Barrister/Solicitor, change of career on retirement.

pullhook

Hello all, I have been reading posts re the legal professions and find them ever so illuminating. I have recently retired from the civil service, employed in the legal area. I am 52. I have a BCL.

My simple question is whether it is absurd that I, either, pass the fe1s and try and secure a TC or obtain a BL. I would like to practice law but I fully recognise time is not on my side to do so.
I would rather practice as a Solicitor but am hesitant to go down that route, as I fear ageism may rear its head and I would not be offered a TC, all other things being equal of course, therefore Barrister may be best option ?

What do you knowledgeable folks think ? pipe dream ? Any body know of real life comparisons with my situation ? Thanks.

nuac

A number have left the PS to practice law.

I imagine it would be easier to qualify and start in the bar

You might find the bar library more congenial, meeting a wider range of people than you would working as a solicitor

However prospects and income would be uncertain either way.

Have you raised your family and paid off your mortgage?.

pullhook

"Have you raised your family and paid off your mortgage?."

Unfortunately, not quiet. But I can use savings, pension, etc to offset any financial difficulties for a period.

MarkAnthony

BL all the way - you're practically a youngster!

Tom Young

I am not sure I'd recommend that if there are outgoings such as mortgages extant, without access to a monthly pension. It is a bleak house at the Bar and the outlay is higher than in a solicitor firm or taking on that route. That's just my ten cent.

johnnyskeleton

Quite a lot of retired Gardai become criminal lawyers. You may feel your age may be a negative as regards becoming a solicitor but maybe the connections would be viewed as a positive

JCJCJC

pullhook wrote: »

Hello all, I have been reading posts re the legal professions and find them ever so illuminating. I have recently retired from the civil service, employed in the legal area. I am 52. I have a BCL.

My simple question is whether it is absurd that I, either, pass the fe1s and try and secure a TC or obtain a BL. I would like to practice law but I fully recognise time is not on my side to do so.
I would rather practice as a Solicitor but am hesitant to go down that route, as I fear ageism may rear its head and I would not be offered a TC, all other things being equal of course, therefore Barrister may be best option ?

What do you knowledgeable folks think ? pipe dream ? Any body know of real life comparisons with my situation ? Thanks.

I've done it. Left a local authority at 51, now I'm post-PPC1, in the thick of the TC and will qualify next year. I met a guy in Blackhall who was 15-20 years older than me. I agree with earlier posts, unless you have a special field of expertise, the BL route is very tough for a lot of years. I've met BL's in court in Clonmel who have travelled from Dublin for a single motion. After trainfare, they have 15 euros for the day. They will keep doing it rather than risk losing a briefing solicitor.
That said, there's an ad for a solicitor on the law soc website today offering 30K. I know trainees who were on 43k in Blackhall, so it varies a lot - Dublin offers better salaries but the cost of living there is savage, there are people commuting every day from Waterford, Ennis, Galway etc. by train.
If you want to give me a ring for a chat PM me.

JC

pullhook

Many thanks for all the comments.

JCJCJC, it is very reassuring that you were able to source a TC and have commenced the PPCs. It would appear I am overly anxious about my age and whether I would be misplaced in Blackhall, etc. I will certainly pm you, thanks for your kind offer.

Tom, while I have some financial means at my disposal, it is not infinite. I presume if i can obtain a Master , I would not be paid for deviling ? One year deviling suffices , does it not, before one can practice ? Also, how difficult is it to find a Master in the first place ?

Tom Young

Well, you've the BL degree course outlay = €15k last time I checked, plus the living expenses and books.

Devilling is a two year process really. One mandatory the second a case of "oh well, may be I should as I am going to be sitting around for a long while doing nothing otherwise!"

Then there are library fees. That I can't give much guidance on.

Would you brief a first year barrister with your very important and potentially financially costly, or Liberty affecting case? No is the answer. In fact, you can add years 1 - 4 conservatively.

Easy to get a master, more tricky to get a good one.

Anyway don't be put off if it's something you want to do, but be aware that it is not a black and white process of box ticking and having a flurry of work land on your lap as if by magic. That even goes for the apparently 'connected'.

