Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 06:08PM

hada wrote: »

oh and johnny: have you actually ever lived in a small rural town in Ireland? I'm sure if you were you'd see, that like (where I'm from), on every corner there is a legal practice of some sort, oftentimes having been established many many years ago by a family member who's lineage is still continued.

Where I live is beside the point, but I know of several solicitors who have successfully established practices for themselves in medium to large towns accross the country (and in Dublin). I can't speak for very small rural towns, but then again I never mentioned small rural towns.

hada wrote: »

if you were to walze into town, set up shop and expect suddenly to be creaming these guys in the legal market, you're kidding yourself.

Without mentioning names, there is a firm who did exactly that in Athlone a few years ago, and I'm sure it has happened before.

hada wrote: »

Hell even the example I give of the woman in my town setting up a private practice recently - 99% of my town (which is a rather large town) does not know she even exists, because she only deals with RTE, book publishers, and international organisations, not your local joe soap. I know I'm contradicting myself here, but most rural people couldn't give a fiddlers if you set up trained with McCanns, Linklaters or whoever, they need familiarity and consistency: two virtues a new practice cannot compete with in contrast to any (and there are plenty of them in towns around Ireland) half decent practice who's already established for a number of years.

But what about people who are from the town and who did their apprenticeship with an established firm in the town? Especially when they are involved in local politics or are already well known in the area?

This analogy of the apprentice fresh from a huge firm in Dublin setting up shop in Ballygobackwards seems ridiculous and it is. But there are much more rational ways to go about it. I'm also not saying that someone should expect to develop a practice overnight - it takes time for your name to become known. So if you do a good job for 3 clients in your first year of practice you might find that you get 10 clients back the next year. And if another firm is too busy or if there is a situation where independent legal advice or representatin is required, they might give work to you (especially if you know them from, for example, doing your training contract with them).

ronnie3585 · 10-08-2008 06:13PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It was 5 years yesterday

Don't patronise me please. I'm sure how long you have to have a practicing cert - I believe it to be in the region of 4/5 years. I'll check tomorrow and revert with the exact number of days required.

They're not exactly household names though, unlike a lot of the smaller firms that were started by one person going out on their own (e.g. Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan).

Within the profession the firms that were referred to in the legal500 link I posted are household names. Out of interest johnny are you a solicitor or a trainee? I've yet to meet someone in the profession wouldn't consider the big firms in Dublin a household name.

hada · 10-08-2008 06:42PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where I live is beside the point, but I know of several solicitors who have successfully established practices for themselves in medium to large towns accross the country (and in Dublin). I can't speak for very small rural towns, but then again I never mentioned small rural towns.

Established. Key inference being it took them years to do this.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Without mentioning names, there is a firm who did exactly that in Athlone a few years ago, and I'm sure it has happened before.

Reread my post. I said it is possible, but very unlikely. One firm doing such a thing a few years ago means nothing now, with the current number of solicitors and economic climate.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But what about people who are from the town and who did their apprenticeship with an established firm in the town? Especially when they are involved in local politics or are already well known in the area?

Too many variables here. I'm not a massive fan of politics and am well known among people of my own age group (like most people are) - but that age group is the very type of people who have gone travelling, working abroad, working in dublin, etc etc.. so useless to me.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This analogy of the apprentice fresh from a huge firm in Dublin setting up shop in Ballygobackwards seems ridiculous and it is. But there are much more rational ways to go about it. I'm also not saying that someone should expect to develop a practice overnight - it takes time for your name to become known. So if you do a good job for 3 clients in your first year of practice you might find that you get 10 clients back the next year. And if another firm is too busy or if there is a situation where independent legal advice or representatin is required, they might give work to you (especially if you know them from, for example, doing your training contract with them).

I'm an optimist johnny, always have been, but talk to solicitors in ANY town (as I have), from clare, to galway, mayo (even athlone) and they will give you this advice: Law is not exactly prospering at the moment, but if you're good enough, you will make it, therefore to maximise your chances, work with some of the dublin firms, see how you get on, and then come back to us (by that time any economic down turn will have surpassed and things should be green again). I mean, a hell of a lot normal everyday practices around the country aren't even taking on apprentices anymore!

