Practicing as a Barrister and studying for a Phd concurrently.

FERGAL7

The title says it all. Is it possible, has anyone done it and if you have what was the experience like? Importantly would it be possible to do this and fulfill your potential as a barrister?

The plan would be to finish my undergraduate studies, get an LLM in criminology and criminal justice from England or possibly Cork, sit the Kings Inn and achieve the BL degree, and then when I start to devil undertake the Phd at my current university which offers a large scholarship to past students.

MarkAnthony

Plenty of people work a full time job and do it, I can't see why it would be an issue for a barrister per se. It's not something I could pull off only you know if you can put in upwards of 80 hours a week.

Not 100% sure of the career plan you're after there either but there's nothing stopping you.

crystalmice

It would be a huge amount of work and you would no doubt run into practical conflicts between Phd commitments (eg, if you were required to attend seminars or conferences) and court appearances. Theoretically, as the previous poster says it is possible but you would be basically working two full time jobs, and only you know if that's something you could manage - there is no way I would be able for that personally.

On a practical note, why do you want the Phd? It's fairly well acknowledged that excessive post-grad qualifications are not of great use at the bar, as you succeed based on your practical ability and the work you generate from your master etc, rather than because you have an impressive CV. Also, Phd's are more geared to academia than legal practice, at the bar or otherwise - is academia your ultimate goal? If so, then it might make sense. If being a successful barrister is your goal, then it would be a strange move and there may be better uses of your time.

FERGAL7

Academia is not the ultimate goal, practice with a bit of academia on the side is what I'd love. My ideal career path would be to practice at the criminal bar, with the ultimate goal of taking silk, that is the priority. In relation to why I would like to do the Phd, I'd like to do some part time lecturing in my current university and I find criminal law, constitutional law and jurisprudence incredibly interesting. Also my university offers scholarships to past students to do Phd's. It would cover all my living expenses, I would get free on campus accommodation, and there's the option to undertake it part time which I feel would be beneficial during the early years at the bar.

However, if it were a matter that undertaking the Phd would negate me from achieving everything I could at the bar, then the bar would get preference.

conorh91

Why not do the PhD before the BL degree?

I don't really see the point of going through double-poverty as a PhD candidate and a devil at the same time. And that's before the time-management issues arise.

It's possible to undertake doctoral studies after deviling, but not without compromising your practice. In the early years, people pick up work by physically hanging around and being sociable. Nobody will be beating a track to the postgrads' rooms in UCD or TCD to give you work.

One of the biggest mistakes a lot of people make, myself included, is that they take a blinkered approach to the Bar and arrive prematurely (common affliction of inexperience, that)

MarkAnthony

I had a thought, happens now and again.

Do the modular BL and the PhD concurrently. Make a call on whether you'll devil in the third year of the PhD or focus solely on the PhD.

Manach

Slightly OT but is 3 years the norm or the max. for a fulltime Legal Phd, or would an LLM knock a year off?

MarkAnthony

Manach wrote: »

Slightly OT but is 3 years the norm or the max. for a fulltime Legal Phd, or would an LLM knock a year off?

I think PhDs generally take between 2 and 4/5 years depending on what's being undertaken and by whom.

conorh91

Manach wrote: »

Slightly OT but is 3 years the norm or the max. for a fulltime Legal Phd, or would an LLM knock a year off?

Three-four years is the norm. The Registrar's limit is typically beyond this (6 years in UCD), but the actual funding limit may be three years only, depending on the funding agency. This is the de facto time limit for most candidates.

I don't think a Masters knocks time off PhDs anymore. Most universities impose both upper and lower time-limits, and retrospective registration is not usually allowed. I think it would have to be an exceptional case.

Grolschevik

It sort of depends on the nature of the PhD programme. A programme with a couple of years taught component in practice typically takes longer to complete than research only. Depends on the individual, though.

Masters don't generally knock any time off, but if there's a taught component, you might be able to argue that you should be exempt from that module as you've done it before. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

Will your scholarship/funding require you to teach? Because that's an added draw on your time. Every hour talking to students generally requires about two hours of preparation, at least. And the marking, course administration and meetings, curriculum and syllabus development, as well as any old crap your department might require/ask you to do, all are factors, too.

If it was me, I'd probably concentrate on the doctorate first. The Bar will always be there, but funding for your doctorate may not be...

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

A research based PhD will take you 4 years. I think every university is introducing the modular system whereby you will have to earn a certain number of credits in order to graduate, as well as completing your PhD. Most take 3 years and a bit to do.
There are people who do the King's at the weekend and the PhD during the week, then when finished devil during the day and sometimes lecture at night. Not easy but it gives somewhat of an income.