partyguinness wrote: » I am concerned about the amount of people applying to the 'Big 5' who do not seem to know how their recruitment program works. Do you not realise they get 99.9% of their trainees directly from the Universities when they are still undergraduates? Outside of that you have virtually no chance of getting in.
Amazotheamazing wrote: » I've said it here before, but it might bear repeating. Ask yourself, honestly, how hard you want to work. Be honest, do you want to work 70 hours a week? I don't, hence I'm happier in a small firm.
hada wrote: » you need to check your sources son and come back here and make a post that resembles something half sensible.
partyguinness wrote: » Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?
Sangre wrote: » I know countless people who got a TC in the big 5 and weren't recruited directly from undergrad. In fact the minority of my friends did, most had to wait until they had some postgrad, work experiences or a masters. I only have to look at the people in my final year in UCD who got TC to know your 99.9% 'fact' is just scare-mongering. Of course it happens a fair bit but nowhere near the extent you say.
TheDemiurge wrote: » Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............
hada wrote: » I want to earn more money. I want to work on bigger deals. I want to work with some of Ireland's best solicitors in the hope I too will become a great specialised solicitor. Hence, I'm happier in a larger firm.
Amazotheamazing wrote: » Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.
Amazotheamazing wrote: » So why not go to a serious law centre like London? I few weeks back you were going on about how you wanted to be an academic, now you want to a big earner? Delicate balance. Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.
TheDemiurge wrote: » Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............which means Big 5 or 10. Opportunities in general practice seem to be fewer.
hada wrote: » Delicate balance it is - hence why consultancy would be my preferred route. Practice a few days a week, lecture the remaining. London would be ruin the balance entirely - a mininum of 9 billable hours per day (Dublin "top 5" is more in the region of 6 1/2 hours).
dats_right wrote: » Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive. Unless of course you are somebody with significant prior practice experience winding your practice down after years and years of hard slog or alternatively, are a genuine academic heavyweight who the firm can call on every once in a while for a second opinion (think someone like Prof. Wylie). Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world. You see that's what specialist barristers are for and, if you visit the Bar Council website you will see the amount of young and not so young barristers with more letters than the alphabet after their names, many of whom, no doubt harboured such naive plans as your good self at some stage. I would imagine that the only way for you to juggle both academia and legal practice is to become a barrister and even that isn't perfect, but at least it is a little more realistic and doable than combining practice as a solicitor in a commercial firm with academia.
dats_right wrote: » