Becoming a solicitor or a barrister

dar100

Hi posting for my wife;

She's interested in doing family law as a solicitor and/or barrister. She already has a degree in social care and masters from trinity in social work. She has many years experience working with people and currently works in housing/ homelessness.

What is the best or quickest route to take, what's involved ? I take it She,d have to give up work at some stage?

Any advise welcomed

Samuel T. Cogley

Solicitor route - get the text books and do the FE-1s, she doesn't need a law degree, just a degree which she has.

Barrister - KI Diploma course and then BL also at the Inns. Bear in mind barristers are self employed and many don't make great money.

L1011

Any degree is ok? Even a BSc in an unrelated subject?

Grolschevik

L1011 wrote: »

Any degree is ok? Even a BSc in an unrelated subject?

For solicitor, you don't even a degree of any sort. But you have to pass a preliminary exam, and I think those without any degree are pretty rare these days.

GM228

I was very recently advised by a barrister friend that the easiest route (probably not the quickest though) is to become a barrister and then convert to solicitor (after 2 years I think it is?).

Mr. Incognito

Hello there.

Family law is a nightmare. To get paid in any capacity. But those that do it seem to love it. As a solicitor id advise the solicitors Route. You would run the whole file most of the time. Barristers are rare unless its high value in family law

dar100

So from research and posts it seems she would just need to take the 'FE exams and do the work placement internship. What's the best way to prep for these exams? I know of someone doing grinds with a barrister; others seem to do courses?

What's the pro /con ?

L1011

Grolschevik wrote: »

For solicitor, you don't even a degree of any sort. But you have to pass a preliminary exam, and I think those without any degree are pretty rare these days.

I knew that was the case in the past but had been told by someone that a legal-associated degree was needed now, e.g. Business & Law if not an actual law degree.

Will add FE1s back to my list of 'things to do when I have money and time for the hell of it'; after using my free fees allocation to get a second primary degree in something else completely not law related :pac: (I have a British BSc)

Eric Cartman

GM228 wrote: »

I was very recently advised by a barrister friend that the easiest route (probably not the quickest though) is to become a barrister and then convert to solicitor (after 2 years I think it is?).

whats the deal with this conversion ? what do you have to do ?

GM228

Eric Cartman wrote: »

whats the deal with this conversion ? what do you have to do ?

See S43 of the Solicitors Act 1954 (as amended).

Timeframe is actually 3 years, not 2.

dar100

GM228 wrote: »

See S43 of the Solicitors Act 1954 (as amended).

Timeframe is actually 3 years, not 2.

I don't see how this is the easier route as it stands any person with a degree can take the FE and become a solicitor after the training period.

The barrister diploma is two years part time, then deviling; then 3 years to take solicitor FE?

Also you must be a law graduate to become a barrister

hullaballoo

Barristers don't have to take the FE1s. Once qualified for conversion (ie, having the required experience), it's a matter of attending a few lectures and that's more or less it, you're a solicitor. Have a look at the FE1s thread in this forum to get an idea of what's involved in passing them. They are a nightmare. Students who fly through undergrad law degrees with first class honours all the way can have serious difficulty passing them.

The King's Inns entrance exams are far easier. The only difficult aspect is that you do five big subjects in five days, Monday-Friday of the exam week. You can't carry passes to another sitting afaik, and have to pass all five. Although it's an intense few days, if you've done the work, you'll pass. Not necessarily so for the FE1s.

Perhaps it isn't feasible to use the route of qualifying as a barrister solely for the purpose of converting to a solicitor for someone with no underlying law degree as afaik, the KI diploma (the fastest way to get a qualifying law degree) is 2 years, then 1 for the BL degree and from what s. 43 above indicates, 3 years in practice. That's 6 years to become a solicitor for someone with no law degree.

However, given the difficulties some people have passing the FE1s, I would still regard going that way as easier even if it's not feasible for everyone.

Grolschevik

L1011 wrote: »

I knew that was the case in the past but had been told by someone that a legal-associated degree was needed now, e.g. Business & Law if not an actual law degree.

