Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

Maximilian · 20-08-2008 06:06PM

Alright, let's play nice & veer back on-topic

johnnyskeleton · 20-08-2008 06:29PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Not really, but I might hire some unemployed Barristers to do it.

I'm sorry to go off topic again, but I feel that I should say a few words in favour of barristers, who appear to be a very malinged social group in the Legal Discussion forum at the moment.

First off, young barristers aren't unemployed, and they can't sign on at the dole queue while still practising as a barrister. Some barristers are very busy and well paid, others are not so but find that the rewards of being their own boss and doing a job they enjoy outweigh the financial downside.

Even barristers who leave practice are often very successful. Indeed, it is possible that there will be many barristers leaving the library to become solicitors or other legal professionals, and this increases the downward pressure on the employment prospects for newly qualified solicitors. However, I don't think you can blame them for this.

I find this attitude that barristers are a ready supply of cheap labour to be unfair, and no doubt offensive to barristers. While it might be tongue in cheek, it has become so common place to say such things about barristers (young barristers in particular) that it could lead to a generally held perception that barristers are a bunch of nogoodnicks. I think this is far from the truth.

Finally, is it appropriate to make comments about unemployed barristers when the thread is about unemployed solicitors? While many young barristers might be badly paid, they are still working; the first few years at the bar could be seen as a loss-leader for their future career. However, when I suggested earlier that young solicitors who have not secured employement in another firm could start up their own firm, I was met with a high level of hostility.

krd · 20-08-2008 07:34PM

Don't go knocking the dole, me and some of my friends have had some very good times on the dole. The gutter, these days, seems to be full of bums and barristers (but all them gazing towards the stars).

I have no legal background, and you're possibly one of the people who calls the garda when you see me walking through *******.

I am older, nastier and more dishonest then you. I know the hell these kids who've worked so hard for their qualifications are going through when it's all turning to ****. (crying secretly in their little beds,,, the terrible feeling they've disapointed their parents,,).

I'm not taking a sadistic pleasure from others misfortune. I do think bad times can be character building, and make people nicer in the long run. Personal misfortune can make people more humane and empthatic. It can be a useful rite of passage.

You may find my opinions noxious. But have you considered, I may find some of your weltschaung satanic and predatory.

And have you ever had the clap,,,,was it useful?

Amazotheamazing · 20-08-2008 07:45PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sorry to go off topic again, but I feel that I should say a few words in favour of barristers, who appear to be a very malinged social group in the Legal Discussion forum at the moment.

First off, young barristers aren't unemployed, and they can't sign on at the dole queue while still practising as a barrister. Some barristers are very busy and well paid, others are not so but find that the rewards of being their own boss and doing a job they enjoy outweigh the financial downside.

Even barristers who leave practice are often very successful. Indeed, it is possible that there will be many barristers leaving the library to become solicitors or other legal professionals, and this increases the downward pressure on the employment prospects for newly qualified solicitors. However, I don't think you can blame them for this.

I find this attitude that barristers are a ready supply of cheap labour to be unfair, and no doubt offensive to barristers. While it might be tongue in cheek, it has become so common place to say such things about barristers (young barristers in particular) that it could lead to a generally held perception that barristers are a bunch of nogoodnicks. I think this is far from the truth.

Finally, is it appropriate to make comments about unemployed barristers when the thread is about unemployed solicitors? While many young barristers might be badly paid, they are still working; the first few years at the bar could be seen as a loss-leader for their future career. However, when I suggested earlier that young solicitors who have not secured employement in another firm could start up their own firm, I was met with a high level of hostility.

It was a joke reference to my first post (iirc) on this thread.

To be honest, perhaps it's my personal bias coming through, I know plenty of young Barristers who think they should be Judges but don't know the first thing about the law except that they think it's a highly respectable thing to do with their time. Much the same as young solicitors I guess.

I think we're educating law students in this country to export them. Nothing I've seen in the last few years has changed my opinion on this.

krd · 20-08-2008 07:51PM

hada wrote: »

My advise to you is, please don't make this your happy hunting ground to make a mockery of the whole forum with posting of how you'd enjoy to see NQ Barristers on the dole line, etc. We all have opinions, good or bad as they might seem to be, and feel free to post them, but try and be a little more prudent in your delivery of them. Especially if the opinions are about as useful as the clap.

Sorry I forgot to ad Hada's quote to my last post

elgransenor · 20-08-2008 07:53PM

krd wrote: »

Don't go knocking the dole, me and some of my friends have had some very good times on the dole. The gutter, these days, seems to be full of bums and barristers (but all them gazing towards the stars).

