Kings Inns At 26

LegalChef

Hi Guys,

Hoping for a bit of hard advice!
I finished my LLB in 2012, but wasn't prepared at the time to commit financially to go straight for the entrance exams. Also the prospect of having to pretty much commit to 6+ years of no real income out me off slightly!
At the moment I'm 24, and could be set to sit the exams next year, but I'm flirting with the idea of travelling for a year and putting off (yet again) sitting the exams.
Basically, my question is, would I be foolish to go to the Kings Inns at 26?
My two main elements of concern would really be fitting in in the course if there'd be an age gap, and also would I be at a disadvantage when it came to devilling and starting to practice, as opposed to if I started a year earlier?

Cheers for any advice, much appreciated!!

Sala

No. Some of the best Barristers I have met so far are on their second careers. Plenty of people spend years or even decades doing something else.

Bepolite

You're worried about being too young?

You're going to be one of the younger people on the course I'd imagine, especially if you do the two year modular. Even the people I know that have done direct entry (e.g. college to the KI) have at least done a different degree, BComm seems popular, before hitting the Dip course or 3/4 year law degree before the Inns so you're talking mid twenties. The majority of people I know doing it are 30+.

johnnyskeleton

26 is on the young side alright, but it has been known in the past. Just make you're you get there before 72. In my opinion, mid to late 70s is simply too old to start at the bar.

LutherBlissett

Interesting to hear the age profile is generally older. Would wonder if you can be "too young" for the Inns. I would be curious to see how younger entrants fare in exams and so on. (And to stress, this is pure curiosity - I don't know definitively whether age/ lack thereof can or does confer an advantage.)

johnnyskeleton

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Interesting to hear the age profile is generally older. Would wonder if you can be "too young" for the Inns. I would be curious to see how younger entrants fare in exams and so on. (And to stress, this is pure curiosity - I don't know definitively whether age/ lack thereof can or does confer an advantage.)

I've heard barristers in their early 20s being, rather uncharitably I might add, referred to as earthworms in suits.

LutherBlissett

Sorry I'm not clear on this, but what exactly does that mean? (Though I would hazard a guess that it might be on the derogatory side..)

Bepolite

I'd surmise the demographic is one of accident rather than design. If you are going that route you've years ahead of you before earning a living. You've three options really.

(i) Be young and have a part-time job. (I say young as I doubt beyond a certain age you can do the hours. Maybe I'm just getting lazy in my mid-thirties but I need 7 hours sleep minimum!) Which incidentally, from what I gather is technically against the rules, while devilling.)

(ii) Be from a well off back-ground, which probably means you're in no rush to get to the Bar anyway and are happy to do a masters/secondary degree/bum around for a couple of years.

(iii) Be of independent means, probably acquired by a few years doing something else.

To be fair it's exactly the same as any other sole trader profession. Very few 21 year old plumbers making good money, I'd imagine.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

26 is on the young side alright, but it has been known in the past. Just make you're you get there before 72. In my opinion, mid to late 70s is simply too old to start at the bar.

Is the 'retired solicitor' phenomenon particularity prevalent? I've met a couple 'keeping their hand in'. I wonder how much work they get?

The 'retired professor of law' - not sure if he qualifies as having just started, just started back perhaps! :pac:

XxMCRxBabyxX

I have a cousin who was called to the Bar at 22 and was "advised" to take a couple of years out before she started devilling because it would be nearly impossible for her to find a Master who would take her on. She was also the youngest in her class by quite a bit from what I have heard.

johnnyskeleton

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Sorry I'm not clear on this, but what exactly does that mean? (Though I would hazard a guess that it might be on the derogatory side..)

I take it to mean that they look like something that's just be dug out of the ground and thrust into a suit while still wriggling about and blinking in the sunshine.

johnnyskeleton

Bepolite wrote: »

(i) Be young and have a part-time job. (I say young as I doubt beyond a certain age you can do the hours. Maybe I'm just getting lazy in my mid-thirties but I need 7 hours sleep minimum!) Which incidentally, from what I gather is technically against the rules, while devilling.)

A pair of glasses with fake eyes painted on are a must for the overworked underpaid junior counsel.