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 06:46PM

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Within the profession the firms that were referred to in the legal500 link I posted are household names. Out of interest johnny are you a solicitor or a trainee? I've yet to meet someone in the profession wouldn't consider the big firms in Dublin a household name.

The solicitors are different to the firm. Just because the firm is a household name doesn't mean that the partners are well known at all. I stated that if you wanted to get a name for yourself, the best way to do this is as the principle or named partner of your own firm. I'm sure most solicitors could name 20 big dublin firms, but I'm also sure that very few would be able to name the senior partners, let alone the other solicitors.

As a side note, it doesn't really matter what I am or what I do. I could say that I'm the Chief Justice or I could be a janitor in the four courts who just happens to overhear legal talk on a daily basis. It doesn't add to or detract from what I am saying in any way, because you can either go out on your own or you cannot. There is an objectively correct answer and while I'm not 100% certain that you don't need 4/5 years holding a practising cert, I am confident that you don't.

ronnie3585 · 10-08-2008 07:07PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The solicitors are different to the firm. Just because the firm is a household name doesn't mean that the partners are well known at all. I stated that if you wanted to get a name for yourself, the best way to do this is as the principle or named partner of your own firm. I'm sure most solicitors could name 20 big dublin firms, but I'm also sure that very few would be able to name the senior partners, let alone the other solicitors.

This statement makes no sense. Partners and indeed solicitors in the big dublin firms are very well known, even more so than those that have set up on their own.

As a side note, it doesn't really matter what I am or what I do. I could say that I'm the Chief Justice or I could be a janitor in the four courts who just happens to overhear legal talk on a daily basis. It doesn't add to or detract from what I am saying in any way, because you can either go out on your own or you cannot.

I disagree. This thread was discussing the current state of play in this country with regard to trainees, jobs (or the lack there of) the attitude of the Law Society towards this situation and setting up on your own etc. Unless you are working within the profession seeing this stuff every day I don't feel you are really qualified to comment. I looks very different from the inside out.

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 07:09PM

hada wrote: »

Established. Key inference being it took them years to do this.

This is true, but you have to start somewhere.

hada wrote: »

Reread my post. I said it is possible, but very unlikely. One firm doing such a thing a few years ago means nothing now, with the current number of solicitors and economic climate.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but it sounded like you said that if I think it is possible that you could just waltz into a town and set up a firm that I was kidding myself. When I say a few years ago, it was about 2 or 3 if memory serves. Strangely enough, I don't think that now is any worse for someone starting off on their own; I think we are agreed that the opportunities are there for those of sufficient skill, and I think going out on your own is just another way of availing of those opportunities.

hada wrote: »

Too many variables here. I'm not a massive fan of politics and am well known among people of my own age group (like most people are) - but that age group is the very type of people who have gone travelling, working abroad, working in dublin, etc etc.. so useless to me.

I suppose you are right. There are too many variables to speculate as to the circumstances in which someone will start out on their own as a solicitor. The only point I wish to make though, is that it is possible, and it is possible to succeed given the right conditions. I think it goes without saying that now is not the time to set up a conveyancing only firm, but getting into a litigious area is not a bad idea to be honest.

hada wrote: »

I'm an optimist johnny, always have been, but talk to solicitors in ANY town (as I have), from clare, to galway, mayo (even athlone) and they will give you this advice: Law is not exactly prospering at the moment, but if you're good enough, you will make it, therefore to maximise your chances, work with some of the dublin firms, see how you get on, and then come back to us (by that time any economic down turn will have surpassed and things should be green again). I mean, a hell of a lot normal everyday practices around the country aren't even taking on apprentices anymore!

I've been accused of that myself, but the solicitors I speak to are very much of the view that conveyancing is dead, long live litigation. It's just a matter of changing focus. Obviously for many conveyancing was the mainstay of their practice, and was also a nicer way of making money than representing someone accused of a violent crime, but as I have said in other threads (and been equally opposed by dats_right) recession could well be the best thing for lawyers, litigation lawyers in particular. Family law, crime, insolvency, bankrupsy, repossession, breach of contract, bogus personal injury claims, employment are all growth areas, and also all the mistakes made during the boom in the property sector will come to light and will be litigated. There is already a queue forming in the commercial court for all the multimillion developer cases, and there will be more incentive to fight over the scraps during the recession. It's the end of an era for one sector of the legal industry, but the start of another glorious era in the less savoury areas of law.

