reason a reformed drug addict shouldn't be a barrister; in fact I, personally, think the more diversity we have in the legal system the better. I was quite surprised by Frank Murphy's recent comments that young residents of Ballymun just assume that there was zero chance of them entering the legal profession no matter how well they did academically.

You would be supprised at the diversity at the Bar.

Procrastastudy

ResearchWill wrote: »

You would be supprised at the diversity at the Bar.

Sorry I wasn't suggesting it wasn't a diverse as it stands, although my knowledge of the subject is practically zero. Although all the barristers I have come across have been white and relatively well off (a mixture of working class - quite posh) I don't for one second think I have a handle on a reasonable cross section.

strontium

you will fit right in

GerardKeating

Prima Nocte wrote: »

It's unlikely that it remains on the system after 5 years. You can always apply to the Gardai and find out what information they have on you under the freedom of information act. If it turns up clean I can't see any reason why you should mention it.

At present, there is no "spent convictions" provision in Irish Law, but there is "talk" of one in the next year or ten.

I could be (and frequently am) but did not think FOI applied to AGS.

Dandelion6

GerardKeating wrote: »

I could be (and frequently am) but did not think FOI applied to AGS.

You can do a data protection request on yourself.

Mr. Incognito

Wow,

Lots and lots of misinformation here.

There is no five year expiration in Ireland. All convictions are for life. A bill is worthless until it becomes law and that bill has been around a while.

You cannot be admitted to the roll with a criminal conviction and the law society do require you to produce a garda clearance cert.

I am afraid that the legal door is closed to you unfortunately.

johnnyskeleton

This is an old thread from a few years' back, that was bumped because a new user wanted to make the joke that solicitors are, essentially, criminals (at least that's what I think they meant to suggest):

strontium wrote: »

you will fit right in

GerardKeating

Dandelion6 wrote: »

You can do a data protection request on yourself.

I would assume that current Garda Investigations would be excluded from this ?

Right Turn Clyde

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You cannot be admitted to the roll with a criminal conviction and the law society do require you to produce a garda clearance cert.

The Law Society asks you to disclose any criminal convictions, and this may prevent you from becoming a solicitor. The same is true of King's Inns. People with criminal records are not automatically barred from becoming lawyers in this jurisdiction.

MarkAnthony

+1 on the above, I'm almost sure it's been discussed here before. Any source on this Mr. Incog?

Dandelion6

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

The Law Society asks you to disclose any criminal convictions, and this may prevent you from becoming a solicitor. The same is true of King's Inns. People with criminal records are not automatically barred from becoming lawyers in this jurisdiction.

This is precisely what I was told by the Law Society a couple years ago when I enquired on behalf of a client.

Mr. Incognito

MarkAnthony wrote: »

+1 on the above, I'm almost sure it's been discussed here before. Any source on this Mr. Incog?

Here's an excellent summary on convictions in Ireland

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/Report%20Spent%20Convictions.pdf

I know myself that from my own Indentures back in the day I had to have a Garda Background check submitted to the Law Society along with character references from two other persons that I was of good character and standing in the community.

MarkAnthony

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Here's an excellent summary on convictions in Ireland

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/Report%20Spent%20Convictions.pdf

I know myself that from my own Indentures back in the day I had to have a Garda Background check submitted to the Law Society along with character references from two other persons that I was of good character and standing in the community.

I don't doubt you on that but I'm not 100% convinced that there is an automatic blanket ban. I could be wrong. Thank you for the link.