Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

SATSUMA · 08-10-2008 06:28PM

I think banning badboy21 was a little harsh. While i don't for a second condone the personal comments about the person who failed i thought his second post contained some very valid points. It's true about the effect of affluence and getting the best of everything and i think at this stage using your leving cert as any sort of measure of intelligence is quite frankly, immature!

To the person who did fail, maybe consider getting a recheck if that's a possibility. It sounds llike you worked very hard and there does seem to be a problem that needs to be identified, whether it be them or you. I remember when i failed a few FE-1's and it was a horrible feeling to work so hard and then fail-especially if it's your first experience of faliure. Faliure can actually be a very freeing experience once you get over the shock and humiliation of it!

Best of luck,

impr0v · 08-10-2008 07:27PM

I was thinking about this this evening actually on the way home. The established upper middle class of Ireland, even just Dublin itself, have gotten bigger and bigger over the past while and they naturally want to protect their children's future by pushing them into a well-respected profession.

Law is a natural choice for swathes of them because it's
a) respected (despite the Lynn effect, etc.);
b) relatively easy to get into;
and c) not something your little darling needs to have a particularly natural aptitude for, or burning desire to do.

Medicine, engineering (if it's even comparable on the respect scale), actuarial finance, physiotherapy, veterinary, etc. need strong academic ability and, in many cases, a particular aptitude for mathematics, as well as dedication. By dedication I mean a willingness to work hard for the 550-600 points medicine requires, or the 24 hour shifts as a trainee doctor, or the long hours of lectures and practicals that the relevant college courses require.

Law on the other hand, and I'm aware that I'm generalising here, can be entered via a primary degree in anything, after a few years dossing through the relevant course, and then bringing the family financial backing to bear upon a protracted period of study for the FE1's or the Inns. In regard to the latter, a person is much more likely to make it if they're not supporting themselves during the lean period of the first few years.

Obviously if the would-be lawyer can bring academic ability to the table then their chances of success will be improved, but one generally doesn't need to be very gifted to make a living at it.

It's not a very detailed or ground-breaking theory, but I think it goes some way to explain the explosion in applicants for both branches of the profession.

SATSUMA · 08-10-2008 07:47PM

so true! It's quite shocking actually being confronted with the reality of it in black and white. Much due to the effects of that celtic tiger that seems to have gone missing...apparantly.

elgransenor · 08-10-2008 07:54PM

I think banning bad boy was a bit harsh too.
Despite his spelling he had some points which are worthy of debate.
I do not deny the moderator's right the right to ban people but in terms of the 'abuse' charge I think I have seen worse.
Perhaps 'abuse' should be more clearly defined in the interests of fairness.
But his spelling certainly weakens his argument!

McCrack · 08-10-2008 11:15PM

"I was thinking about this this evening actually on the way home. The established upper middle class of Ireland, even just Dublin itself, have gotten bigger and bigger over the past while and they naturally want to protect their children's future by pushing them into a well-respected profession."

Parents naturally want the best for their kids, law for better or worse is seen as a good, safe and rewarding career by people who dont work in the profession. I do work in it and the preception is a lot different from the reality. I'm not saying it's not but I am saying the day to day work of a practitioner is very different from the way lawyers are portrayed on the telly and the associated public perception. In addition a wannabe will not pick this up from a text book or fe1 manual. I learnt this first hand.

"Law is a natural choice for swathes of them because it's
a) respected (despite the Lynn effect, etc.);
b) relatively easy to get into;
and c) not something your little darling needs to have a particularly natural aptitude for, or burning desire to do."

I disagree. I consider it a vocation. If your heart isnt genuinely in it and your pursuing it for ulterior motives you simply wont qualify or get on in any way, ive seen this first hand.

"Medicine, engineering (if it's even comparable on the respect scale), actuarial finance, physiotherapy, veterinary, etc. need strong academic ability and, in many cases, a particular aptitude for mathematics, as well as dedication. By dedication I mean a willingness to work hard for the 550-600 points medicine requires, or the 24 hour shifts as a trainee doctor, or the long hours of lectures and practicals that the relevant college courses require."

Law like the professions you mention takes years to qualify (3-4 year degree, 1-2 years getting Fe1s, 9 mt PPC1, 2 years on the job post PPC, in all about 7 years) Also bear in mind the trainee is on pittance and has to juggle study and work.
Law generally has long working hours too and depending on the practice maybe late evening/weekend work for example people dont stop getting arrested at weekends etc.

"Law on the other hand, and I'm aware that I'm generalising here, can be entered via a primary degree in anything, after a few years dossing through the relevant course, and then bringing the family financial backing to bear upon a protracted period of study for the FE1's or the Inns. In regard to the latter, a person is much more likely to make it if they're not supporting themselves during the lean period of the first few years."

I agree with this bar maybe the "dossing" part. Some students do, some dont. When I was at undergrad like most I made sure to enjoy myself but I was also plugging away at the books and yes having financial support does obviously help. Some people are lucky and some arent. I've seen and admired people get into the profession with children to look after/ mortgages etc, full-time jobs while studying for Fe's and then go on to work on trainee wages.

"Obviously if the would-be lawyer can bring academic ability to the table then their chances of success will be improved, but one generally doesn't need to be very gifted to make a living at it."

Disagree. Like I said earlier a lawyer needs a burning interest/passion to qualify. If he has this success will follow.

"It's not a very detailed or ground-breaking theory, but I think it goes some way to explain the explosion in applicants for both branches of the profession."

No it's not, it's your opinion based on your perception. I'm not knocking that but in all your posting is a bit misinformed (in my opinion).

dazza21ie · 09-10-2008 09:53AM

The Fe1's have a failure rate of 50% approx every sitting, the FE2's (or PPC1) had a failure rate this year of approx 33%, the FE3's (PPC2) had a failure rate this year of approx 20%. Try telling those unfortunate people that failed that qualifying is too easy!

TheDemiurge · 09-10-2008 06:14PM

Just found this thread. I'm a solicitor, ten years qualified and practising this year, and I have to say that on balance I deeply regret it. Not so much the years spent training, but p***ing the last ten years away on a "profession" that is as tenable as candy floss. To the OP and other trainees, get out of it as fast as you possibly can.

There is no doubt that being a solicitor was a good thing as opposed to other trades in bad times of the 1980s. Conveyancing fees were 1.5% of the purchase price and 1% of the sale price. Whilst this may seem a lot to the man on the street, the fees ensured a steady stream of cashflow so that solicitors could run their practices and take on litigation for clients without seeking payment up front; clients who had no money to pay, either directly or indirectly, until the end.

Solicitors - being total idiots - were the only profession/trade to actually drop their fees during the recent "boom". A conveyance cannot be done properly, and the solicitor's overheads met, for approximately 700 Euro plus VAT and outlays, yet this is all you will pay in the Dublin region. One firm in Kerry started it all, and the whole pyramid came crashing down for lawyers after that. Meanwhile, estate agents continue to command 1% for bu**er all. And then some. A perception has built up that conveyancing is money for jam - one of the few pleasures I get these days in the profession is seeing clients' jaws drop when I show them the hundreds of pages of paperwork that has to be ploughed through line by line - no room for shortcuts.

On top of this, the Boland regulations of 1987 (which led to the whole Lynn/Byrne debacle) put the onus onto the high street solicitors for the lending bank's work, where they certified title (instead of the bank having its own staff doing it). The Law Society did nothing to stop this in 1987 and they are paying the price now. The high street solicitor can be sued by the banks if they cock up the conveyance with a policy excess per file of 5,000 Euro (in spite of the paltry conveyancing fee and with aggressive clients telephoning morning noon and night). My insurance premium for 2008 was 2,750 Euro, and because of Lynn and Byrne, I'm looking at 9,100 Euro premium for 2009. Plus another 2,500 Euro practising certificate fee for 2009 to the Law Society (whose members are always on voicemail). I'm currently overdrawn 33,000 Euro on running costs.

The financial institutions are a nightmare to deal with - they constantly lose every piece of documentation you send them, and you won't get paid by your client if you try to bill extra for time spent redoing your work because Gary/Keith/Glen/Shane in the cheque issue team of the relevant bank had a hangover that day.

And as for litigation - you may as well be running the St. Vincent de Paul. It's charity work, nothing more. If someone sues someone else for say an amount of 2,000 Euro, the amount of hours you have to put in to get them that 2,000 Euro - that's assuming the Defendant pays by the way - the scale fee of 380 Euro is just laughable. I made a policy decision two months ago that I am never taking on another litigation file - I lose too money on outlays and running costs doing it, and many colleagues feel exactly the same. Ultimately this will be disastrous for those who are in legal difficulties but who don't qualify for legal aid. The unaccountable in our society will be even more remote in terms of redress. Perhaps OP this was the idea all along, in flooding the market with solicitors. Flooding the market makes it pointless to pursue a career within it.