Amazotheamazing · 10-08-2008 07:17PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I've been accused of that myself, but the solicitors I speak to are very much of the view that conveyancing is dead, long live litigation. It's just a matter of changing focus. Obviously for many conveyancing was the mainstay of their practice, and was also a nicer way of making money than representing someone accused of a violent crime, but as I have said in other threads (and been equally opposed by dats_right) recession could well be the best thing for lawyers, litigation lawyers in particular. Family law, crime, insolvency, bankrupsy, repossession, breach of contract, bogus personal injury claims, employment are all growth areas, and also all the mistakes made during the boom in the property sector will come to light and will be litigated. There is already a queue forming in the commercial court for all the multimillion developer cases, and there will be more incentive to fight over the scraps during the recession. It's the end of an era for one sector of the legal industry, but the start of another glorious era in the less savoury areas of law.

Great, why not just become all out pettifoggers?

ronnie3585 · 10-08-2008 07:46PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

as I have said in other threads (and been equally opposed by dats_right) recession could well be the best thing for lawyers, litigation lawyers in particular. Family law, crime, insolvency, bankrupsy, repossession, breach of contract, bogus personal injury claims, employment are all growth areas, and also all the mistakes made during the boom in the property sector will come to light and will be litigated. There is already a queue forming in the commercial court for all the multimillion developer cases, and there will be more incentive to fight over the scraps during the recession. It's the end of an era for one sector of the legal industry, but the start of another glorious era in the less savoury areas of law.

I think you're listen to too much Matt Cooper. There is no glorious era on the horizon for the legal profession. True, litigation has gone up primarily in the areas of debt collection, insolvency and corporate recovery however this increase in litigation has not been followed by a similar increase in solicitors fees.

One of the biggest problem is getting paid. The major problem with our economy is a simple lack of liquidity, cash is king and not a lot of people have it. A lot of the clients issuing proceedings for debt collect these days are only doing so as they have no money themselves and are doing it as a last resort. The person/company they are instigating the proceedings against also have no money. Judgement can be obtained but to what end? The likelihood is that the company will go into liquidation owing a stack of money the Revenue and other preferential secured creditors like the bank and the client's judgement is therefore worthless. The client is left with the original debt unpaid and on top of that the solicitor's Bill of Costs, which he is unable to pay because remember he has no money. The solicitor is left with a lot of wasted billable hours and a significant outlay with no prospect of payment. Bottom line - you can't get blood from a stone.

As has been stated by an above poster a lot of firms that always took on apprentices are no longer doing so. Many of the big firms won't be accepting applications until 2010/2011. It is now the case that most of the big firms will not be keeping up to 90% of their trainees once their indentures run out. Solicitors (conveyancing & litigation) are being let go every day of the week across the country. The good days are long gone and it will be a long time before and remanence of them will return.:(

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 07:56PM

ronnie3585 wrote: »

This statement makes no sense. Partners and indeed solicitors in the big dublin firms are very well known, even more so than those that have set up on their own.

It does make sense, you just don't agree with it. That's fine; I don't think that the solicitors in the big firms have big reputations in their own right - perhaps among others in their specialised areas, but generally they are not as well known personally as the sole practitioners. Put another way, virtually all the household name solicitors are named in their firm (Gerald Keane, Alan Shatter, Garrett Sheehan J., Michael Peart J., Michael Lynn (sorry couldn't resist), Ivor Fitzpatrick, Frank Buttimer). For all of these guys, their reputation was built up when they went out on their own, not before. I don't think we can find any objective middle ground, but it seems to me that the guys who set up their own firms are the most well known solicitors.

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I disagree. This thread was discussing the current state of play in this country with regard to trainees, jobs (or the lack there of) the attitude of the Law Society towards this situation and setting up on your own etc. Unless you are working within the profession seeing this stuff every day I don't feel you are really qualified to comment. I looks very different from the inside out.