Is the 'retired solicitor' phenomenon particularity prevalent? I've met a couple 'keeping their hand in'. I wonder how much work they get?

Not that I know of, to be honest. Most transfer course folks seem to be in the 3-10 years qualified bracket and in their 30s/early 40s. Retired teacher/Garda is a much more suitable background - anything that requires a lot of patience.

The 'retired professor of law' - not sure if he qualifies as having just started, just started back perhaps! :pac:

There's always one.

johnnyskeleton

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I have a cousin who was called to the Bar at 22 and was "advised" to take a couple of years out before she started devilling because it would be nearly impossible for her to find a Master who would take her on. She was also the youngest in her class by quite a bit from what I have heard.

Pretty rum advice to be honest, the bar council guarantee anyone a master and I don't see why she would have any less of a chance than anyone else. Although the customers might not like too young looking a lawyer.

LutherBlissett

Pretty bleak outlook for those in the early 20s so, if the esteem they're held in is as generally low as appears. Not provable statistically obviously, but is it likely that someone in their early 20s would have more difficulty obtaining a master? I have never known anyone involved in the master/ devil relationship, but do these things go on experience/ age or could they possibly also be determined by the potential of the devil? And do masters have a choice on these kind of things?

johnnyskeleton

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Pretty bleak outlook for those in the early 20s so, if the esteem they're held in is as generally low as appears. Not provable statistically obviously, but is it likely that someone in their early 20s would have more difficulty obtaining a master? I have never known anyone involved in the master/ devil relationship, but do these things go on experience/ age or could they possibly also be determined by the potential of the devil? And do masters have a choice on these kind of things?

Ah no, it's merely a comment on their fresh young faces and eager expressions. Age won't make any real difference to obtaining a master either way. It's a masters job to grind the enthusiasm out of the green recruits and replace it with a heathy dose of cynacism and hard living.

XxMCRxBabyxX

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Pretty rum advice to be honest, the bar council guarantee anyone a master and I don't see why she would have any less of a chance than anyone else. Although the customers might not like too young looking a lawyer.

I think that was part of their reasoning too.

Robert137

Historically the lionshare of Senior Counsel and those sitting on the Superior benches in this jurisdiction, in other words those whom grace the upper echelons (now of a certain vintage) initially pursued an undergraduate qualification outside that of substantive Law, but definitely commenced their practising in their early/mid twenties. It's easily quantifiable in terms of the requisite time length to establish oneself and build a practise.They were invariably under way by 26 - WELL UNDER-WAY !

I accept the current demographic has changed and admittedly due to a variety of variables, economic and otherwise, individuals are coming to the Bar progressively later in life. But I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the recurring theme amongst Judges and top Senior Counsel. They had the TIME to accumulate the case-load and professional reputation.Consequently one can identify a timeline for those aspiring to pursue such a route. And let's be honest who at 23/4 wouldn't aspire to follow said path ? It's the reason the individual posted his initial remarks. People seem to be re-assuring themselves that an older advocate pre-supposes a broader skillset and a safer pair of hands. Nothing could be further from the truth. A younger Junior Counsel possesses equal drive, intellect and and is directly comparable if fresher of face when meeting a client. And under no circumstances would that 22 year old woman be encouraged to pause her burgeoning legal career! I'm practising for over thirty two years and have been a Master on nine occasions.It just wouldn't happen.
Robert

XxMCRxBabyxX

Robert137 wrote: »

Historically the lionshare of Senior Counsel and those sitting on the Superior benches in this jurisdiction, in other words those whom grace the upper echelons (now of a certain vintage) initially pursued an undergraduate qualification outside that of substantive Law, but definitely commenced their practising in their early/mid twenties. It's easily quantifiable in terms of the requisite time length to establish oneself and build a practise.They were invariably under way by 26 - WELL UNDER-WAY !