Most people do law because Mammies and Daddies bully their kids into it, thinking that it's a legal form of a printing press. What a f**king joke.

Being a solicitor in Ireland, you're at the bottom of food chain financially, and the top of the hit list in every other way. Get the hell out of it, while you still can.:mad::mad::mad:

Amazotheamazing · 10-10-2008 09:34AM

McCrack wrote: »

I disagree. I consider it a vocation. If your heart isnt genuinely in it and your pursuing it for ulterior motives you simply wont qualify or get on in any way, ive seen this first hand.

Disagree. Like I said earlier a lawyer needs a burning interest/passion to qualify. If he has this success will follow.

With idealism like those two quotes, you must still be a student.

I'm not very experienced myself, but the number of practising solicitors who consider their job a vocation are very few, imo. Long may your idealism last McCrack.

dats_right · 10-10-2008 09:53AM

That is an excellent post by TheDemiurge, albeit sadly depressing and those within the profession will know only too well that everything stated is completely accurate. I am a trainee, of two years standing (miniscule compared to your experience), in a firm thats main practice areas would be litigation, conveyancing and probate. Only the latter hasn't been affected yet (thankfully people are still dying), but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before certain said firm from Kerry or some other firm of chancers start doing probate for peanuts or the government will come up with some new scheme to eliminate solicitors out of the equation.

Amazotheamazing · 10-10-2008 09:58AM

dats_right wrote: »

That is an excellent post by TheDemiurge, albeit sadly depressing and those within the profession will know only too well that everything stated is completely accurate. I am a trainee, of two years standing (miniscule compared to your experience), in a firm thats main practice areas would be litigation, conveyancing and probate. Only the latter hasn't been affected yet (thankfully people are still dying), but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before certain said firm from Kerry or some other firm of chancers start doing probate for peanuts or the government will come up with some new scheme to eliminate solicitors out of the equation.

Always thought it was a Clare firm that destroyed conveyancing?

Not to worry, the numbers qualifying means there will be so many of us fees and wages will have to fall. See you all in Australia.

Maximilian · 10-10-2008 09:59AM

dats_right wrote: »

That is an excellent post by TheDemiurge, albeit sadly depressing and those within the profession will know only too well that everything stated is completely accurate. I am a trainee, of two years standing (miniscule compared to your experience), in a firm thats main practice areas would be litigation, conveyancing and probate. Only the latter hasn't been affected yet (thankfully people are still dying), but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before certain said firm from Kerry or some other firm of chancers start doing probate for peanuts or the government will come up with some new scheme to eliminate solicitors out of the equation.

Nice choice of words

Maybe we should all work on a way of killing lots of people. Drum up some business. A nice virus or something. :pac:

Amazotheamazing · 10-10-2008 10:05AM

Maximilian wrote: »

Nice choice of words Maybe we should all work on a way of killing lots of people. Drum up some business. A nice virus or something. :pac:

Reckon I might have to put on glad rags and start seducing older women in a effort to drum up some divorce work. The things I do for this profession...

dats_right · 10-10-2008 10:16AM

I think you're both onto something there Maxi and Amazo.

grumpytrousers · 10-10-2008 10:52AM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Reckon I might have to put on glad rags and start seducing older women in a effort to drum up some divorce work. The things I do for this profession...

Amazo, pictured just before hitting the town last night...

TheDemiurge · 10-10-2008 12:45PM

dats_right wrote: »

That is an excellent post by TheDemiurge, albeit sadly depressing and those within the profession will know only too well that everything stated is completely accurate. I am a trainee, of two years standing (miniscule compared to your experience), in a firm thats main practice areas would be litigation, conveyancing and probate. Only the latter hasn't been affected yet (thankfully people are still dying), but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before certain said firm from Kerry or some other firm of chancers start doing probate for peanuts or the government will come up with some new scheme to eliminate solicitors out of the equation.

TankU.

Re the above - let's get ahead of the game on the cryonics industry before some other scammer does. It's about time we lucked in.

nuac · 10-10-2008 08:42PM

The DemiUrge is right - law is a very difficult profession.

