Well, that's a kick in my careers teeth!

Jo King wrote:

You made a point about the size of solicitors firms about the country and that they would have specialist sections and so would not need to have recourse to barristers. You were aware of the whole decentralisation issue at that time so you could have explained your relativity theory at that point but didn't. solicitors firms are structured as they are to meet market demand. There is demand for larger firms by major corporates and litigants in major cases. The superior courts sit in Dublin only with the exception of some limited High Court sitting outside of Dublin.
You know nothing about my background so this means you made your remarks in total ignorance. You have no information either way. Merely speculation. I pointed out that you were a whinger. I made the remarks about the profession in the light of James McDermott's article. He seems to be concerned with conditions for barristers rather than the cost of litigation. What about people having to sell their homes or business to pay ruinous legal fees. All he seems to be saying is "it is not our fault" and "look at how much we are suffering". Many people who set up businesses have it hard at the start but they do not write to the papers moaning. I know publicans who had to live over the pub in bad areas of Dublin and work seven days and nights a week to get off the ground. They didn't write to the papers complaining. They just got on with it.
You offered the fact that you want to become a barrister as proof that you are not interested in money. That alone proves nothing.
I have nothing against anbody building up a business and enjoying the fruits of it. I just do not believe that anyone doing it is drawing in so much money from the activity. There is nothing to stop the employees who are generating the income of the practise from leaving with their clients at any time. If they think that a semi-retired principal is drawing too much out of the practise that is what they will do.
Not everyone in the legal profession was born rich. I know barristers who grew up in Council estates. They are the exception. Many, many more attended the more expensive fee paying schools.

I don't think your perspective is especially logical. You seem to be saying that the awful situation faced by people in their first years at the Bar in Ireland is only impacting on rich kids so it's all good. But the only reason why it IS full of rich kids/people with money is because they are the only people who can afford to enter it because of the instability and debt it involves. So as long as you are saying that nobody should complain about it you are condoning a situation where people with money are the only people who can afford to be barristers. Personally I think it's appalling and something should be done to rectify it, if the Government recognises that people need over 8 euro an hour for work, how can it allow a situation where people live on much less for 2-5 years at the Bar? I am speaking as a trainee barrister in England, I couldn't face the debt so had no choice but to emigrate!

johnnyskeleton wrote:

This depends upon your definition of rich. Obviously you can't do it unless you have some money, but that is why a lot of people work part time jobs, tutor/lecture, write articles, save up before hand, take out big loans, live on their parents/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend's dollar for a few years. It is no more, nor less difficult financially than another year in college, so if you take a med student who does 6 years and then is treated badly for a few years, it is on a par with the bar if you do a 3 year degree, 1 year in KI, and 2 years of devilling.

It is not the case that only people who are independently rich can become barristers - if you are prepared to put up with a lot of risk, hard work, and have some family/friends who will buy you the odd pint, you can become one. In any case, the risk is not that great, because after 3-4 years you can either be established and pay off your loans, or you can leave the library and get a fairly high paying job as an in-house counsel.

Compared to America, where young professionals start off with loans of up to $200,000, or up to £50,000 in the UK, taking out a few grand loans for the first two years at the bar is a viable, and quite sensible, option. Consider it like a starting out in business loan.

So I do feel quite strongly that it is unfair to dismiss young barristers as rich (with subtle undertones that they don't deserve to be there), when the reality is that the majority are no richer than those entering any other profession.



Some things are being done; young barristers are allowed to work part time, the is the possibility that older barristers will be allowed to sub-contract out paid work to younger barristers (although I think this could ultimately backfire), and there is a fair amount of work out there, if you can get it, so it ain't all doom and gloom.



How is that working out for you? Was it hard to get a chambers? Is the competition as fierce as they make it out to be?

The main difference between England and Ireland is that pupils get paid, while devils don't. This has led to a situation where I believe somewhere between 50% and 75% of qualified barristers don't get a pupilage. Of those that do get a pupilage not all get tenancy in a chambers. So you might have a situation where you have to go off and do a masters, or work as a legal exec or something before hand. Or worse, you might work hard for a few years trying to be a barrister and then they say "sorry no, try somewhere else" and it's game over. This to me seems like a much more restrictive profession - you would need to get very good results from an Oxbridge college or some similar claim to fame.

