Potential barrister with confidence issues...

kiwimad

*I don't use boards.ie very often so mods, feel free to move this to somewhere else if it's in the wrong place!*

I'm a nineteen year old student and I'll be graduating with a BA in History and English in 2015 (with a first-class honours if all goes to plan). One of the career options I'm considering is going down the legal route - I did a bit of work experience with a solicitor and really enjoyed it, particularly the circuit court cases. Obviously, the subjects I'm studying involve a lot of critical thinking, arguing and debating, skills that I imagine are necessary for both barristers and solicitors.

However, I am not the most outgoing person, am somewhat lacking in confidence, and I'm worried that this might make a career in law difficult if not impossible. I can cope with speaking in front of my classmates - I get nervous, but can overcome the feeling easily enough. Interacting on a one-to-one basis, on the other hand, can be more tricky. In conversations with anyone who is not a close friend, I tend to be shy and not very talkative. A profession in law surely requires significant people skills, and I am anxious that this may prevent me from a successful career as a barrister.

Can anyone give me any advice on this? Should I abandon any hope of a career in law? Any help is much appreciated!

johnnyskeleton

You'll be fine. Lack of social skills is not a problem in the legal profession. In fact, too much social skills is looked upon with suspicion and distrust.

on_my_oe

A suggestion - toastmasters. It's great for building confidence and practise in talking to large groups, alternatively if you're single, dating events - again for talking to strangers.

Alternatively you could focus on academics and/or conveyancing?

In NZ you are a barrister and a solicitor, so if you're planning a foreign adventure you'll need to conquer the fear Good luck!

nuac

I know some people who are great lawyers, but "bad on their feet".

Suggest attending some debating societies.

kiwimad

Thanks! I'm planning on getting involved in the L and H in UCD this year, I've been meaning to since first year but I never got around to it. I've also been writing for the campus newspaper, so the interviews I'm doing with strangers might help. Thanks again everyone!

NUTLEY BOY

kiwimad wrote: »

Thanks! I'm planning on getting involved in the L and H in UCD this year, I've been meaning to since first year but I never got around to it. I've also been writing for the campus newspaper, so the interviews I'm doing with strangers might help. Thanks again everyone!

Some barristers talk too much . Sometimes, what they say is not worth waiting to hear :mad:. Members of juries would tell you that if they were allowed.

As with many fields of endeavour it comes down to one thing - practice !

Better to be a bit nervous and focused than cocky and arrogant - some judges are really good at picking that up.

Good luck.

Peregrinus

I have known some brilliant and successful lawyers who were completely socially inept. Social shyness and difficult participating in a conversation is one thing, but when you are the "expert" and the clients are looking to you for advice it's a different situation. You don't have to be witty or entertaining; just know what questions to ask the clients so that you can establish relevant facts, identify and analyse their legal problem and give the the advice they are looking for. Once you are confident of your own legal knowledge and skills - and, yes, this does take time, it doesn't happen the day you qualify - then you'll find it's quite easy to talk business with people.

You'll still be a disaster at parties, though. I can't offer you much reassurance on that score.

nuac

kiwimad wrote: »

Thanks! I'm planning on getting involved in the L and H in UCD this year, I've been meaning to since first year but I never got around to it. I've also been writing for the campus newspaper, so the interviews I'm doing with strangers might help. Thanks again everyone!

Maybe things have changed but c1960 the L and H was not for the fainthearted. There was a convention of giving a maiden speaker a heckle-free first speech, but after that the heckling could be daunting.

There may be other debating societies about which are easier for beginners. The Solicitors' Apprentices Debating Society used to run weekly debates, and I presume the Bar Students had the same. In UCD I recall going to Commerce Society debates, and I am sure there are many others.

Toastmasters was before my time, but seems worth trying.

Junior Chambers and similar also used to run debates.

Over the years I have seen many good lawyers overshadowed at meetings and courts by good talkers. It is worth practising expressing yourself

Good luck

nuac

kiwimad wrote: »

Thanks! I'm planning on getting involved in the L and H in UCD this year, I've been meaning to since first year but I never got around to it. I've also been writing for the campus newspaper, so the interviews I'm doing with strangers might help. Thanks again everyone!

L and H

It is over 50 years since I was at an L and H debate. Unless things have changed it would be a bearpit, and hard for a beginner to make headway.
There used to be a convention of giving a maiden speaker a free run,no heckling, but after that the slightest slip or hesitation can let the hecklers take over.

Better to get some experience elsewhere first.