Wurly · 13-10-2008 01:35AM

OK well I work for the Law Society.

How can you expect the law society to take responsibility for the lack of jobs out there? If you want to study to be a solicitor, why should the law society tell you that you can't? If you are willing to pay your money to do the professional practice course, then why would the law society refuse you?

I am studying to be a sound engineer at the moment. Is there any jobs out there? Nope. Is it my college's fault? Nope. Was it my choice to study there? Yes.

So, what's the point? Yes, the law society are a regulatory body. And if people want to study the PPCI&II, they should be allowed to do so.

The law society make their money from students. It pays wages for the tutors, lecturers, costs of materials, printing etc. Just like any other college.

There are on average 16 students in a tutorial group. In fact, there are less than that this year. So they are not overcrowded by any means. With regards to the module that I administer, most tutors are more than willing to stay after tutorial time to help any student out who is in trouble. I cannot speak for other modules but I would hope that that was the case.

It seems a lot of students have a particular gripe with the law society. But let's not forget, you could be tutoring for us one day. And I for one, think that you get a good deal when you are studying with us. Obviously it's not always perfect but we do try to do our best for you all.

The gripe though can be really apparent when a student's resentment is taken out on staff members for the smallest of things. I for one have experienced it on many occasions.

However, most of the students are lovely. Year on year.

For those of you studying at blackhall at the moment, I hope you enjoy your time there and best of luck in the ou'l exams.;)

dazza21ie · 13-10-2008 10:08AM

Tri wrote: »

OK well I work for the Law Society.

How can you expect the law society to take responsibility for the lack of jobs out there? If you want to study to be a solicitor, why should the law society tell you that you can't? If you are willing to pay your money to do the professional practice course, then why would the law society refuse you?

I am studying to be a sound engineer at the moment. Is there any jobs out there? Nope. Is it my college's fault? Nope. Was it my choice to study there? Yes.

So, what's the point? Yes, the law society are a regulatory body. And if people want to study the PPCI&II, they should be allowed to do so.

The law society make their money from students. It pays wages for the tutors, lecturers, costs of materials, printing etc. Just like any other college.

There are on average 16 students in a tutorial group. In fact, there are less than that this year. So they are not overcrowded by any means. With regards to the module that I administer, most tutors are more than willing to stay after tutorial time to help any student out who is in trouble. I cannot speak for other modules but I would hope that that was the case.

It seems a lot of students have a particular gripe with the law society. But let's not forget, you could be tutoring for us one day. And I for one, think that you get a good deal when you are studying with us. Obviously it's not always perfect but we do try to do our best for you all.

The gripe though can be really apparent when a student's resentment is taken out on staff members for the smallest of things. I for one have experienced it on many occasions.

However, most of the students are lovely. Year on year.

For those of you studying at blackhall at the moment, I hope you enjoy your time there and best of luck in the ou'l exams.;)

Considering the fees the Law Society charge for their courses (and exams) then one would be entitled to expect an excellent course for their money. Overall the courses are good but definitely not value for money. The Law Society seems to have thrown all the money that they have got over the last few years at alot of inadequate lecturers and tutors.
Some of the gripes students have with the Law Society are well justified. Can you explain why the Law Society charged students €140 for an irish exam that they knew was being done away with a few weeks later?
Every year when students start in the Law Society they are told that they are among the brightest students in the country which may be true. But then sectors in the Law School spend seven months talking down to these "bright students" as if they were back in national school.
I think the Law Society does itself no favours as people who go through the Law School with gripes at the Society will continue to have contempt for the Law Society when they are qualified and this is not good for the profession.

Wurly · 13-10-2008 04:52PM

dazza21ie wrote: »

Considering the fees the Law Society charge for their courses (and exams) then one would be entitled to expect an excellent course for their money. Overall the courses are good but definitely not value for money. The Law Society seems to have thrown all the money that they have got over the last few years at alot of inadequate lecturers and tutors.
Some of the gripes students have with the Law Society are well justified. Can you explain why the Law Society charged students €140 for an irish exam that they knew was being done away with a few weeks later?
Every year when students start in the Law Society they are told that they are among the brightest students in the country which may be true. But then sectors in the Law School spend seven months talking down to these "bright students" as if they were back in national school.
I think the Law Society does itself no favours as people who go through the Law School with gripes at the Society will continue to have contempt for the Law Society when they are qualified and this is not good for the profession.