I accept the current demographic has changed and admittedly due to a variety of variables, economic and otherwise, individuals are coming to the Bar progressively later in life. But I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the recurring theme amongst Judges and top Senior Counsel. They had the TIME to accumulate the case-load and professional reputation.Consequently one can identify a timeline for those aspiring to pursue such a route. And let's be honest who at 23/4 wouldn't aspire to follow said path ? It's the reason the individual posted his initial remarks. People seem to be re-assuring themselves that an older advocate pre-supposes a broader skillset and a safer pair of hands. Nothing could be further from the truth. A younger Junior Counsel possesses equal drive, intellect and and is directly comparable if fresher of face when meeting a client. And under no circumstances would that 22 year old woman be encouraged to pause her burgeoning legal career! I'm practising for over thirty two years and have been a Master on nine occasions.It just wouldn't happen.
Robert

It did definitely happen. That I'm sure of. I'm not sure of exactly what was said but she was definitely told not to go straight in and take a year or two if not more.

johnnyskeleton

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I think that was part of their reasoning too.

Nothing to be done about that I'm afraid. Unlike the young men, she can hardly grow a beard to make herself look older. That said, if you've got to spend a few years devilling anyway, she'll be older looking at that stage.

@Robert, some of the above comments by myself and bepolite about 26 being too young are somewhat tongue in cheek. The original poster was concerned that 26 was too old to go to the Inns and we were just trying to reassure him/her.

XxMCRxBabyxX

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Nothing to be done about that I'm afraid. Unlike the young men, she can hardly grow a beard to make herself look older.

Ah, I don't think she's too fussed about it. I think she loves having the excuse anyway. She's now started a PhD so she'll be fine for the time being! :-)
She's really showing me up as the next cousin in line though, particularly as I'm on the law route too! Not an easy one to follow.

Robert137

I am willing to concede/admit the fact I'm a bit 'old hat' at this stage ! Apologies for the stern posting!
I merely seek to illustrate the perceptions that have held sway over the years(many would argue the vast majority of perceptions appertaining to our profession, at a minimum, need to be scrutinised and re-evaluated, but that's for another day) Personally I would encourage anyone to pursue a Law degree or alternatively take up their interest by completing the KI Diploma.The traditional path will always be well trodden but doubtless many succeed by commencing comparatively later in life. I hope not to have dissuaded the original poster

hullaballoo

While I don't agree with the conclusion you have drawn, Robert, I agree with the general idea that the earlier you start, the better. I certainly don't agree that someone who is 22 is too young to join the bar and start devilling. There were 2 or 3 girls in my year at the Inns who were 21 when they started practising. There was no disadvantage to them as far as I can see. I have another friend who has just completed her first year and is just gone 22. She is perfectly well able and her young age has not been a hindrance in any way.


On the other hand, 26 is definitely not too old either. In fact, depending on your motivations, there is no "too old". It may be true that if you set up practice in your 40s, it is unlikely you will be appointed to the Superior Courts but that's only assuming a non-law background. It is also the case with many who go to the bar "late" that money is not an issue. Again, there were a few in my year who had made their money in life and were simply taking up the life of a barrister as a hobby.


Most of us here will be familiar with the feeling that it's really just a hobby!

NoQuarter

While I wouldn't say that 22/23/24 is too young to start practicing, I would say that a few extra years spent elsewhere (especially outside of college) can only help. Exposure and all that.

Cody Pomeray

My advice would be get in and out as soon as you can after the undergrad.

Get your BL, and then create your back up plan while you're still young. Do an LLM in commercial law or do a professional diploma in arbitration, for example.

FreudianSlippers

I think 26 (at least in my year) was the average age for most - some quite a bit older and a few younger. I certainly wouldn't be suggesting any 26 year-old (especially if you have to do the dip as well) to take any additional time out. Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't in any world advise someone who, at 26, is already looking at no real income until they are well into their 30s (considering 2 years doing the dip, a year in the degree and 2 years devilling and the reality that you're not going to make a living wage in 3rd year) to take additional time out.

camphor

From what I can see, everyone who goes to the Kings Inns is the wrong age.
Everyone is too old, too young, didn't get enough work experience prior, spent too long in a different occupation,didn't spend long enough in college prior or else wasted time doing additional degrees beyond the basic.

hullaballoo

camphor wrote: »

From what I can see, everyone who goes to the Kings Inns is the wrong age.
Everyone is too old, too young, didn't get enough work experience prior, spent too long in a different occupation,didn't spend long enough in college prior or else wasted time doing additional degrees beyond the basic.