Ok, my name is Johnny Lyotta Murray S.C. CJ., so by definition I know more about the Irish legal system than anybody else. Do you see the problem here? I'm not the Chief Justice, by the way, my point is that in an anonymous forum you can say that you are whoever you want to be. If I say I'm the Chief Justice, or a top solicitor, does that make my view more valid than yours? No, the only way in which views can be tested on boards.ie is by objective scrutiny.

I also disagree that only solicitors are qualified to comment on this thread.

I also suspect that if I were to say, for example, that I have just finished my FE1s and am starting blackhall this year, you would go "Aha, well I just finished PPCII therefore my views are better than yours". It doesn't work like that.

ronnie3585 · 10-08-2008 08:11PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I also disagree that only solicitors are qualified to comment on this thread.

I also suspect that if I were to say, for example, that I have just finished my FE1s and am starting blackhall this year, you would go "Aha, well I just finished PPCII therefore my views are better than yours". It doesn't work like that.

Mate, I'm not trying to get into a pissing competition with you. The point I was trying to make is that today's legal profession is much different than as it is portrayed in the media. To get a real feel for it you need to be working in it. I'm not trying to say that people outside of the profession don't have a valid opinion, of course they do. It's just that it's not as simple as the argument that the 'cream will rise' to the top and any good solicitor will get a job. This is not the case anymore and those working within the profession will understand it more than most.

hada · 10-08-2008 08:14PM

On a side note, I think the fact that we're actually having this discussion means that, at least for now, there are actually some people passionate about practising in the legal sector, a lot of my counterparts have lost complete interest/just going through the motions without even reaching the finishing line - that I cannot understand.

Oh and on the boards the person with the most posts would get most clout - johnny...duh!

not to be the eternal abritrator, I really think we should get back to advising the OP?

There are jobs out there, not the kind of jobs that suit everyone (litigation, PIAB-esque, employment, defamation (anything to do with libel nowadays is gold), etc etc.. If you are finding it hard to pin a job down in Dublin, do not be afraid to look elsewhere, since you've done the PPC I and II you should have trained with a firm already, that is counted as experience (how valuable depends on the type of firm/training itself). If you want to go into opening a firm on your own, I would (as would johnny..) warn you against it's serious pitfalls - but of course, it could be one of the most rewarding things you do, if not very risky.

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 08:35PM

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I think you're listen to too much Matt Cooper. There is no glorious era on the horizon for the legal profession. True, litigation has gone up primarily in the areas of debt collection, insolvency and corporate recovery however this increase in litigation has not been followed by a similar increase in solicitors fees.

I don't know who Matt Cooper is, I was referring to the Courts services report of last year which showed an increase in litigation. I also refer to the rising crime rate (still low by international standards, but we're catching up) and marital breakdowns (ditto).

I know you like to know who said what, so I'll tell you that a friend of mine who was a senior corporate insolvency partner in a large Dublin firm told me that in the 80s they did a roaring trade, and then in the 90s it dropped off a bit. He seems to think that this could be on the cards again. As for being paid, a good solicitor will always get paid, whether by asking for money down or by pursuing his clients.

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 08:40PM

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Mate, I'm not trying to get into a pissing competition with you. The point I was trying to make is that today's legal profession is much different than as it is portrayed in the media. To get a real feel for it you need to be working in it. I'm not trying to say that people outside of the profession don't have a valid opinion, of course they do. It's just that it's not as simple as the argument that the 'cream will rise' to the top and any good solicitor will get a job. This is not the case anymore and those working within the profession will understand it more than most.

But yes you are trying to get into a pissing competition with me. The slant you are taking is that my views are not valid because I don't disclose who I am or what I do, and that your views are better because by implication you are in the profession, so to speak.

I don't see why you can't say why you think it's not as simple as the cream will rise to the top. Simply saying it's complicated, trust me, doesn't cut it. I don't think it is as simple as that either, mainly because in addition to being a good solicitor, you have to have the balls to make risky decisions. Going out on your own is a gutsy move, but if it works out it pays out in far more than money. You get to be your own boss.

