"There's no such thing as a trained barrister" -VB

johnnyskeleton

Vincent Browne, in response to Damien English pointing out that Vincent is a trained barrister, was hit with Vincent making the rather cryptic comment that there is no such thing as a trained barrister. The emphasis appears to be on "trained" and English went on as though he knew what VB meant.

Does anyone have any idea what the hell he's talking about? Is he implying that barristers aren't trained they just pick it up, or that they are constantly learning, or does he take the view that someone is a barrister once called to the bar and that saying "trained" is redundant in the sentence.

I've heard the phrase "qualified barrister" before to denote people who go inhouse after completing kings inns, but never heard someone described as a trained barrister (although I have heard of people who for example "trained as a barrister before going into politics"). Is it that he thinks the phrase should be qualified, or does he believe it is self deprecating? Is there a distinction drawn such as:

1. Barrister - someone who has qualified, devilled and is or was practising
2. Trained barrister - someone who qualified and devilled but then stopped practising.
3. Qualified barrister - someone who qualified but never devilled or practised.
4. Normal, well adjusted people who don't give a damn what VB thinks or what lawyers call themselves?

ResearchWill

I'm really only guessing, (I'm not a fan of Vincent) but it could be a snobbish thing training is what trades people do sort of rubbish. Professionals qualify. Only a total guess as I was not watching the show.

johnnyskeleton

ResearchWill wrote: »

I'm really only guessing, (I'm not a fan of Vincent) but it could be a snobbish thing training is what trades people do sort of rubbish. Professionals qualify. Only a total guess as I was not watching the show.

That's certainly a possibility but the vitriol he put into it and the fact that English obviously had his ear chewed off before for saying it, made me wonder. Would it be fair to say that it's a crusade of one rather than a generally accepted theory?

ResearchWill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's certainly a possibility but the vitriol he put into it and the fact that English obviously had his ear chewed off before for saying it, made me wonder. Would it be fair to say that it's a crusade of one rather than a generally accepted theory?

A very lonely crusade of one, is my guess.

Outkast_IRE

ResearchWill wrote: »

I'm really only guessing, (I'm not a fan of Vincent) but it could be a snobbish thing training is what trades people do sort of rubbish. Professionals qualify. Only a total guess as I was not watching the show.

Even with trades though you now qualify, i did 4 and a half years onsite training, 1 year in the college/IT . And took 3 sets of exams comprising of about 18 exams in total. IMO you are deemed to be qualified in your trade after that.

However i will say that back in vinnies day, you did a trade by simply working/training with someone for a set number of years.

I.E maybe vinnies an old confused grumpy fecker

eric hoone

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Even with trades though you now qualify, i did 4 and a half years onsite training, 1 year in the college/IT . And took 3 sets of exams comprising of about 18 exams in total. IMO you are deemed to be qualified in your trade after that.

However i will say that back in vinnies day, you did a trade by simply working/training with someone for a set number of years.

I.E maybe vinnies an old confused grumpy fecker

You're right VB is an old grumpy contrarion at this stage he should consider retiring.

ResearchWill

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Even with trades though you now qualify, i did 4 and a half years onsite training, 1 year in the college/IT . And took 3 sets of exams comprising of about 18 exams in total. IMO you are deemed to be qualified in your trade after that.

However i will say that back in vinnies day, you did a trade by simply working/training with someone for a set number of years.

I.E maybe vinnies an old confused grumpy fecker

Got it in one.

NoQuarter

Actually this rings a bell of a conversation I had in the Inns where someone said they were a trainee Barrister and were told that there is no such thing. This post is as cryptic as Vinnies because thats all I can remember. It was something to do with the accepted terms in relation to a Barrister when called and a student before that as there is no basis to say a "trainee Barrister".

He could also mean that you can never be fully trained and as you know, we learn something new or get confused by something new every day but I think it is the previous point.

When VB qualified the Inns course had actual legal classes as opposed to a vocational focus. It's possible he meant that.

Of course it's entirely possible he said it without the slightest bit of thought and it means nothing whatsoever. Just sounds clever but is actual total guff.

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

Actually this rings a bell of a conversation I had in the Inns where someone said they were a trainee Barrister and were told that there is no such thing. This post is as cryptic as Vinnies because thats all I can remember. It was something to do with the accepted terms in relation to a Barrister when called and a student before that as there is no basis to say a "trainee Barrister".

Is that because devilling involves taking guidance from a master but still being self employed, while being a trainee means actually employed by the solicitor?

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

When VB qualified the Inns course had actual legal classes as opposed to a vocational focus. It's possible he meant that.

Of course it's entirely possible he said it without the slightest bit of thought and it means nothing whatsoever. Just sounds clever but is actual total guff.

He was called in 1997; has it changed utterly in the past 15 years?

johnnyskeleton

Marcusm wrote: »

He was called in 1997; has it changed utterly in the past 15 years?

I think they now do a vocational training course adopted from the uk rather than academic law, since c 2006

Victor

Are Kings Inns staff issued with pooper-scoopers?

Hippo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think they now do a vocational training course adopted from the uk rather than academic law, since c 2006

This is the case

MagicSean

Aren't barristers referred to as learned as opposed to trained?

Procrastastudy

MagicSean wrote: »

Aren't barristers referred to as learned as opposed to trained?

I thought 'learned' meant wrong;

The learned trial judge ... was off his rocker when he decided...
My learned friend has over looked...

Grolschevik

MagicSean wrote: »

Aren't barristers referred to as learned as opposed to trained?

Maybe it should be pronounced trainèd..?

NoQuarter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is that because devilling involves taking guidance from a master but still being self employed, while being a trainee means actually employed by the solicitor?

I think you can completely discount devilling because, devil or not, you are a Barrister fully and completely. You might not have satisfied law library membership until afterwadrs but thats off point.

The more I think about the question the more I get confused. I might ask a few of the older heads tomorrow.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I thought 'learned' meant wrong;

The learned trial judge ... was off his rocker when he decided...
My learned friend has over looked...

No learned is a good thing. In regard to saying "my learned friend", you only say it to be bitchy. Never really heard nowadays.

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

I think you can completely discount devilling because, devil or not, you are a Barrister fully and completely. You might not have satisfied law library membership until afterwadrs but thats off point.

Ok. Maybe trained means qualified and has practised but no longer does.

But again doesn't quite explain why vb seems to think there's no such thing as a trained barrister. Perhaps he is just making some kind of obsucre dig at the profession of barristers or lawyers generally (he seems to do that a lot).

No need to ask around - if it isn't common knowledge it's most likely Vincent's own theory.

NoQuarter

Maybe he didnt like the look of us when he strolled into the library the other day!

valleyoftheunos

I'm guessing that vincent was both referring to the fact that barristers aren't formally trained in the way that a solicitor is (Masters don't actually train devils as far as I am aware, more guide and direct.) and being a bit snobby about trades and such like.

MadsL

Given VBs history he is certainly no accountant.