In my experience, even the so called connected suffer from the early years drought. The requirement to perform if work is handed to you can often end in tears.


Tom

Claw Hammer

I think you may be wasting your time and money.
The former civil servants who do well at the bar usually have significant expertise in taxation, probate or conveyancing and can take on work that other general practice barristers just can't do.
Devilling is one year unpaid minimum and often a second year. The chances of earning anything in the years after that are slim unless there is significant expertis or connections. Dozens try every year and most fail.
It is going to take a number of years to pass the Fe-!s and then secure a TC and get a parchment. The prospects for someone approaching 60 being appointed to a salaried job are very slim. Setting up on ones own is a non runner due to the costs involved and the time it wuld take to build up a business.
Finally I find it peculiar that you did not complete the exams while still in the Civil Service. Most Civil Servants take a call to the bar and get it paid for by their department before retiring and starting to practice.
The best thing to do at your age would be go to the bar and devil. After 3 years you can convert to solicitor. That way you can get qualified reasonably quickly and avoid spending years on an apprenticeeship which produces no job.
You would most likely be better to seek a para legal job and forget about the whole thing.

pullhook

"Finally I find it peculiar that you did not complete the exams while still in the Civil Service. Most Civil Servants take a call to the bar and get it paid for by their department before retiring and starting to practice. " Hardly relevant to OP, but take it my reasons were both diverse and genuine. Thanks anyway for taking time to leave comments. It is good to receive an opposing view from that of JC, (the trail blazer !), for sake of balance . : )

LegallyAbroad

JCJCJC wrote: »

I've done it. Left a local authority at 51, now I'm post-PPC1, in the thick of the TC and will qualify next year. I met a guy in Blackhall who was 15-20 years older than me. I agree with earlier posts, unless you have a special field of expertise, the BL route is very tough for a lot of years. I've met BL's in court in Clonmel who have travelled from Dublin for a single motion. After trainfare, they have 15 euros for the day. They will keep doing it rather than risk losing a briefing solicitor.
That said, there's an ad for a solicitor on the law soc website today offering 30K. I know trainees who were on 43k in Blackhall, so it varies a lot - Dublin offers better salaries but the cost of living there is savage, there are people commuting every day from Waterford, Ennis, Galway etc. by train.
If you want to give me a ring for a chat PM me.

JC

The trainees on 43k are sort of irrelevant for the OP. The firms paying their trainees that are highly unlikely to hire a 51 year old.

I'm not sure I'd recommend either route, financially, for the OP. Surely he can make a non Big 7 (in terms of salary) NQ salary doing something else without the training period?

Mr. Incognito

Hi there,

You are 52.

If you factor in a year or two to pass all the FE1 Exams, a year to find a training contract and three to train you will be 57. That leaves you with 6-7 years of practice before you will be 65 and have to retire or else go out as self employed.

Barristers are self employed from the start. Unless you have people you can rely on to brief you out the gate it is a hard slog at the bar.

I would love to be a barrister but work as a solicitor and damn glad to have a job becuase I know plenty that are out of work. I work in litigation and taxation though so it is a bit more niche I guess.

The real question is why do you want to be a lawyer and what type of practice area do you want to work in.

Barristers research, advocate, and network. They are usually experts in a niche area.

Solicitors need to be a bit more flexible and do a bit of everything, depending on the type of office you work in (small to med) but smaller firms generally wont pay trainees and large firms offer a good salary and plenty of photocoping.

I would approach it from what areas you want to work in and see what job suits you as a result.

pullhook

Agreed, either way its a hard slog and I could possibly do something less arduous.

So, as I see it, Solicitor route = better chance of work and some type of pay but takes a gamble that the fe1s are quickly passed and a Tc sourced somewhere.( I could end up with the exams passed and no Tc and no qualification).

Bar = definite qualification on passing KI degree course but it seems little chance of any pay at all in first few years but I would be able to devil and so practice somewhat. I could also utilise the BL in other areas outside the courts could I not ?