No, I think you got it, actually.

Robert137

I love the cynicism! Ha
We're an embattled profession! You're quite astute in the sense that , on foot of being sole traders, the competition can be at times cutthroat with pracitioners seeking the differentiate themselves to solicit work . Consequently people focus on age, background and academics as distinguishing factors when maybe they shouldn't if the person has been called. I spoke above about career Barristers starting out practising comparatively younger and it must be conceded , they help shape said perceptions and the associated stereotypes. It's diversifying all the time, as reflected increased numbers on here pondering the permutations of age, qualifications etc.
Everything is straitened nowadays and it's tough to contemplate a sole practise. Hence the constant griping!

LegalChef

Thanks everyone for your input!
It's certainly very heartening to hear that even at 26 I would be far from the oldest in the class, it removes the feeling of having wasted time by not going straight to the Inns after college, which had been a niggling bother!
I think Roberts post is probably holding most weight with me at the moment, it makes obvious sense that I will go further in my career the experience I have.
But the idea of a year of sunshine and travelling is oh so appealing!!
I think I am just slightly worried I might live to regret not having experienced more of the world before I knuckle down and become bound to Ireland for the remainder of my more youthful years.
Ah, the trials and tribulations we must endure in this modern world, haha.

Again, thank you everyone for your input.
It has been more then helpful, very reassuring and greatly appreciated!!

Here's hoping I might yet be joining ye in the profession in the near future.

Cheers,
LegalChef

NoQuarter

LegalChef wrote: »

I think Roberts post is probably holding most weight with me at the moment, it makes obvious sense that I will go further in my career the experience I have.
But the idea of a year of sunshine and travelling is oh so appealing!!
I think I am just slightly worried I might live to regret not having experienced more of the world before I knuckle down and become bound to Ireland for the remainder of my more youthful years.

If that's the way you feel well then get out of here for the year. It wont make that much of a difference. No point in having regrets if you dont have to!

That said, Barristers (in their early years anyway) get 2 summer months a year off. I did a RTW trip in 2 months and it was great, if a little short. It could be a good compromise.

itchyblood

Robert137 wrote: »

Historically the lionshare of Senior Counsel and those sitting on the Superior benches in this jurisdiction, in other words those whom grace the upper echelons (now of a certain vintage) initially pursued an undergraduate qualification outside that of substantive Law, but definitely commenced their practising in their early/mid twenties. It's easily quantifiable in terms of the requisite time length to establish oneself and build a practise.They were invariably under way by 26 - WELL UNDER-WAY !

Robert

Can you expand on how the old system worked? I've often wondered how people of non-law backgrounds went to the Inn's and were called to the bar within a year. Was a law degree non compulsory in those days?

itchyblood

LegalChef wrote: »

I think I am just slightly worried I might live to regret not having experienced more of the world before I knuckle down and become bound to Ireland for the remainder of my more youthful years.

This is why I want to travel after I (hopefully) get called next year. I will be 23 at the end of the year if I get through the Inn's and the general impression I've gotten over the last few years is that once you start it's hard to stop - it's full throttle once you go down to the bar. Consequently I think I'd be better off to take two or three years out and do all the travelling I still want to do before going down, as opposed to deviling for two years and being broke but needing to escape Ireland for a while.

Cody Pomeray

you have the right idea there itchyblood.

No point in building up a contact base as a pupil for a year or two and then trotting off to oz for two years, being promptly forgotten.

I did say get in and get out asap, but that only relates to College and the Inns.

Study fast and go to court at your leisure imo.

LegalChef

itchyblood wrote: »

This is why I want to travel after I (hopefully) get called next year. I will be 23 at the end of the year if I get through the Inn's and the general impression I've gotten over the last few years is that once you start it's hard to stop - it's full throttle once you go down to the bar. Consequently I think I'd be better off to take two or three years out and do all the travelling I still want to do before going down, as opposed to deviling for two years and being broke but needing to escape Ireland for a while.