So if the choice was between the English and Irish system, I still prefer the Irish one (unless having an Irish degree is like gold dust over there).

Johnny I think you have misinterpreted me. I was assuming for argument's sake that Jo King's general point about it being rich kids at the Bar who were "suffering" was accurate - I was merely intending to point out that if her premise for arguing that the situation is acceptable (i.e. All/most people at the trainee Bar are rich kids) was in fact correct then that would be good evidence for an argument that the situation was not in fact acceptable, i.e. her argument is illogical!

I didn't intend to agree with her, i.e. that all trainees at the Bar are rich kids, because I know that this is not the case, though I do think that the situation is a major disincentive to those without financial support. It is not as simple as being "like another year in college" - you have to pay your substantial Law Library fees and somehow pay for your King's Inns course too...furthermore nobody does only one year of devilling any more. My sister is at the Irish Bar so I do know what I'm talking about. Basically you can expect no money for the first two years, then very little money for the third, fourth and maybe fifth year, then IF YOU'RE LUCKY you start making plenty of money. But 75% of people drop out by this stage. And SO MANY people who might have been great barristers cannot take the financial risk. Part-time tutoring some evenings is not going to pay the bills.

Personally I think the English system is better in almost every conceivable way. Although it is difficult to get a pupillage, once you get one you are more than likely to get a tenancy somewhere, and once you have tenancy you are secure. Pupillages are based entirely on merit, whereas in Ireland there is just too much nepotism for my liking. In England there are people employed to get you work (clerks) and the people in your chambers, established barristers, bend over backwards to help you find your feet. You are welcomed in and guided by your Inn of Court (there are four). On top of that there are the generous training fees and the fact that the chambers have a vested interest in you being successful, such that they are not going to pay you just to have you making tea and photocopying every day (I have heard some horror stories from the Irish Bar...). It was only coming over here that I realised how much of a disgrace the Irish Bar is by comparison. It is a complete mess.


EDIT: In addition you always know where you are at the English Bar. You may not have a pupillage - if not you KNOW you have no pupillage and can get another job. Whereas in Ireland you have to take a chance on being in the successful 25% for several years.

maidhc wrote:

Lads, ye are giving the legal profession a bad name with these long posts!

I'd rather be long and right than short and wrong...:D

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Well, in another year of college you usually have to pay fees. I never said only one year of devilling, I said 2 (e.g. 3+1+2=6, the same time I believe it takes for an MD), although having a second year of devilling is discouraged by the Bar Council (due to the numbers entering).

Sure, but it's known that you haven't a hope in hell of making it in your second year, and that anyone with sense takes a second year of devilling.

It depends on how hard you work and how little you are prepared to live on. You probably won't make enough money to live the good life for the first few years, but you can scrape by.

Meh, depends - you won't make enough money for rent and living expenses unless you are living off someone else to some degree or working 7 days a week, especially having regard to the Law Library fees etc.

Would you care to share your experience? Did you have an Irish law degree or did you go to college in England? Did you still find it hard to get a chambers or did your Irish charm help in that regard?

Irish law degree, English master's. Everyone finds it hard to get a chambers but I did get one (well actually four offers) first go. Unfortunately charm doesn't count for an awful lot though I do have it in spades:D

I have heard that it is quite hard to get into a chambers, and that the oldboy network still exists. I take what you are saying, but only to a point; the amount of time and money it takes to get the extra qualifications that make you a desireable candidate could be, in my view, equated to 2 years of devilling.

I'm sorry but that's bull**** about the oldboy network, if anything being a white middle class English male counts against candidates as far as I can see. For starters, there are proportionally more ethnic minority candidates entering the Bar than there are in society. Blaming the "old boy network" sounds like sour grapes to me. It's just not the done thing any more. It's a meritocracy.