I have no legal background, and you're possibly one of the people who calls the garda when you see me walking through *******.

I am older, nastier and more dishonest then you. I know the hell these kids who've worked so hard for their qualifications are going through when it's all turning to ****. (crying secretly in their little beds,,, the terrible feeling they've disapointed their parents,,).

I'm not taking a sadistic pleasure from others misfortune. I do think bad times can be character building, and make people nicer in the long run. Personal misfortune can make people more humane and empthatic. It can be a useful rite of passage.

You may find my opinions noxious. But have you considered, I may find some of your weltschaung satanic and predatory.

And have you ever had the clap,,,,was it useful?

krd,
your world view re careers and labour market seems to be predicated only on the maximum amount of money you can acquire.
Some of us look at things differently as we find that helping people with problems in the workplace,with landlords,with purchasing a first home/business/shop/hairdressers is not a bad way to make a living.
Clearly you enjoyed your time on the dole and seem to be a closet street sweeper/hgv driver..............what ever floats your boat I suppose.

Johnny Utah · 20-08-2008 09:03PM

EC1000 wrote: »

Johnny Utah - not getting involved in your debate but wanted to inform you how the CAO points are calculated. Its absolutely nothing to do with setting a high barrier to entry or regulating the profession - its just simple maths. If there are 100 places in a course, the points for the course will be the number of points that the 100 placed applicant received - you are mistaken in your post to think you can control demand - that is decided by society - its supply that decides the points..... economics 101

Gee, thanks for informing me. But, tell me this; who sets the number of places?

EDIT: sorry, my previous post made it look like I was questioning how points were calculated. I know how the cao points system works. Rather, my previous post was questioning why there are such a small number of places available for certain courses.

krd wrote: »

Yes, I am serious. Law graduates wouldn't be the first group to wake up one day, after years of hardwork, and realise they've been duped.
You have been shafted. Ireland is that kind of place. You have been made a fool of -- a full clean driving license is worth more then a degree. A hgv license is worth more then a phD. Before deregulation, the average taxi driver earned far more then the average barrister. (do you know in your heart why?)

If you didn't have the social connections to get you good spot after graduating then you were foolish. It's not about hard work, It's not about how good you are. You probably thought you were joining a club where you'd be protected, and get a chance to shaft the livestock. But it's an invitation only club. And if you not in the club, you're in the barn.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say my heart really goes out to anyone who's worked very hard only to be so poorly compensated. I have seen people kill themselves with disillusionment.

In case your interested, the last time I checked, the starting salary for street sweeping was 33K.

All that glisters is not gold.

+1, In fairness this poster talks a lot of sense. For law graduates to go through all the exams and years of study, only to be left with two choices of either the dole queue or emmigration, is a bitter pill to swallow. I feel like I have been duped, and there are hundreds of more law/fe1 graduates in my position.

Ireland is a pretty sick country when you analyse it thoroughly. It tries to portray itself as a modern, first world country, but scratch the surface just a little and corruption isn't far away.

Maximilian wrote: »

Every walk of life is affected by the economic climate. I saw plumbers etc mentioned above. They are no less affected - something like 10,000 people involved in the construction industry - including tradesmen - were laid off after the last August Bank Holiday weekend alone.

So yes, things are in turmoil at the moment in the legal profession. Some big firms have laid off staff however, there are jobs in areas such as debt recovery for example, which is now exploding after many quiet years.

I feel terrible for people entering the profession at the moment, not least for the 2 trainees in my office but that's just the way it is. I don't think the Law Society or King's Inns have mishandled anything as far as this issue goes.

I strongly disagree. Both institutions accepted (and still are accepting) way too many people onto the professional training courses. The dogs on the street could have told you two years ago that the demand for newly qualified solicitors wasn't going to continue. The Law Society have completely ignored this issue and have been only too happy to take more and more money off people at every viable opportunity. That's pretty irresponsible to put it mildly.

McCrack · 20-08-2008 10:42PM

KRD reading your posts and posts you have made elsewhere on different threads I can only but come to the conclusion that you have a serious chip on your shoulder about a lot of things and not just lawyers whom you have referred to as "venal social parasites". I take any of your comments with a pinch of salt.
I suspect you didnt make the grade academically so to speak or failed at something that was important to you in life and consequently have serious chip?

The audacity of some of your comments is actually a little amusing. Keep it up.