Will add FE1s back to my list of 'things to do when I have money and time for the hell of it'; after using my free fees allocation to get a second primary degree in something else completely not law related :pac: (I have a British BSc)

To get hired maybe, and to secure a training contract it's probably best to have a degree, but it's still not technically necessary, even if it might be advisable.

L1011

I've no intention of actually practicing or doing anything other than trying to pass the FE1s.

I have odd enough hobbies

MightyMandarin

L1011 wrote: »

I've no intention of actually practicing or doing anything other than trying to pass the FE1s.

I have odd enough hobbies

The Law Society fees are not cheap aswell. A lot people in my class considering doing them are either taking time to work to earn enough to afford them, or trying every single way to get into a firm who reimburses you for them.

Samuel T. Cogley

L1011 wrote: »

I knew that was the case in the past but had been told by someone that a legal-associated degree was needed now, e.g. Business & Law if not an actual law degree.

Will add FE1s back to my list of 'things to do when I have money and time for the hell of it'; after using my free fees allocation to get a second primary degree in something else completely not law related :pac: (I have a British BSc)

You be better off doing a law degree than the FE-1s. They're of no value in of themselves.

Gloomtastic!

With her background, has she considered becoming a Guardian Ad Litem?

Mod

Perhaps, but let's keep this thread to topic

It is about becoming either a solicitor or a barrister, one or t'other

dccaresuckers

good luck

Claw Hammer

A part time degree in 1 of the colleges is far better than the KI diploma. The KI diploma has very little use outside of getting into the BL course.The part time Bl is 2 years and after that there is a least a year of pupillage. A lot depends on whether someone wants to keep earning for as long as possible while qualifying.
The FE1s are a minefield and then an apprenticeship must be secured.

JBG2011

Hi Dar100,

unless you have substantial means - i.e. you can support your family as well as support your life living in Dublin for 5-10 years, its going to be very difficult for her to become a successful barrister.

Newly qualified barristers can really struggle for work yet need to be based in Dublin as a lot of work is based in the Four Courts. If you live in Dublin this is a huge benefit but the reality is that a lot of inexperienced barristers struggle for years or never make it at all.

If she goes down the solicitor's route and she's reasonably competent and sticks with it she should have a good career. For example, if you are Dublin based you can expect a minimum of €40-50k starting off (on qualification) which should rapidly increase after a few years to a decent enough wage, with country prices a bit behind that.

The money can be very good in certain fields although she will have to work very hard for it and the responsibility and stress involved is no joke.

To be honest there's not an enormous amount of money in family law. Furthermore, it can be "dirty" work which can be very stressful and emotionally draining. Some people really enjoy it but most can find it hard going.

Regardless of whether she wishes to be a solicitor or barrister she has a long road ahead of her. It requires a lot of study and dedication. Many fall by the wayside. That said, if she's highly motivated, has a good head on her and your both prepared for a few tough years there's no reason why she can't do it.

dar100

JBG2011 wrote: »

Hi Dar100,

unless you have substantial means - i.e. you can support your family as well as support your life living in Dublin for 5-10 years, its going to be very difficult for her to become a successful barrister.

Newly qualified barristers can really struggle for work yet need to be based in Dublin as a lot of work is based in the Four Courts. If you live in Dublin this is a huge benefit but the reality is that a lot of inexperienced barristers struggle for years or never make it at all.

If she goes down the solicitor's route and she's reasonably competent and sticks with it she should have a good career. For example, if you are Dublin based you can expect a minimum of €40-50k starting off (on qualification) which should rapidly increase after a few years to a decent enough wage, with country prices a bit behind that.

The money can be very good in certain fields although she will have to work very hard for it and the responsibility and stress involved is no joke.

To be honest there's not an enormous amount of money in family law. Furthermore, it can be "dirty" work which can be very stressful and emotionally draining. Some people really enjoy it but most can find it hard going.