I certainly don't underestimate the challenges ahead , and thanks to all for the insights, it would appear I am in danger of entering into a profession which could be financially detrimental to my wellbeing ! BUT...... I am still drawn....

whatawaster81

Have you considered Barrister and moving in house? Financial Services companies etc, Tough slog while achieving the qualification but far greater opportunities, particularly given your previous experience. Have you researched compliance? Massive area since the crash, lots of jobs in it.

Mr. Incognito

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Have you considered Barrister and moving in house? Financial Services companies etc, Tough slog while achieving the qualification but far greater opportunities, particularly given your previous experience. Have you researched compliance? Massive area since the crash, lots of jobs in it.

I would rather staple my eyes shut eight hours a day rather than work in compliance

pullhook

yes, whatawaster81, i looked into that in-house role but it appears that barristers with several years experience are sought not "meer" NQ ones, but I am open to correction there if anyone can shed some light ?

Why do you say that, Mr Incognito ?

johnnyskeleton

pullhook wrote: »

Why do you say that, Mr Incognito ?

Most people want to be lawyers because of the exictement of cross examination, the thrill of racing against the clock to finish a contract or the satisfaction of knowing that you have given correct and thorough advice to your client.

In reality legal work is like breaking rocks on a chain gang - mostly dull with the occasional bit of light entertainment.

Compliance is no different, save that the most entertaining thing to happen in several years is when an unnamed associate had a breakdown, stapled his eyes shut and declared that he would no longer comply.

Mr. Incognito

pullhook wrote: »

yes, whatawaster81, i looked into that in-house role but it appears that barristers with several years experience are sought not "meer" NQ ones, but I am open to correction there if anyone can shed some light ?

Why do you say that, Mr Incognito ?

I came froma tax background where it was a mix of compliance and consultancy.

Several thousand tax returns and lost Hallloweens later compliance was the reason I packed it in forgooing a very good Big 4 salary to do so.

Law, real law, is interesting because you have the ability to solve problems. Experience makes you better at this.

Compliance is dull monotonous brain dead soul destroying drugery. No money is worth it. Unless of course you are a brain dead druger with no soul. Met plenty of accountants like that. And before you thing I am bashing accountants I am in a long term relationship with one so its the persons not the profession

pullhook

As regards deviling, I presume you are expected to do so circa 9-5 mon to fri or is more relaxed than that ? outside of term times what is the situation ? i ask because I heard of one guy (anecdotal) who tried to devil and hold on to his CS job while doing so , however after several months he was shall we say "found out" and had to pick one or the other.

Hippo

Hi OP. I'm even older than you and in my 2nd year at the Bar. It's fantastic, and (if you can manage to live without any income) well worth doing. If you can nurture any kind of relationship with even one or two solicitors in your first year they may well try you out with some low level work. If you don't make a complete hames of that you might even get some follow up stuff! Obviously a lot depends on the relationship you enjoy with your first year master, as he/she is your conduit to the solicitors in the first place, and not all are as accommodating or helpful as mine was.

Some masters require a 9-5, and some require much more. I've no idea how you'd keep a regular job while devilling properly. IMO immersion in the environment is needed to get the most out of it, there's an extraordinary amount to learn in your first year out of the Inns.

It's difficult but rewarding and much of the work is very interesting. If you fancy a challenge then give it serious consideration. PM me if you've any questions.

Sala

I'm a trainee and there were a lot of people in their 40s and 50s in Blackhall. The hardest bit is getting the Fe1s and a training contract. The good thing is that while training you will be paid - perhaps not much but at least you'll have an income.

LegallyAbroad

Sala wrote: »

I'm a trainee and there were a lot of people in their 40s and 50s in Blackhall. The hardest bit is getting the Fe1s and a training contract. The good thing is that while training you will be paid - perhaps not much but at least you'll have an income.

To be fair to the OP, people over 40 probably constitute 5% of people in BH, if that. For example, there was nobody in my tutorial group (of 16 or so) or in my skills group (another different 16) over 40.

Someone probably has the stats on hand from the given years, but it's a very small cohort.