Well i'm sorry to hear of your experience and sorry to hear you feel that way.

I'll speak for my module again as it's the only one I can comment on. We hold 4 evaluations of our tutors per year. If there are enough complaints, that tutor/lecturer will not be asked back again.

I don't know what the story is with the Irish exams. That does sound rather odd. I'm not privvy to info relating to charges. But if that is accurate, then I accept your gripe there.

I'm not trying to bad mouth when I say this, but some of our tutors have come out of tutorials absolutely raging from the rude behaviour that they have had to endure from students. I have personally encountered it myself. I don't know in what way you mean that you are treated as if you were back in school. A lot of students have issues with us taking attendance. The reason for attendance is - if you fail your exam and we check back on your attendance record to discover you have only attended 10 out of your 18 tutorials, well we will be less willing to help you. Same for any college.

Also - sign in sheets for distributions etc. Only happens cos people took the p1ss in the first instance and stole books that were costly. More then needed to be printed for the students with none.

Look, we're not perfect. I don't think we ever proclaimed to be. And i'll say it again for fear of backlash - the VAST majority of trainees are a pleasure to deal with.

dazza21ie · 13-10-2008 05:35PM

Assessment sheets are given out at the end of a tutorial when students are rushing to get home or go for lunch. Very few students would spend anymore than a minute filling it out. If the Law Society want an accurate reflection of each lecturer/tutor then assessments would need to be done after every lecture or tutorial when the performance is fresh in students minds not a month or two later.

Sangre · 13-10-2008 06:22PM

as if anyone would fill out an assessment after every tutorial/lecture about 4 times a day.

Johnny Utah · 13-10-2008 06:33PM

Tri wrote: »

OK well I work for the Law Society.

How can you expect the law society to take responsibility for the lack of jobs out there? If you want to study to be a solicitor, why should the law society tell you that you can't? If you are willing to pay your money to do the professional practice course, then why would the law society refuse you?

I am studying to be a sound engineer at the moment. Is there any jobs out there? Nope. Is it my college's fault? Nope. Was it my choice to study there? Yes.

So, what's the point? Yes, the law society are a regulatory body. And if people want to study the PPCI&II, they should be allowed to do so.

I'm not on the PPC1 yet, but my biggest gripe with the Law Society is that they have let far too many people through the entrance exams over the past number of years. Consequently, the market for trainee solicitors is now flooded, and it is very, very difficult to get a training contract.

Also, it appears that there are now fully qualified solicitors out of work. This was inevitable with the numbers qualifying over the last decade, but the Law Society was happy to sit back, cover its ears, and take in as many students as it possibly could. I know that the Competition Authority was watching the situation closely, but the Law Society messed up when it was needed most.

Wurly · 13-10-2008 10:04PM

dazza21ie wrote: »

Assessment sheets are given out at the end of a tutorial when students are rushing to get home or go for lunch. Very few students would spend anymore than a minute filling it out. If the Law Society want an accurate reflection of each lecturer/tutor then assessments would need to be done after every lecture or tutorial when the performance is fresh in students minds not a month or two later.

I see what you're saying. But think about it. For my module alone - I have to trawl through 500 odd evaluation forms and not only type the comments but add up all the agree's/disagree's etc. If I did that after each tutorial (bear in mind that there could be 2 a week for the module I administer), I would get nothing else done. There is no way that one after each tutorial would be feasible. It takes an age.

I understand your point re students rushing out the door, filling in evaluation forms. But we don't want to give them to you at the start of your tutorial as it will eat into tutorial time. In your opinion, when would be the best time to hand these out?

To the poster who said 4 evaluations a day - well, no! Its 4 a year on the PPCI!

To the last poster re allowing trainees to study in an already over populated market. Well, if you were the person not allowed to study over someone else - would you not be well p1ssed off. Then we would get slack for favouritism and no doubt be subject to rumours of allowing judge's sons/daughters etc to get precedence over the average joe. It's not the Law Society's fault that there are feck all jobs. If the demand is there, they will provide the places. Simple as. All trainees starting on the PPCI know at this stage the saturation of legal jobs market so they know what they are letting themselves in for. Just like I know that I prob won't get a job as a sound engineer immediately after I leave college. But it was my choice to study it, just like it's your choice to do the PPCI. Do you see what i'm saying?