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2008 08:43PM

hada wrote: »

On a side note, I think the fact that we're actually having this discussion means that, at least for now, there are actually some people passionate about practising in the legal sector, a lot of my counterparts have lost complete interest/just going through the motions without even reaching the finishing line - that I cannot understand.

Oh and on the boards the person with the most posts would get most clout - johnny...duh!

not to be the eternal abritrator, I really think we should get back to advising the OP?

Methinks there will always be a job for hada in alternative dispute resolution.

hada wrote: »

There are jobs out there, not the kind of jobs that suit everyone (litigation, PIAB-esque, employment, defamation (anything to do with libel nowadays is gold), etc etc.. If you are finding it hard to pin a job down in Dublin, do not be afraid to look elsewhere, since you've done the PPC I and II you should have trained with a firm already, that is counted as experience (how valuable depends on the type of firm/training itself). If you want to go into opening a firm on your own, I would (as would johnny..) warn you against it's serious pitfalls - but of course, it could be one of the most rewarding things you do, if not very risky.

Well said. However, I think the OP has probably been scared off already.

bills · 11-08-2008 04:47PM

i have just come across this thread-very interesting!! I have a law degree & fe-1s under my belt but just could not get a training contract. I have to agree with most of the criticism of the law society. i have not read all the posts. I dont think much of the law society.I have spent years doing a law degree & then studying for the fe-1s and at the end of the day- its been a waste of time!! they should be helping people get training contracts & encouraging solicitors to take on trainees. They dont care. They just take your money & eventually you pass the fe-1s. I mean i think you should at least get a certificate or some some sort of formal recognition for passing fe-1s. Im not saying they owe me a training contract but of course i feel disheartened after working really hard for a career in law & it has not happened- just could not find a training contract.

dats_right · 13-08-2008 10:29AM

My understanding is that once a admitted to the Roll of Solicitors and in possession of a practising certificate that there is no restriction or rule prohibiting setting up in practice. Which essentially means that as soon as one is qualified one is free to set up in practice immediately. Whether that would be wise or practical is another matter entirely.

I also understand that whilst you can set up in practice immediately, it would not be possible to take on any apprentices until you have been a practising solicitor for at least five years.

Nyall · 14-08-2008 12:32PM

looking4advice wrote: »

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's.

I've just stumbled upon this thread myself and felt compelled to refer back to this absolutely non-sensical, petty post by 'looking4advice' - 'looking4lobotomy' would be more apt. I got full marks in my leaving and chose a course that needed nowhere near that number of points. After that course i did the FE-1s and started Blachall. The very fact of me having a non-law degree is, i'm largely convinced what got me my apprenticeship. That and the fact that I have some semblance of a personality...The fact of acheiving 500+ points in the leaving Cert is by no stretch of the imagination going to make one a good solicitor.
In any profession the cream rises to the Top so if you're not confident enough that you're in that category maybe you should consider leaving Law to those (with or without a BCL) who are more concerned with becoming good lawyers than whinging about the Law Society being mean to them.

dats_right · 14-08-2008 03:40PM

100% agree with you Nyall.

Anyway, no job and don't want to set up in practice? Well, another option for those newly qualifieds is to fill in the application form pay the fee and be admitted to the Roll in England and Wales and go live & practice in the UK for a year or two.

Amazotheamazing · 14-08-2008 04:49PM

I'm surprised no one has bothered too much with the fact that the FE's are too easy and blackhall is a jokeshop when it comes to exams. Barriers to trade, people, barriers to trade.

McCrack · 14-08-2008 05:50PM

Nyall wrote: »

looking4advice wrote: »

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's.

I've just stumbled upon this thread myself and felt compelled to refer back to this absolutely non-sensical, petty post by 'looking4advice' - 'looking4lobotomy' would be more apt. I got full marks in my leaving and chose a course that needed nowhere near that number of points. After that course i did the FE-1s and started Blachall. The very fact of me having a non-law degree is, i'm largely convinced what got me my apprenticeship. That and the fact that I have some semblance of a personality...The fact of acheiving 500+ points in the leaving Cert is by no stretch of the imagination going to make one a good solicitor.
In any profession the cream rises to the Top so if you're not confident enough that you're in that category maybe you should consider leaving Law to those (with or without a BCL) who are more concerned with becoming good lawyers than whinging about the Law Society being mean to them.