Not trying to put the OP off - but he should be aware that it is a very unconventional route.

Claw Hammer

I personally think it is unwise to consider Blackhall in the circumstances. The only way it would be at all feasible would be if the o/p was absolutely certain of a TC and employment after qualification. That would be in the case of a family member having a practice. I knew a man of 70 who qualified and went to work for his daughter. The reality is the o/p wold be qualified in his late 50s if he is lucky to get a TC of any kind and then try to compete with the much younger newly qualifieds.

nuac

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I personally think it is unwise to consider Blackhall in the circumstances. The only way it would be at all feasible would be if the o/p was absolutely certain of a TC and employment after qualification. That would be in the case of a family member having a practice. I knew a man of 70 who qualified and went to work for his daughter. The reality is the o/p wold be qualified in his late 50s if he is lucky to get a TC of any kind and then try to compete with the much younger newly qualifieds.

Fair play to that girl. Most would have felt uncomfortable about being their dad's boss.

Best of luck to them both.

pullhook

Thanks for all the feedback. I take on board all the comments made by the practitioners which seem to be in the main rather dubious on the merits of my proposed path However, for better or worse I will continue, "fortis fortuna adiuvat" and all that. All comments much appreciated.

LegallyAbroad

pullhook wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback. I take on board all the comments made by the practitioners which seem to be in the main rather dubious on the merits of my proposed path However, for better or worse I will continue, "fortis fortuna adiuvat" and all that. All comments much appreciated.

Best of luck!

Uno my Uno.

If the op has some sort of relevant specialist knowledge or contacts from his time in the civil service that he can put to use then the Bar might be the best option.

Otherwise the Law Society might be a good idea, whilst he is unlikely to be hired by any of the large firms who tend to prefer over achieving youngsters that they can work to the bone he may certainly be picked by a smaller firm. The op could easily have a long and bountiful career, it would be a reasonable goal to qualify by the time he is 55 leaving him with more than a decade before retirement age. Many if not most solicitors work past retirement some reaching their 70s before finally hanging it up.

whatawaster81

Maybe slightly off topic but the state pension payable age has moved to 66, 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028.
Does that not affect retirement age? As I think it's due to be increased in line.

Grolschevik

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Maybe slightly off topic but the state pension payable age has moved to 66, 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028.
Does that not affect retirement age? As I think it's due to be increased in line.

Place I work has a policy that people retire at 65, even though the they're not eligible for the state pension til 66.

whatawaster81

I understand why that's in atm, but AFAIK state retirement age will be increased in line. They can't leave people 3 years waiting on a pension.

All I could find is this old article.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-will-begin-process-of-raising-retirement-age-to-68-in-four-years-26637133.html

Also this suggests it be pushed beyond 68

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/retirement-age-to-rise-in-pension-plan-229192.html

People living longer.

4ensic15

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

it would be a reasonable goal to qualify by the time he is 55 leaving him with more than a decade before retirement age.

He is now 52. So you think it is reasonable to expect him to pass the Fe-1s, secure a training contract and complete PPC1 & 2 and finish an apprenticeship in 3 years?
He would be doing well to have passed the Fe-1s and secured an apprenticeship by the time he is 55. It wouldn't seem that he has any contacts either and he has not indicated any specialist knowledge. It is not easy for NQs in their 50s to get jobs even in small firms.

Uno my Uno.

4ensic15 wrote: »

He is now 52. So you think it is reasonable to expect him to pass the Fe-1s, secure a training contract and complete PPC1 & 2 and finish an apprenticeship in 3 years?
He would be doing well to have passed the Fe-1s and secured an apprenticeship by the time he is 55. It wouldn't seem that he has any contacts either and he has not indicated any specialist knowledge. It is not easy for NQs in their 50s to get jobs even in small firms.

Ah I thought he was 51, I still think 4 years is a reasonable goal. It's not easy for anyone to get a TC put people of all ages manage it. I don't know the OP, he might be an excellent candidate, if he really wants to do it he should give it ago.