Sangre · 13-10-2008 10:08PM

Tri wrote: »

To the poster who said 4 evaluations a day - well, no! Its 4 a year on the PPCI!

I know that. Dazza suggested one after each tutorial/lecture/workshop which would amount to about 4 a day.

As has been said numerous times Utah, the law society has absolutely no power to limit entrance places. To do so would almost certainly land them in legal hot water. The problem (if there is one) lies with firms taking on trainees they don't necessarily need or can keep.

Wurly · 13-10-2008 10:12PM

Sangre wrote: »

I know that. Dazza suggested one after each tutorial/lecture/workshop which would amount to about 4 a day.

As has been said numerous times Utah, the law society has absolutely no power to limit entrance places. To do so would almost certainly land them in legal hot water. The problem (if there is one) lies with firms taking on trainees they don't necessarily need or can keep.

Jebus. Sorry, read your post wrong.:o

I agree with what you've said above. If you're upset about no jobs before you even start the PPCI, then maybe choose a different career path? I don't mean that to sound smart btw.

Sangre · 13-10-2008 10:17PM

I'm getting pretty sick of telling people that. Mostly non-legal people but you'd think the other people in PPC1 would have some more sense. Can you actually imagine if they did limit numbers?

Firm A; This is great, I'm doing really well, I'm looking to expand my business and take on some more trainees.
Law Society: Not this time, the law is full.
Firm A: Oh well...

dazza21ie · 14-10-2008 10:04AM

Tri wrote: »

I see what you're saying. But think about it. For my module alone - I have to trawl through 500 odd evaluation forms and not only type the comments but add up all the agree's/disagree's etc. If I did that after each tutorial (bear in mind that there could be 2 a week for the module I administer), I would get nothing else done. There is no way that one after each tutorial would be feasible. It takes an age.

I understand your point re students rushing out the door, filling in evaluation forms. But we don't want to give them to you at the start of your tutorial as it will eat into tutorial time. In your opinion, when would be the best time to hand these out?

To the poster who said 4 evaluations a day - well, no! Its 4 a year on the PPCI!

To the last poster re allowing trainees to study in an already over populated market. Well, if you were the person not allowed to study over someone else - would you not be well p1ssed off. Then we would get slack for favouritism and no doubt be subject to rumours of allowing judge's sons/daughters etc to get precedence over the average joe. It's not the Law Society's fault that there are feck all jobs. If the demand is there, they will provide the places. Simple as. All trainees starting on the PPCI know at this stage the saturation of legal jobs market so they know what they are letting themselves in for. Just like I know that I prob won't get a job as a sound engineer immediately after I leave college. But it was my choice to study it, just like it's your choice to do the PPCI. Do you see what i'm saying?

I understand what your are saying as im sure it does take forever to go through the evaluations but surely you must agree that the vast majority of the forms filled look as if they were filled by people who didn't bother read them?
Maybe the Law Society should let the students take the sheets with them and drop them back in couple of days. Appoint a person in each tutorial group in charge of collecting them so that they do come back. I just know from personal experience that the last thing most people want is to fill in an evaluation at the end of a long tutorial.

dazza21ie · 14-10-2008 10:07AM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I'm not on the PPC1 yet, but my biggest gripe with the Law Society is that they have let far too many people through the entrance exams over the past number of years. Consequently, the market for trainee solicitors is now flooded, and it is very, very difficult to get a training contract.
.

Are you certain you would have got through the entrance exams if the Law Society had a strict quota system e.g. only 200 people allowed to pass FE1's each year?

Amazotheamazing · 14-10-2008 11:35AM

Sangre wrote: »

I know that. Dazza suggested one after each tutorial/lecture/workshop which would amount to about 4 a day.

As has been said numerous times Utah, the law society has absolutely no power to limit entrance places. To do so would almost certainly land them in legal hot water. The problem (if there is one) lies with firms taking on trainees they don't necessarily need or can keep.

They do have the power to make the exams harder though. I stand by when I said they are easy exams.

hada · 14-10-2008 11:48AM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

They do have the power to make the exams harder though. I stand by when I said they are easy exams.

easy exams are college exams.

fe1s, by their very nature, are not easy exams.

The work involved to cover yourself for the actual exam is highly demanding and time consuming. While you may think the exam itself is easy ( of which you're in the vast minority regardless), the prep needed to be within an asses roar of passing these "easy exams" is colossal - thus making the exams themselves very hard.

Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

Comments