Alternatives

In my time the solicitors apprentices had a very good debating society, a lot smaller and more civilised than the L and H. Presume Bar students have similar. Many other faculties e.g Commerce/Economics had debates also. Those days they were all about Earlsfort Terrace - easier to get into them

In my time in UCG Opus Dei used to run debates. Tea and sandwiches afterwards. Trick was to get the sandwiches and vanish into the night before the earnest recruiter guy got to you.

Toastmasters were before my time, but they seem to have a good system

The important thing is to get practice of thinking on your feet and expressing yourself. No judge wants to listen to Ciceronian speeches, but you do need to be able to get your points across in some kind of order, and be able to cope with something unexpected from your opponent or judge.

To repeat I have known people who really knew their law, but seem to freeze when on their hindlegs.

Good luck

nuac

Sorry

Posted twice here, as I thought my first post had been accidentally deleted

Bepolite

I'd actually say debating may have changed somewhat. It's not as tough going as you describe, but then I think the standard may have slipped over the years. I've done a wee bit at UCD and some of the national competitions and although you can expect to be ripped to shreds on the night - everyone is very supportive the rest of the time.

That said, I wouldn't debate - Moot. The situation is completely different and closer to a court setting. It's very different talking to one person and rebutting in turn than dealing with convoluted points of information.

All that said, you're 19 - you're barely out of nappies. These things develop over time. Toastmasters would be an excellent start.

EDIT: What UCD's internal society is like I couldn't comment.

Dandelion6

I'm in the same boat as you and I've done Toastmasters, and it is really helpful.

Santa Cruz

You are only 19. The first thing to conquer is the one to one interaction and after that the rest comes naturally. You might laugh but working out a list of topics that you can converse with someone else with helps. The basic where are you from, why did you pick UCD, UCC wherever will get the show going. and then just general ****e talk

goz83

Have heard good things about toastmasters. A couple of my clients had done this, which helped them gain confidence. You could also try hypnosis, but find a good one if going down that route.

LutherBlissett

Competitive debating is actually done in teams of two, in rooms of four teams (so eight speakers in all).

There are generally very few spectators, kind of making it an ideal atmosphere for beginners.

Because there is a sort of seeding system, you will not be debating against someone above your level for a long time (if ever - it takes a lot of work and dedication to end up in a room with Oxford A/ Cam A/ Harvard A etc. That said, it does happen.)

Everyone tends to be pleasant (even friendly!) and supportive. Beginner debaters tend to develop core skills (public speaking/ arguing) pretty quickly.

Please do not get the wrong idea about competitive debating!

hullaballoo

The issue with debating fwics is that it develops a certain style of argumentative speech that is often inappropriate in a court situation.

Advocacy and debating are totally different disciplines within the domain of "public" speaking. Of course, practising speaking in front of a crowd will help you get over whatever confidence issues you have but it is important to observe that what makes a good debater does not equate, in many respects, to what makes a good advocate.

To emphasise the point: many good debaters go on to become good advocates - that is down to their understanding of the nuances that differentiate the two methods of speech rather than replicating one form in both spheres.

EunanMac

You'll be grand, you're only 19. Concentrate on really knowing your subject above all else. Knowledge brings confidence. Joining toastmasters and sticking with it, is also very good advice.

LutherBlissett

Debating equips you with so many skills other than learning to public speak (though it does that too). It teaches you how to construct and structure arguments effectively, engage with an opponent's material, formulate rapid responses to opponent material, research topics, deal with sub-optimal situations like not having all the info required to hand...those are just the things that spring immediately to mind. The above post (by Hullaballoo), in my opinion, sells debating unfairly short.

conorh91

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Competitive debating is actually done in teams of two, in rooms of four teams (so eight speakers in all).

There are generally very few spectators, kind of making it an ideal atmosphere for beginners.

Because there is a sort of seeding system, you will not be debating against someone above your level for a long time (if ever - it takes a lot of work and dedication to end up in a room with Oxford A/ Cam A/ Harvard A etc. That said, it does happen.)

Everyone tends to be pleasant (even friendly!) and supportive. Beginner debaters tend to develop core skills (public speaking/ arguing) pretty quickly.

Please do not get the wrong idea about competitive debating!

My experience of "competitive debating" is more buckfast-fuelled whooping and gyrating than the afters of a country wedding.

I guess people here are more talking about 'L&H-style' mass debates, rather than the more sedate inter varsities, or the Irish Times debates. They're probably more sensible.

LutherBlissett

Well, the above would be an accurate description of intervarsity debating for a mediocre to good competitive debater. It is not the fault of debating that some people engage in "buckfast drinking" etc. Suffice to say they are generally not of the successful variety. I can't speak to house debates, as they vary from university to unversity, but the Times has become largely marginalised in Irish debating, I certainly would not agree that having "done Times" alone makes you a competitive debater.