4ensic15

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I don't know the OP, he might be an excellent candidate,

Unlikely judging from his posts on this forum.

Uno my Uno.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Unlikely judging from his posts on this forum.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Unlikely judging from his posts on this forum.

That is completely unfair, you have no basis to make such a statement. He has legal experience and relevant degree, that's more than many who go looking for TCs. If the OP has the time, finances and inclination he should pursue a career in law. His age and the likely challenges of exams and finding a TC should not put him off, everyone faces the same.

These threads pop up every so often asking if such and such an age is too old to qualify in Law. Countless legal professionals will always say that whilst it is tough you are never too old. Yet there are always a couple of posters who feel the idea is somehow ridiculous which I always feel says more about their own fears and prejucdices.

4ensic15

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

That is completely unfair, you have no basis to make such a statement. He has legal experience and relevant degree, that's more than many who go looking for TCs. If the OP has the time, finances and inclination he should pursue a career in law. His age and the likely challenges of exams and finding a TC should not put him off, everyone faces the same.

These threads pop up every so often asking if such and such an age is too old to qualify in Law. Countless legal professionals will always say that whilst it is tough you are never too old. Yet there are always a couple of posters who feel the idea is somehow ridiculous which I always feel says more about their own fears and prejucdices.

The O?p is 52. From the questions he is asking and the observations he is making, it is obvious that he does not have contacts in the profession, which would be the first thing to be expected from someone of his age. He is asking civil service type questions about devilling (hours etc) which show a lack of understanding about what he is getting involved in. He has identified no relevant legal experience much less any which would put him in demand. All in all I think it highly unlikely he will emerge in his late 50's as a solicitor who would be a star. I know this sounds harsh but he is proposing to enter into a very hard profession where there are many people waiting to push one aside. He can certainly qualify, many people of his age and older have done but he should not assume that it will be easy or that he will get any kind of a paying job out of it. He should regard it as a retirement hobby.

MintyMagnum

Someone mentioned paralegal, cue tumbleweed

Uno my Uno.

4ensic15 wrote: »

The O?p is 52. From the questions he is asking and the observations he is making, it is obvious that he does not have contacts in the profession, which would be the first thing to be expected from someone of his age. He is asking civil service type questions about devilling (hours etc) which show a lack of understanding about what he is getting involved in. He has identified no relevant legal experience much less any which would put him in demand. All in all I think it highly unlikely he will emerge in his late 50's as a solicitor who would be a star. I know this sounds harsh but he is proposing to enter into a very hard profession where there are many people waiting to push one aside. He can certainly qualify, many people of his age and older have done but he should not assume that it will be easy or that he will get any kind of a paying job out of it. He should regard it as a retirement hobby.

I didn't see anything wrong with his questions, that's how people learn and find out things. Nobody mentioned being a "star", there is lots of room and scope within the profession to have a career that is rewarding both professionally and financially without having to be a "star".

The tone of your post is that because it will be hard he should not try, that's a poor attitude. If anything he will have to take this more seriously and be more dedicated than his younger contemporaries. the OP is 52 not 82, as discussed he has 15 years before he reaches actual retirement age, it's not time for hobbies yet.

Riskymove

whatawaster81 wrote: »

I understand why that's in atm, but AFAIK state retirement age will be increased in line. They can't leave people 3 years waiting on a pension.

the increases are for the state pension and you can seek other payments if out of work before that age

If people have a private pension, it will likely be based on retiring at 65

pullhook

As I have said , I am grateful for people taking the time to comment on the pros and cons . It seems some are vehemently opposed to such an idea , as being faintly ridiculous in some respects. Again, I fully accept such comments as being genuine. However, I feel some responses are in order....

4ensic15, It is rather presumptuous to signal the likelihood of my being of inferior quality purely from my contributions to this thread. I am merely seeking informed insights into the legal professions from practitioners here on boards, , I have already canvassed some personal legal acquaintances. I never said it would be easy not did I ever mention being a "star". I certainly do not envisage it as any type of hobby, but as a fully committed to, career. (I admit I have been rather reticent in providing further personal details but I fear to do so may unmask me to erstwhile colleagues and friends which I am not prepared for as yet). Maybe I have hit raw nerve with you somehow, I presume you are practising, so it may be that you are incredulous that i would seek a second career in the legal field. Regardless, I acknowledge I asked for comments and you have provided them. I thank you for same.