Your post isnt clear. There seems a contradiction in it. One the one hand your saying students who score massively in their leaving should be allowed after completing their BCL or BBLS apply to sit the FE1's straight away despite as you say there is no guarantee they will make good practitioners and then those whos degree is non law related or less worthy in your opinion should not be allowed apply directly but should instead be made sit some sort of a post-grad dip. in law and then presumably study for the FE1's and pass them?

Nonsense.

Some of the best lawyers (Solicitors & Counsel) and indeed judges did not study law at undergrad. Their degrees were in a variety of diciplines.
It's not correct to equate high academic achievement at school (500+pts.) with a good lawyer. One doesnt guarantee the other, and I'm speaking from personal experience. I've seen both sides.

The present system is in my opinion favourable. Sure look at the debacle that happened around 1995 with Bloomer v Law Society. It's simple economics, supply & demand, the market will dictate and so it should, not the Law Society of Ireland.

McCrack · 14-08-2008 05:52PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I'm surprised no one has bothered too much with the fact that the FE's are too easy and blackhall is a jokeshop when it comes to exams. Barriers to trade, people, barriers to trade.

Somehow I believe you're taking the piss with that whole statement.

Slartibartfast · 14-08-2008 06:14PM

dats_right wrote: »

100% agree with you Nyall.

Anyway, no job and don't want to set up in practice? Well, another option for those newly qualifieds is to fill in the application form pay the fee and be admitted to the Roll in England and Wales and go live & practice in the UK for a year or two.

As a person who is funnily enough in that situation, how much of a crossover is there between the legal systems? Having trained in Ireland would it take you long to adapt to the English system?. It could come to that yet if something deosn't crop up soon. Also, would there not be the same problem over there of high numbers qualifying?

Amazotheamazing · 14-08-2008 06:32PM

McCrack wrote: »

Somehow I believe you're taking the piss with that whole statement.

You can if you want, but the FE's are easy exams, whether it's the 1's or 2's.

Imo, they are too easy, since the standard of teaching in Blackhall is so poor. When was the alst time you heard of someone failing a year in blackhall for example?

ronbyrne2005 · 14-08-2008 11:12PM

Boo Hoo, the days of easy money and little competition are over. Get over it. Loads of avenues out there for you to become a lawyer or do something else. My solicitor could'nt get work in late 80s and went to canada for several yrs to get experience and now has his own practise on the quays beside high court. If theres too many lawyers people will stop doing law degrees and numbers doing FEs will drop too in time and market will dictate new level of lawyers required and renumeration they will receive.
I watched a documentary about the Nigerian legal system recently .The still wear the wigs etc like the irish and british systems and they had it bloody hard. Get over it. Do something else or become the best or go to uk/canada/australia/usa.

McCrack · 14-08-2008 11:17PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

You can if you want, but the FE's are easy exams, whether it's the 1's or 2's.

Imo, they are too easy, since the standard of teaching in Blackhall is so poor. When was the alst time you heard of someone failing a year in blackhall for example?

Well as your username suggests you must be amazing yourself, an exception if you will. I would quite confidently say that the majority of the hundreds of people who sit down in the RDS every Spring and Autumn would not agree that they are a walk in the park.
As for the PPC exams I would agree they are more manageable but still an effort is needed...like anything in life.

Nyall · 15-08-2008 09:45AM

McCrack wrote: »

Nyall wrote: »

Your post isnt clear. There seems a contradiction in it. One the one hand your saying students who score massively in their leaving should be allowed after completing their BCL or BBLS apply to sit the FE1's straight away despite as you say there is no guarantee they will make good practitioners and then those whos degree is non law related or less worthy in your opinion should not be allowed apply directly but should instead be made sit some sort of a post-grad dip. in law and then presumably study for the FE1's and pass them?

Nonsense.

