Job with Courts Service

littlemac1980

This is a link to details of an available position for a Judicial Assistant with the Court Service.

Its a 3 year contract and it appears that you must have either a 2.1 degree in law (or higher), or else be a qualified Solicitor/Barrister.

"Candidates require at least a 2.1 in a law degree at a minimum of level 8 on the National Framework of Qualifications or an appropriate professional qualification (solicitor or barrister)."


The annual non-negotiable salary is :

"Salary:
The salary for this position is €27,377per annum:

Salary is payable weekly in arrears by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) into a bank account of the appointee’s choice. Payment cannot be made until the appointee supplies a bank account number and bank sort code to the Human Resources Unit of the Courts Service. Statutory deductions will be made from salary as appropriate by the Courts Service.

Candidates should note that the salary quoted will not be subject to negotiation and the rate of remuneration may be adjusted from time to time in line with Government pay policy."

That seems like a very poor salary to me for a qualified solicitor or barrister. I would have thought contracts with the Courts Service would be much better paid than this. Am I completely disillusioned?

Pro Hoc Vice

This role replaces the old role of tip staff, the pay for that role was less than 30k but usually performed by retired AGS and DF.

My understanding is that most applicants are NQ and graduates. The competion for the roles is high. With 1H with a BL qualification giving a good chance.

BTW 27k over 3 years is about 81k which in reality is many multiples of what a barrister would earn in first 3 years. The experience would also be excellent for anyone then going into practice.

conorh91

littlemac1980 wrote: »

That seems like a very poor salary to me for a qualified solicitor or barrister

LOL:pac:

That is multiples of what some practicing barristers earn in a year. Sometimes many multiples.

I know barristers who work in low-grade entry level civil service jobs, on the dole (or in practice, mixing part-time dole with work) and indeed some who are totally unemployed. A qualified barrister may not see a judicial assistant's/ tipstaff's role as financially rewarding as his her her other prospects would, eventually, allow.

The reality is a huge amount of young barristers have no future in legal practice and simply find the legal environment stimulating. This is a financially viable way of them pursuing work they are passionate about, whereas practice at the Bar may not be.

Something that just occurred to me is the idea of a judicial assistant leaving his or her job, and returning to practice at the Bar. Are there any restrictions on this? Would it be frowned upon the same way as judges returning to practice at the Bar would be frowned upon?

coylemj

Could someone in the legal profession explain how a job that was previously done by retired soldiers and Gardai now requires a legal qualification or a 2:1 law degree?

I was on a jury once and as far as I could see the job of a tipstaff was to open the door for the judge, call on those in the court to rise and otherwise act as a runner for the judge. I also observed a procession consisting of a tipstaff holding his staff walking in front of his judge as they both walked from the judge's chamber to the court, similar to the way the mace bearer and the Speaker process to the chamber each day in the House of Commons.

Pro Hoc Vice

coylemj wrote: »

Could someone in the legal profession explain how a job that was previously done by retired soldiers and Gardai now requires a legal qualification or a 2:1 law degree?

I was on a jury once and as far as I could see the job of a tipstaff was to open the door for the judge, call on those in the court to rise and otherwise act as a runner for the judge. I also observed a procession consisting of a tipstaff holding his staff walking in front of his judge as they both walked from the judge's chamber to the court, similar to the way the mace bearer and the Speaker process to the chamber each day in the House of Commons.

Because they now do legal research and write up and check judgements.

Little CuChulainn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Because they now do legal research and write up and check judgements.

Who did that work before?

coylemj

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Because they now do legal research and write up and check judgements.

Thanks for the update. I understand the Dept. of Finance wanted to get rid of tipstaffs for years, the redefinition of the role sounds like a typical public sector face-saving compromise.

Because of the obsession with grades that you get in the public sector, a Supreme/High Court judges's tipstaff was paid more than the Circuit Court Judge's tipstaff so they had different official titles - one was a 'tipstaff' while the other was a 'crier' though I suspect that they all claimed to be tipstaffs.

conorh91

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Who did that work before?

Judicial researchers and judicial fellows.

It's a sensible extension of the judicial fellows role, basically. It's supposed to be litigant-friendly and better for the taxpayer too. It's a good thing.

shy-tall-knight

Did anyone hear anything back as regards this year's competition? I got receipt of my application being received but no word since.

BasedHobbes

Haven't heard back yet either. They mentioned marking the essays in the application form, so it may take a while to do that.