MintyMagnum, paralegal is indeed an option that I could pursue , with far less uncertainty. However, I feel it would neither motivate me nor provide a new career challenge.

4ensic15

pullhook wrote: »

4ensic15, It is rather presumptuous to signal the likelihood of my being of inferior quality purely from my contributions to this thread.

There is nothing else to judge anything on. Your questions are remarkably ill informed for someone who has acquaintances in the legal profession. I would expect someone of your age to know someone who who provide an apprenticeship. Sitting the FE-1s and (if you pass) sending out Cvs looking for a TC is for youngsters imo. Asking about hours of attendance is also showing a civil service mentality that would have to be lost if any progress is made.
In an overcrowded profession it doesn't take much to have the cv dumped into the nearest bin.
Maybe there is something I haven't been told and it might make a difference
but one thing is for sure, if you first question is what time the tea break is at, then you are dust.

Uno my Uno.

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is nothing else to judge anything on. Your questions are remarkably ill informed for someone who has acquaintances in the legal profession. I would expect someone of your age to know someone who who provide an apprenticeship. Sitting the FE-1s and (if you pass) sending out Cvs looking for a TC is for youngsters imo. Asking about hours of attendance is also showing a civil service mentality that would have to be lost if any progress is made.
In an overcrowded profession it doesn't take much to have the cv dumped into the nearest bin.
Maybe there is something I haven't been told and it might make a difference
but one thing is for sure, if you first question is what time the tea break is at, then you are dust.

What a load of nonsense

johnnyskeleton

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is nothing else to judge anything on. Your questions are remarkably ill informed for someone who has acquaintances in the legal profession.

There is no reason to judge him and I for one dont think his questions are ill informed. I would feel very unconfortable asking friends suh specific questions such as how long exactly are the hours, how much exactly do they get

but one thing is for sure, if you first question is what time the tea break is at, then you are dust.

Well he is not proposing to ask these questions of a potential employer, which I accept would be a bad idea. Hes asking here so that he knows what the life is like. I once worked in a butcher/fish counter and wished someone told me how bad it can smell, but that is not a question you can ask in an interview.

Pat Mustard

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is nothing else to judge anything on. Your questions are remarkably ill informed for someone who has acquaintances in the legal profession. I would expect someone of your age to know someone who who provide an apprenticeship. Sitting the FE-1s and (if you pass) sending out Cvs looking for a TC is for youngsters imo. Asking about hours of attendance is also showing a civil service mentality that would have to be lost if any progress is made.
In an overcrowded profession it doesn't take much to have the cv dumped into the nearest bin.
Maybe there is something I haven't been told and it might make a difference
but one thing is for sure, if you first question is what time the tea break is at, then you are dust.

Mod:

4ensic, don't post in this thread again.

The_Minister

Barrister here.

It's fun. It's fascinating. It's only just starting to be in any way renumerative.

The Bar will take longer than you'd believe to get started. As well as that, it's expensive to maintain and highly uncertain.

Whether you could make a go of it depends on the skills you have acquired over your lifetime, but, frankly, I would consider it reckless to come down if you have dependants and commitments. If you were single, mortgage paid off and in receipt of a nice pension I'd say come down, but you have to be aware that when people say 'no income', that can actually mean no income. Your practice can essentially equate to an expensive hobby.

The way I see it, if you have the contacts to get offered articles, I'd say go for solicitor. If not, I would be very hesitant about barrister as a 'default' alternative - there are massive risks involved. (Obviously family need to be part of the decision).

What I would suggest is that you may have a good chance of a training contract - though I am less certain of my footing here.
It sounds like your experience would be highly practical, and you'd be able to hit the ground running, bringing a lot of useful skills to the table - you'd be perfect for a growing firm which needs extra hands but cannot necessarily spend enough time training them.