Don't know about you but I'd much rather have a further qualification than a year of my life spent photocopying for free...in addition the Inns over here are extremely generous and offer funding to about 25% of Bar students if they are good enough...

You know where you are in the Irish bar too, but knowing where you are is not very reassuring.

I mean that you don't know where you are in terms of your career - you don't know whether you are wasting your time or whether you will be one of the lucky minority who survives, whereas in England you're either in or you're out!

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Not necessarily, it's an open question. Some have a second year master and are glad, others are not. Some don't take a second year master and don't look back, others wish they had one.



You can survive on a few hours of good tutoring or lecturing, and can add a weekend job into the mix for that extra bit of certainty (note: I’m not sure whether you mean working 7 days a week as in 5 days barrister, 2 days part time, or if you mean 7 days part time). Also, it's not the case that you get absolutely no money from your barrister work in the first few years, but it is just not guaranteed. Most people in their second year start picking up a few bits and pieces. A few get lucky and get some nice brief fees.



Nice one, it certainly sounds like you had a better run of it than many others in England & Wales (even just looking at the statistics).



I don't think it is fair to base your argument that the English system is better because "Pupillages are based entirely on merit, whereas in Ireland there is just too much nepotism for my liking" but at the same time say there is no element of the oldboys network in England. I have heard that the chambers that use OLPAS tend to be fair, but some of the chambers that don't use it or only part use it still have that oldboys network attitude. So how is that significantly different to Ireland where:

a) people who are well connected usually land on their feet and
b) people who are good and enter anyways can do just as well?



Even those who say that they spend their whole time photocopying must be exaggerating - otherwise there would be no rainforest left. If you get a bad master it is unfortunate, but you can deal with it - write articles, go into court and watch others, get friendly with some more experienced barristers who don't have a devil of their own. But in my view, working is better than being in college, even if the work is not very interesting. Also, if it does all go pear shaped (as they say across the water), I think you are more employable if you have "worked" for 2 years as a devil, than if you had a 2 year masters or some equivalent.


I would have thought that is not the case: you do your BVC without knowing if you have a pupillage; you do your pupillage without knowing if you have a chambers; and if you do get in at that stage, I'm not sure that you are guaranteed much good work. At least in Ireland you can be a practising barrister if you want to be, even if your practice is not that great.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have consulted extensively with friends/relatives at the Irish Bar and they are adamant that I have done the right thing and are quite envious (but for various reasons haven't thought fit to emigrate themselves). I have been told that you are extremely unlikely to flourish in the second year without a master. I know you don't agree but I have been told and I trust my sources. In the first two years of devilling you make nothing, and you must still pay £5,000 in Law Library fees every year. Thereafter people generally struggle to find their feet for the next few years - a success story I know, who considers himself lucky, made 8,000 euro in his 3rd year, lots more than any of his mates, but that still left him breaking even when travel expenses, suits and Law Library fees were taken into account (and not even taking into account other living expenses/rent).

I don't think it is fair to base your argument that the English system is better because "Pupillages are based entirely on merit, whereas in Ireland there is just too much nepotism for my liking" but at the same time say there is no element of the oldboys network in England.

Ok that's a bit bizarre; "but at the same time..." ? My two propositions, ie there is virtually no nepotism at the English Bar, and the Irish Bar is infested with nepotism, are not in any way inconsistent, I don't know what point you are trying to make here. You simply disagree about whether or not there is nepotism at the English Bar (and with all due respect, I think I probably have more experience of it than you do though of course you are entitled to your opinion). I simply don't agree that there remains an old-boys network - 15 years ago perhaps, but now the Bar is desperate to shed itself of this image. I have had experience of both OLPAS and Non-OLPAS chambers and think it would be quite bizarre if there were such biases in non-OLPAS chambers but not OLPAS when OLPAS is merely the method of recruitment used by a chambers - all chambers remain governed by the Bar Council, and their members remain affiliated with the Inns of Court. It would make no sense at all, as non-OLPAS chambers are not distinct as a category from other chambers except that they use their own application forms, there is no sense in which they are more traditional/conservative, they are quite a mixed bag. Indeed most smaller immigration and civil liberties chambers, who are somewhat unlikely to favour white upper class toffs, are non-OLPAS.