Regardless of whether she wishes to be a solicitor or barrister she has a long road ahead of her. It requires a lot of study and dedication. Many fall by the wayside. That said, if she's highly motivated, has a good head on her and your both prepared for a few tough years there's no reason why she can't do it.

thank you for a very detailed and realistic reply

dar100

so all in all she be better a d quicker to becone a medical doctor, better pay too

4ensic15

dar100 wrote: »

so all in all she be better a d quicker to becone a medical doctor, better pay too

Becoming a medical doctor will call for several years of full time study with fees having to be paid. Trying to secure internships is also challenging. Many medical graduates have to emigrate. there are also very long hours during the training stages. Getting to a position in any profession where a good income can be garnered is a long, expensive and time-consuming process. As has already been said you need to consider your own circumstances as to what you can realistically do.


Mod

Agreed ( dad of a med ), but let us keep to the topic here - qualifying as either a solicitor or barrister

FreudianSlippers

hullaballoo wrote: »

Barristers don't have to take the FE1s. Once qualified for conversion (ie, having the required experience), it's a matter of attending a few lectures and that's more or less it, you're a solicitor. Have a look at the FE1s thread in this forum to get an idea of what's involved in passing them. They are a nightmare. Students who fly through undergrad law degrees with first class honours all the way can have serious difficulty passing them.

The King's Inns entrance exams are far easier. The only difficult aspect is that you do five big subjects in five days, Monday-Friday of the exam week. You can't carry passes to another sitting afaik, and have to pass all five. Although it's an intense few days, if you've done the work, you'll pass. Not necessarily so for the FE1s.

Perhaps it isn't feasible to use the route of qualifying as a barrister solely for the purpose of converting to a solicitor for someone with no underlying law degree as afaik, the KI diploma (the fastest way to get a qualifying law degree) is 2 years, then 1 for the BL degree and from what s. 43 above indicates, 3 years in practice. That's 6 years to become a solicitor for someone with no law degree.

However, given the difficulties some people have passing the FE1s, I would still regard going that way as easier even if it's not feasible for everyone.

Having never done the FE1s I'm no expert, but the KI exams are a different animal IMHO to the FE1s. The 5-in-5-days aspect is challenging in itself; the exams require you to fundamentally understand the law as opposed to the kind of rote learning that the FE1s expect (to a degree).
They certainly test very different attributes and abilities - I'm not sure I'd peg one as "harder" than the other without knowing the individual.

GSRNBP

Eric Cartman wrote: »

whats the deal with this conversion ? what do you have to do ?

I did it about 2 years ago. I was a barrister for 6 or so years. It's a 3 week crash-course in being a solicitor, focused mainly on the things you don't learn as a barrister: solicitors accounts, probate, conveyancing, etc.
Almost everyone attending was employed by a firm and the firm was paying for it (€3,000) and their registration fees, insurance and various other expenses. It's close to €8,000 all-in, which can be difficult for a lot of barristers working years for very little money after paying €10,000+ for the Inns, plus the cost of 2 years devilling and however many years out on your own chasing invoices.

I honestly loved being a barrister, but I can't say I miss the income situation.

hullaballoo

Actually, if students approached the FE1s the way most do in the KI entrance exams, they'd probably more or less pass them all first sitting.

The rote learning thing is what means most people fail the FE1s if you read the exam papers, examiners' reports and supplemental materials. The volume of what has to be covered is the same, but there's more detail required for FE1s. Students make the mistake on a repeated basis of failing to recognise that the detail required to go from a 40% required to 50% required exam isn't as great as they think. They also make the mistake of thinking that writing everything you know about quia timet injunctions is the right answer to a problem question.

MightyMandarin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Actually, if students approached the FE1s the way most do in the KI entrance exams, they'd probably more or less pass them all first sitting.

The rote learning thing is what means most people fail the FE1s if you read the exam papers, examiners' reports and supplemental materials. The volume of what has to be covered is the same, but there's more detail required for FE1s. Students make the mistake on a repeated basis of failing to recognise that the detail required to go from a 40% required to 50% required exam isn't as great as they think. They also make the mistake of thinking that writing everything you know about quia timet injunctions is the right answer to a problem question.