Some of the best lawyers (Solicitors & Counsel) and indeed judges did not study law at undergrad. Their degrees were in a variety of diciplines.
It's not correct to equate high academic achievement at school (500+pts.) with a good lawyer. One doesnt guarantee the other, and I'm speaking from personal experience. I've seen both sides.

The present system is in my opinion favourable. Sure look at the debacle that happened around 1995 with Bloomer v Law Society. It's simple economics, supply & demand, the market will dictate and so it should, not the Law Society of Ireland.

McCrack - you misunderstand me - the first part of my message above was in fact quoting the very first post on this thread - the second paragraph is my actual comment on it - the 'quote' box didn't appear on my post in the normal way - look at it again and it makes sense

El Stuntman · 15-08-2008 11:40AM

If there's one thing Ireland needs, it's more lawyers :rolleyes:

good luck with your professional endeavours OP, I think you'll find that outside of college\exams, talent will always rise to to the top

BehindTheScenes · 15-08-2008 05:41PM

bills wrote: »

I have spent years doing a law degree & then studying for the fe-1s and at the end of the day- its been a waste of time!! they should be helping people get training contracts & encouraging solicitors to take on trainees. They dont care. They just take your money & eventually you pass the fe-1s. I mean i think you should at least get a certificate or some some sort of formal recognition for passing fe-1s. Im not saying they owe me a training contract but of course i feel disheartened after working really hard for a career in law & it has not happened- just could not find a training contract.

(a) I have a friend who has a masters in history. He can't get a job in academia and I have never heard him refer to it as being a waste of time.

(b) I genuinely pity you as a human being if you feel that gaining an education within law has been a waste of time. The reward of education is the knowledge itself not a job.

(c) Would a certificate raise your self esteem even if you had no job?

dats_right wrote: »

My understanding is that once a admitted to the Roll of Solicitors and in possession of a practising certificate that there is no restriction or rule prohibiting setting up in practice. Which essentially means that as soon as one is qualified one is free to set up in practice immediately. Whether that would be wise or practical is another matter entirely.

I also understand that whilst you can set up in practice immediately, it would not be possible to take on any apprentices until you have been a practising solicitor for at least five years.

Dats right, dats_right.

Nyall wrote: »

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's.

Alert the biologists, someone needs to look at the genome sequence of the affected offspring to recommend if procreating in the future is advisable or not.;)

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Boo Hoo, the days of easy money and little competition are over. Get over it. Loads of avenues out there for you to become a lawyer or do something else. My solicitor could'nt get work in late 80s and went to canada for several yrs to get experience and now has his own practise on the quays beside high court. If theres too many lawyers people will stop doing law degrees and numbers doing FEs will drop too in time and market will dictate new level of lawyers required and renumeration they will receive.
I watched a documentary about the Nigerian legal system recently .The still wear the wigs etc like the irish and british systems and they had it bloody hard. Get over it. Do something else or become the best or go to uk/canada/australia/usa.

I completely agree. As an aside, I also watched that documentary and it was excellent.

McCrack · 15-08-2008 06:43PM

To be fair Behindthescenes I made the same mistake re Nyall. See his reply #57. As regards your own posting you do not seem to have any point whatsoever except to quote others.

bills · 15-08-2008 09:57PM

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

(a) I have a friend who has a masters in history. He can't get a job in academia and I have never heard him refer to it as being a waste of time.

(b) I genuinely pity you as a human being if you feel that gaining an education within law has been a waste of time. The reward of education is the knowledge itself not a job.

(c) Would a certificate raise your self esteem even if you had no job?

i dont need your pity behindthescenes- i was merely given my opinion. Yes i feel very bitter because i have worked very hard & unfortunately a career in law has not worked out for me. Of course, i know this is partly my fault etc. For instance, i am not willing to go to England etc. I certainly learned a lot from my law degree and enjoyed studying it immensely. At the moment, i feel its a waste as im not working in law or using my degree so i feel its a waste in that way. I put in a lot of work for my fe-1s & travelled from the west up to dublin.The fe-1s expire after 5 years and i just feel there should be some recognition for the work i put in. I suppose I feel i have worked hard & am just disappointed it has not worked out. Thats my opinion & fair enough if people slate it but i dont need your pity.

Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

Comments