Dubwat

The OP seems to be okay in group situations but not so good in one-on-one situations. I'm not a lawyer but I believe a lot of cases get sorted on the steps of the courts. Does the OP need to get better interpersonal skills so he/she can look his opposite number 'in the eye' and get the best deal for his client?

FloatingVoter

I know two senior counsels. One (my uncle) is a very quiet individual who is more valued for his legal brain and ability to plot his way through a case.
The other would give Rumpole of the Bailey a run for his money in the bombast stakes.
Both seem to have risen to the top or thereabouts without changing their personalities too much.

Export

I think you need to be able to read people well to be a barrister, particularly in cross-examination. Lack of confidence might inhibit your ability to think clearly while cross examining. You might have more 'stage-fright', less 'critical thinking'. You really have to be able to think on your feet.
A good tactic is to literally focus solely on what the other person is saying. I used to have 'stage-fright' when speaking publicly, but when I learned to focus solely on the matter in hand, i.e. what I myself was thinking and what I wanted to communicate and what the other person was saying, then it came naturally to me....
There is a JC who did some work for me. He is extremely 'slow' when speaking or cross-examining (couldn't afford an SC!). He gives people too much time to think lol. Maybe it's his own personal tactic of unnerving them.
I personally prefer the more 'terrier' types.
Another thing I've noticed with judges is that they can be particularly cutting. Not so much to barristers, moreso to solicitors or guards. Local judge knocks great craic out of having the court-room in stitches and the guards looking like buffoons. Bit of a comedian. You'd need to be able for that too.
I would approve of the suggestions of debating socs etc.
Another suggestion would be an amateur dramatics society! Guaranteed to get you comfortable with making a show of yourself!

Export

I'll give you a couple of examples of the judge in action - figure out whether you'd be able to handle it.

1. Guard (clearly American) giving evidence of an arrest he made while on 'bike duty', of an intoxicated man.
Judge asked him how he knew the man wasn't just sun-bathing? Guard replied that he didn't have a towel.
Judge advised him that Irish people have a different way of sun-bathing to Americans.
Judge then asked him, if the man was so intoxicated that he couldn't stand up, and if the guard was on a bicycle, how did he manage to get him back to the station.
Judge then asked him, what time was the man later released. The guard flittered through his files and eventually said he didn't have that information to hand, but typically, he would have been held in custody until he was sober enough to be released.

2. After about 5 cases where the accused were not present in court, the judge told the superintendent, that he was two weeks into his job and nobody was appearing in the court and advised him he was not off to a good start!

3. Case where a fella had been fined, but case kept being put back as the man was collecting money in dribs and drabs. Solicitor proposed putting case back for a month. Judge told him that he wasn't stupid, the solicitor was receiving Legal Aid for each appearance and to come up with a realistic date for when the full amount would be ready.

4. Some dude accused of something (can't remember what - minor enough though). Already serving 12 plus months in prison. Judge berated about 3 guards as they had no clue what the guy was already serving time for. All they could find was that he had been convicted of drink-driving. The dude didn't speak any English. Judge berated them then for wanting to have the cost of interpreters etc.

5. This was my favourite. Young enough guard giving evidence. According to himself, he noticed a car with no license plate on front of car, however, ON CLOSER INSPECTION, he discovered that there was no license plate on the rear of the car either. Judge asks the guard whether he had learned the term 'on closer inspection' at Templemore. Asked him how close exactly did he have to get to see that there was no rear license plate.

There are ordinarily a few red faces in the court-room with this judge and everyone present trying not to laugh.

Valentine1

OP if you enjoy studying law and want to pursue a career in it you should go for it. There are many different types of lawyers and all different types of personality can be very successful at it. Most importantly you have a log road ahead of you so and you will develop many skills and strengths in the future.

There are Lawyers, both Solicitors and barristers who are in court all day everyday, equally there are others who never set foot inside a court room in the entirety of their career, even some barristers.

Dealing with clients is the same, some Lawyers love dealing with clients and are real front facers where as others, (particularly in larger firms) have very little contact with clients.

Essentially there is a role for all types of personality in Law and it has a place for all strengths.

PLL

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks to people for giving such great advice to the OP. Although I personally do not want a career in Law, I have ruled out certain professions (even though I would love to do them) because I too get very nervous talking to people. I would things to be different and in general to be more confident. I just googled Toastmasters and found out there is a meeting on the road that I live on so i'm going to get involved. If it had not been for this thread I would not have known about it. So thanks again :-)