Success at the Irish Bar depends so heavily on networking and getting your foot in the door - knowing and being related to the right people is obviously extremely helpful for this. I don't want to hang around for five years waiting until I've built up enough of a reputation for people to realise I'm good while people whose Daddies golf with the right people get a headstart.

As for knowing where you are - I've already stated my point of view, which I stand by, that is I would rather be in a properly paid job while seeking a pupillage than wasting several years of my life for no money. I know just how disheartened, disillusioned, depressed many of my friends have become - those who have stuck it out that is.

I also simply disagree that 2 years devilling experience makes you more employable than 2 years of post-graduate study. Relative to a master's, devilling doesn't add substantially to the Barrister-at-Law qualification in the eyes of employers. All it shows is that you tried and failed!

And as for you "not being sure that you are guaranteed much good work" - well you are clearly just taking a stab in the dark there, in many chambers there is actually an income guarantee, and in others you are pretty much guaranteed to make a reasonable income (unless in certain criminal chambers). The reason why it's so hard to get pupillage is because chambers only take on the number of people they can afford to sustain.

I'd be interested to know where you are coming from Johnny - I have yet to meet someone at the Irish Bar who would defend the Irish system.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

That's fair enough. Suffice it to say that I don't see any reason why the English Bar is more progressive than Ireland - don't judge's children become barristers there too? I also don't think it's about how much money you could make in another jurisdiction or in another job, but rather whether it is viable to become a barrister in Ireland without being independently rich. I think it is. Furthermore, either bar is a tough profession, and if the Irish bar is difficult to get into financially, I don't think it is correct to suggest that most young Irish Barristers have inherited wealth or something of the kind.

However, I would like to comment on a few futher points...



Where did you get this figure? The range is from about €1.5k in first year up to about €5.5k after 12 years. £5k (i.e. €7.35k) would be way too much, unless you take books out at the start of the year and never return them. My understanding is that in England, you pay rent to chambers when they take you on.



The whole point of anonymous posting is that it makes no difference who I am, what I do, or what I really think. An argument put forth will stand or fall on it's own merits. I could be the Lord Cheif Justice, or a pig farmer. But if you want to hear from someone at the Irish Bar who would defend the Irish system, what about this article? It is in relation to some of the proposals of the Irish Competition Authority, some of which make sense, but others really don't at all.

Okay well I will have to check on the Law Library fees (5K is what my sister told me - she may subsequently have found them to be less). However my point still stands - all outgoings, no income. I haven't even addressed the cost of suits, transport, food etc.

When I said someone at the Irish Bar I didn't mean someone who is well-established at the Bar and has no financial worries (e.g. the Chairman of the Bar Council!).

Some judges' children do become barristers over here - IF THEY ARE GOOD ENOUGH. They get work IF THEY ARE GOOD ENOUGH. Chambers will not take on anyone who is not good enough as they will be the ones subsidising that person! I am not proposing a ban on privileged people at the Bar, just a meritocracy. And I am not suggesting that all people at the Bar need to have rich parents - I'm suggesting that they need to live off somebody else or work themselves into the ground. I left Ireland for our Saxon Foe for God's sake! I love Ireland, but I couldn't face living with my parents until I was thirty. So having carefully considered my options i decided that it was not "viable". I am not some money-grabber, far from it, but I can't bear to be dependent on other people.

I just wondered where you are coming from because it seems from your inability to accept any of the merits of the English system or the drawbacks of the Irish system, both of which seem so clear to me, that you have an agenda.


Morbo: As for 75% - can't remember where I read that but I think it was the Irish Times a year or two ago. Even if that is slightly inflated, I do think 15% is significantly underrepresenting the dropout rate (could be the first year dropout rate maybe?) as my sister is 2 years out of King's Inns and already she knows that a good 40 people have dropped out (of a class of 120).