Secondly my two-pence on this is and I've said this before and re-state it here, Simple economics of supply and demand, the economy will dictate the sustainable number of lawyers not the respective professional educational & representative bodies. Cast your minds back to 1995 when the Bloomer decision was reported and what a pickle that caused.
This might seem over-simplyfied but it's the basis for anything in an economy.

nuac · 20-08-2008 10:58PM

Practising law is hard stressful work. If you still have time think of doing something else. Talk to someone you know working in the legal arena.

Ignore what the media report about earnings.

Maximilian · 20-08-2008 11:33PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I strongly disagree. Both institutions accepted (and still are accepting) way too many people onto the professional training courses. The dogs on the street could have told you two years ago that the demand for newly qualified solicitors wasn't going to continue. The Law Society have completely ignored this issue and have been only too happy to take more and more money off people at every viable opportunity. That's pretty irresponsible to put it mildly.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong there, although I can understand why you feel that way. It is not the function of either body to limit or control the numbers qualifying. That's for the market to decide. In fact, they would likely end up in hot water if they attempted to do so. If more people want to pursue a legal career than the market needs, how is that their fault? Who are they to tell people they can't pursue a career because there's not enough jobs.

Worldismyidea · 21-08-2008 01:05AM

The two institutions have cannot place limitations on places; if they did, the Competition Authority would go ape. The fact of the matter is that you now have to compete for work and some people don't like that. Half of me has sympathy for those who went into this thinking it was a safe choice; the other half, however, thinks that they deserve the shock for such complacency. Saying you need family in law to get by is a cliché and misrepresents the industry as it is now. Family won't save the incompetent or even the barely competent, especially now there are so many lawyers competing for the work. Clients are much pickier, and much less deferential, nowadays. They will not settle for just anybody.

If you find that you only tolerate law or that it doesn't really hold your interest, then you should look elsewhere because it's pointless to do something you don't enjoy. The skills you pick up during your law degree will transfer into other areas so don't be disheartened.

As to the availability of work:

Litigation is counter-cyclical. Currently, we are in a downturn. Conveyancing has dropped dramatically and, as a result, a number of conveyancing reliant firms have had to drop their trainees. Other firms are getting along fine: insolvency, repossessions, crime, and redundancies are all up. All of these require lawyers. I know of a firm (name withheld) who didn't have an insolvency department until a few months ago; they now have twelve to fifteen persons working in it. The work doesn't go down so much as it changes. Some firms just don't have the ability to adjust.

Anyone telling you to go the spark/plumber/brickie route is talking crap. These are the same people who the government are talking about needing to retrain. These are the same people who might just bankrupt the country when they all have to claim job benefit over the next couple of months. We are not going to see the same level of property development in this country for many years.

As for the Articulated Truck driver job, the comparison is facile. You need 2 years experience. I wouldn't call that entry level. By comparison, I saw a Corporate solicitor position advertised a while back: they wanted 3 -5 yrs PQE but the salary was 80 - 100k. The job was in Kilkenny so it wasn't necessarily with a big Dublin firm (the ad didn't state who it was with). There are plenty of jobs for solicitors with 2 - 3 yrs PQE.

maninasia · 21-08-2008 05:11AM

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Sure, but tie that in with the comment above with other medical schools railing against the introduction of a Medicine course in UL; fact is (or appears to be) that there was significant lobbying to control the amount of people becoming doctors. I don't doubt that UL can establish a faculty of Medical types just as eminently qualified as any other medical school. I'd have thought (but pardon my naivity) that diagnosing a burst appendix is diagnosing a burst appendix, whether its taught in a college with 300 years of history or just 3.
Now playing: U2 - Paint It Black
via FoxyTunes

Absolutely. The profession of law was always a protected profession. When I was 17 I worked briefly for a Dublin solicitor as a gopher basically and saw how he they were minting it with insurance cases, which involved settling out of court for +90% of the cases. The actual work itself was him doing a case report , getting doctors notes, me running up and down to the district court getting documents stamped, a few letters of correspondance from both sides and then an invoice to the insurance company. Repeat ad infinitum. I'm aware that's mostly been done away with but the same thing could be said for conveyancing etc. More students, less work, more competition, the public win.

There is no God given reason the lawyers (why do we have solicitors and barristers can anyone tell me except to double charge) and doctors should have a closed membership or limit the number of students studying such courses. This has almost NO benefit to society as a whole. It creates a high cost for the public and also leads many students who are not suited to it to go for it purely for the money and the supposed exclusivity.
There is no reason at all medical student numbers should be limited and it's a relatively simple thing to set up a medical department for training medical students in any developed country. Requiring students to get 590 points is actually counter productive as it's choosing people on one very limited criteria, their ability to swot for an exam and also people who funds to get grinds and repeat.