Without seeming like a know-it-all, is that not essentially what people should've done in their law degree? - or any degree tbh, since essay-style exams entail the same way of answering questions

Additionally, if I've been only getting 2.1's and 1st's in law exams during the 4 years, are the FE-1's really anything to worry about if they only require 50%+?

I've no real intention of doing them, I just wanted to understand the fuss about them as most of the people from my class doing them seem to be freaking about the prospect of them.

Claw Hammer

The examiner's comments from the FE1s show that students have a wrong approach. Students are getting through college degrees using techniques such as selectively studying parts of the course, getting tips and rote learning. The colleges themselves are inclined to grade inflate. When the examiner is known to the student when the questions are predictable and examiner is minded to give as good a mark as possible student can be flattered into thinking they are a genius. The professional exams are less predictable the topic mixing and a different marking technique. What got a student through college will not necessarily get over the hump of professional exams. Some students rely totally on notes, not reading full case reports, relying too much on Nutshells, seeing a topic and trolling in the "all they know" and failing to actually give advice. The other difference with the professional exams is that the examiners are much less interested in what the law reform commission might have recommended in a particular area. The focus is on "X is in court next Monday, this is the problem, what are you going to tell him to do?"

MightyMandarin

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The examiner's comments from the FE1s show that students have a wrong approach. Students are getting through college degrees using techniques such as selectively studying parts of the course, getting tips and rote learning. The colleges themselves are inclined to grade inflate. When the examiner is known to the student when the questions are predictable and examiner is minded to give as good a mark as possible student can be flattered into thinking they are a genius. The professional exams are less predictable the topic mixing and a different marking technique. What got a student through college will not necessarily get over the hump of professional exams. Some students rely totally on notes, not reading full case reports, relying too much on Nutshells, seeing a topic and trolling in the "all they know" and failing to actually give advice. The other difference with the professional exams is that the examiners are much less interested in what the law reform commission might have recommended in a particular area. The focus is on "X is in court next Monday, this is the problem, what are you going to tell him to do?"

I know people can 'get through' college doing stuff like that but in the college I was at, people who relied on nutshells and lecture notes purely would get a 2.2 at the absolute most, and would get totally found out in subjects requiring thinking like Con Law or Jurisprudence.

Re: inflated grades, I know nothing about so I can't say anything on but I knew some people who were well-known in the law school, on the law review etc. and had at least one exam where things went tits up and got a 3rd or a low 2.2, so lecturers didn't seem afraid to dish out bad grades where necessary.

Samuel T. Cogley

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The examiner's comments from the FE1s show that students have a wrong approach. Students are getting through college degrees using techniques such as selectively studying parts of the course, getting tips and rote learning. The colleges themselves are inclined to grade inflate. When the examiner is known to the student when the questions are predictable and examiner is minded to give as good a mark as possible student can be flattered into thinking they are a genius. The professional exams are less predictable the topic mixing and a different marking technique. What got a student through college will not necessarily get over the hump of professional exams. Some students rely totally on notes, not reading full case reports, relying too much on Nutshells, seeing a topic and trolling in the "all they know" and failing to actually give advice. The other difference with the professional exams is that the examiners are much less interested in what the law reform commission might have recommended in a particular area. The focus is on "X is in court next Monday, this is the problem, what are you going to tell him to do?"

Thanks Claw nice nugget there about the LRC reports.

FreudianSlippers

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I know people can 'get through' college doing stuff like that but in the college I was at, people who relied on nutshells and lecture notes purely would get a 2.2 at the absolute most, and would get totally found out in subjects requiring thinking like Con Law or Jurisprudence.

Re: inflated grades, I know nothing about so I can't say anything on but I knew some people who were well-known in the law school, on the law review etc. and had at least one exam where things went tits up and got a 3rd or a low 2.2, so lecturers didn't seem afraid to dish out bad grades where necessary.

Without wanting to speak for them, I believe that's the point Claw Hammer was making. There is no exam in the FE1s that doesn't "require thinking". I know plenty of people that did well in their undergraduate degree and struggled significantly with the FE1s - IMO the FE1s require that you have a fundamental understanding of the subjects in addition to the academic understanding that the undergraduate law degrees require.