I never actually considered the possibility of that option, to complete the Inns and then travel before I start devilling. Would there be any chance it might hinder your prospects of finding a Master if you were to do so?

On another note, does anyone have or know of anyone with the manuals for the entrance exams? Obviously the more the recent the better and happy to take copies.
Flirting with the notion of possibly studying for the entrance exams while travelling.

itchyblood

LegalChef wrote: »

I never actually considered the possibility of that option, to complete the Inns and then travel before I start devilling. Would there be any chance it might hinder your prospects of finding a Master if you were to do so?

On another note, does anyone have or know of anyone with the manuals for the entrance exams? Obviously the more the recent the better and happy to take copies.
Flirting with the notion of possibly studying for the entrance exams while travelling.

I can't see why it would cause difficulties. The one advantage I remember the registrar mentioned during the Inn's open day of going down straight after being called was being with your classmates. However I think I'd prefer to travel and work for a few years, saving some money before going at it. I can't see a huge difference between the two though. Once you get back and are ready to go down you can ring a few barristers, spend some time with each maybe, speak to a few devils and then ask one of them whether you could work for them. That's my current plan, anyway.

johnnyskeleton

LegalChef wrote: »

I never actually considered the possibility of that option, to complete the Inns and then travel before I start devilling. Would there be any chance it might hinder your prospects of finding a Master if you were to do so? .

It would probably improve them. You can find out a bit more about who you want to devil for, and booking them 2/3 years in advance is better than trying to get them for next year etc.

Cody Pomeray

itchyblood wrote: »

The one advantage I remember the registrar mentioned during the Inn's open day of going down straight after being called was being with your classmates.

Apart from swapping stories on where to buy cheap food and booze, i'm not sure what use pupils can be to one another anyway !

johnnyskeleton

itchyblood wrote: »

I can't see why it would cause difficulties. The one advantage I remember the registrar mentioned during the Inn's open day of going down straight after being called was being with your classmates. However I think I'd prefer to travel and work for a few years, saving some money before going at it. I can't see a huge difference between the two though. Once you get back and are ready to go down you can ring a few barristers, spend some time with each maybe, speak to a few devils and then ask one of them whether you could work for them. That's my current plan, anyway.

Having a few classmates who are a few years ahead of you has its benefits, moreso IMO then having them in the same year.

LegalChef

One more question for you guys, slightly off topic!
Iv decided to start studying for the exams seeing as I'm still here and may aswell make use of time!
Iv come across manuals for the entrance exam from 2011, none yet from 2013, and was wondering would these sufficient for the exams?

I know its a simple matter of researching any additions/changes to those areas of law yourself, but to be honest I havn't been keeping up to date with the law since I finished college 2 years ago. Would there be much extra work involved if I settled for the 2011 manuals, or would I be better to wait it out and hopefully get the ones from 2013?

Cheers again for the help!!

itchyblood

LegalChef wrote: »

One more question for you guys, slightly off topic!
Iv decided to start studying for the exams seeing as I'm still here and may aswell make use of time!
Iv come across manuals for the entrance exam from 2011, none yet from 2013, and was wondering would these sufficient for the exams?

I know its a simple matter of researching any additions/changes to those areas of law yourself, but to be honest I havn't been keeping up to date with the law since I finished college 2 years ago. Would there be much extra work involved if I settled for the 2011 manuals, or would I be better to wait it out and hopefully get the ones from 2013?

Cheers again for the help!!

Honestly, I'd say you'd manage it as long as you fill yourself in on the statutes and big cases. If you could get 2013 manuals then go for it but if you already have older ones you'd probably be fine.

I just passed the exams gone by and I was using the 2011 manuals. With a bit of wider note-making and attention to recent cases (like the many outlined in the Constitutional syllabus), you'll be grand

Bepolite

There's a constitutional symposium thing on hosted by UCD in Dublin City coming up shortlyish. It'll be discussed in the FE1 thread. Highly recommended for FE1/Inns EE.

LegalChef

Bepolite wrote: »

There's a constitutional symposium thing on hosted by UCD in Dublin City coming up shortlyish. It'll be discussed in the FE1 thread. Highly recommended for FE1/Inns EE.

Cheers for the heads up!!