The round-about excuses as to why these two professions should be different than any other (engineers, scientists, taxi-drivers, teachers), sorry I just don't believe it. Is it because they are smarter or more up to date. I don't think so in a lot of cases, most GPs could hardly even tell you what is a gene or a protein and don't use scientific methods for testing. Many, many students from different backgrounds these days also do post-graduate courses and have extra skills and don't expect any exclusive walk in salary just because they studied for a long time.

Maximilian · 21-08-2008 09:22AM

Its probably worth mentioning as well that a couple of years ago when the Competition Authority investigated the legal profession, one of the things they were investigating was whether it was limiting numbers and thereby distorting competition.

johnnyskeleton · 22-08-2008 10:58PM

Worldismyidea wrote: »

Litigation is counter-cyclical. Currently, we are in a downturn. Conveyancing has dropped dramatically and, as a result, a number of conveyancing reliant firms have had to drop their trainees. Other firms are getting along fine: insolvency, repossessions, crime, and redundancies are all up. All of these require lawyers. I know of a firm (name withheld) who didn't have an insolvency department until a few months ago; they now have twelve to fifteen persons working in it. The work doesn't go down so much as it changes. Some firms just don't have the ability to adjust.

Damn straight.

maninasia wrote:

Requiring students to get 590 points is actually counter productive as it's choosing people on one very limited criteria, their ability to swot for an exam and also people who funds to get grinds and repeat.

You said it.

i've never heard two finer advocates of the free market.

dazza21ie · 24-08-2008 12:30PM

I agree that too many people are qualifying into both professions currently. However, i disagree with those who argue that these numbers should be limited in the future. I know that this comes from people concerned about their own careers and i am one of those people concerned that after years of hard work, thousands and thousands of financial investment and many sacrificies that there is no guaranteed job at the end of the road.

However I cannot support the arguement that the numbers should be restricted in any way because this will only return the profession to the dark ages where you can only enter if you come from a legal or well connected family. The current system is by no means perfect but at least it is close to a level playing field. If you are good enough you will get in. If you are good enough you will succeed within the profession.

The only thing that i can do from now on to help myself is to work hard. For those who are not prepared to work the legal profession is not for you.

Gangu · 08-09-2008 10:44PM

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.

That is right. Note the cost of funding insurance for a NQ setting up in practice, the capital to fund a start up firm, marketing, leasing property getting software required to run the business, etc etc and then tell me how many 24 yr old NQ are able to set up in practice

dazza21ie · 09-09-2008 10:08AM

Gangu wrote: »

That is right. Note the cost of funding insurance for a NQ setting up in practice, the capital to fund a start up firm, marketing, leasing property getting software required to run the business, etc etc and then tell me how many 24 yr old NQ are able to set up in practice

I don't think there will be many 24 yr olds in the country that have qualified as a solicitor as the average age would be much older than this.

EC1000 · 09-09-2008 11:39AM

24!!!!!!! I wish! I think you will find that these are the sort of concerns that apply to every new business start up and are not confined to the solicitor profession. Like all new businesses, if you want it badly enought, these concerns will not phase you.....

krd · 10-09-2008 12:33AM

It rolls on and on and on.

I don't know what your all so worried about.. If it was easy, it wouldn't be so much fun.

I'd like to walk into some of the people who owe me money and say "You can either pay up,, or I will unleash my young solicitor, who hasn't eaten in a month on you............pay me and they get the chicken baguette I promised them,,, don't pay me,, and they eat your fat greasy leg............What's it gonna be punk,, feelin lucky?" -- I needn't have a legal leg to stand on,, it just depends how much they want to keep theirs.

Where there's quick money to be made at the moment, is "helping" people who've been gipped on redundancy... Lot of it going around,,, like a flu

Social welfare.. People unfamilar with the system, being told they're ineligible for certain benefits when they actually are (and the word on the Strasse is the ministers have put the word down to shaft the clueless -- keep the figures down --- like how they reduce hospital waiting times (put pressure on the doctors and hospitals to deny treatment))

(I know it's not quick and easy like conveyancing -- but them days is gone

There's so much to do.

In my wallet, I carry a match book I got in los Angeles. It's got a flamingo and dayglo pink writing on it, it says "any jail, any time" it's got a number for a bail bond office and a lawyer on it.

Put an ad in the North county trader (12 euro) "Do you feel agrieved? Have you been shafted? Do you think the law may ameriolate your material conditions? Soften your coughin?"

It's not the 19th century anymore,, law is no longer a gentlemanly profession

Also if you've got time on your hands --- could you look up mining law? -- it could come in very useful (especially environmental law -- governing acquifers )

SATSUMA · 10-09-2008 09:06PM

Wow, i can't wait to go to blackhall so. It's only taken me 2 years to pass the "easy" FE-1's and waht for...a "worthless" education in Blackhall that's going to cost a fortune where there is an obvious divide between law and non law degrees! Ahem, i, for the record have a law degree. See, it's happened already...Bring it on.

dazza21ie · 10-09-2008 09:43PM

There is no real divide between law and non law degrees once you get into Blackhall. Everyone is usually very happy to be there although the cost of the courses does leave you a little bitter when you get a really crap tutor talking nonsense!

SATSUMA · 10-09-2008 10:52PM

Ah well, such is life. All i have to do is get there...:D

Sangre · 15-09-2008 09:43PM

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?

The failure rates of the FE1s would imply that they aren't 'piss easy'. Of course they are do able but to claim they are easy and don't require hard work and study is a bit silly.

Anyway, I don't see why the Law soc should lower numbers. If firms are willing to take apprentices who are they to say no? If anyone is interested the attendance no. for PPC1 is about 520, down 10% on last year. The first time to go down in many years. Although it is still the 2nd highest ever.

dats_right · 16-09-2008 08:29AM

Sangre wrote: »

The failure rates of the FE1s would imply that they aren't 'piss easy'. Of course they are do able but to claim they are easy and don't require hard work and study is a bit silly.

Anyway, I don't see why the Law soc should lower numbers. If firms are willing to take apprentices who are they to say no? If anyone is interested the attendance no. for PPC1 is about 520, down 10% on last year. The first time to go down in many years. Although it is still the 2nd highest ever.

Totally agree with everything you say here. Would also like to add that the failure rate for the FE-2 exams this year was slightly above 1 in 3 or just over 33%. That certainly diesn't strike me as 'piss easy' exams either.

dazza21ie · 16-09-2008 09:29AM

Sangre wrote: »

If anyone is interested the attendance no. for PPC1 is about 520, down 10% on last year. The first time to go down in many years. Although it is still the 2nd highest ever.

520 cannot be the second highest ever considering the numbers for last three years were higher than that.

Badboy21 · 08-10-2008 04:55PM

Butterbear wrote: »

Umm...I failed PPC1, got results on Friday. I'm devastated: attended most lectures, 98% tutorials, attended exam prep lectures and put lots of work in.

I'm not stupid or lazy, I'm a hard-worker: got over 500 points in my leaving cert and passed all FE1s first time. Never failed an exam in my life.

I'm a little bitter.

Id say u proberly went to a very good secondary school . Without this school u are proebrly very dull witted. Anyone can get 500 + in the leaving if u went to blackrock, or clongoes.... u are obviosuly not cut out for law and should leave before u get dominted by the likes of myself, who went to raheany community college and got 510 in my leaving cert

johnfás · 08-10-2008 05:01PM

You might watch your spellings before you make such idiot attacks in the future. Some food for thought:

clongoes - Clongowes

dominted - demented

proebrly - probably

Now that is sorted out perhaps you could be banned from the board.

nuac · 08-10-2008 05:27PM

Johnfas

I think the spelling champ meant "dominate" not "dement"

In any case I never believed that attendance at Clongowes or Blackrock ( didn't go to either ) conferred any advantages in examinations. They are too obsessed with Rugby. - some great exam results out of less fashionable schools.

Badboy21 · 08-10-2008 05:35PM

johnfás wrote: »

You might watch your spellings before you make such idiot attacks in the future. Some food for thought:

clongoes - Clongowes

dominted - demented

proebrly - probably

Now that is sorted out perhaps you could be banned from the board.

Why would i be banned from this boards, all im saying is that... those people who went to prep school and say how good they are because they got a good elaving cert should remmeber that u got the best teachers, best grinds and best everything, your 500 + is a result of your affluence and not how clever you are. I went to a dive of a school ahd bad teachers my whole life and i got 510, that means that im a lot clever than you... thats all im saying, im doing law in ucd.... which is full of people,liek yourselfves who arent that clever

Maximilian · 08-10-2008 05:46PM

...But not clever enough to read the Charter, whatever about spell-checkers. Badboy21 banned for a week for abuse.

Can people please report posts like those in future (thanks to those that did) rather than replying to them, tempting though it might be.

Normal service now resuming.

Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

Comments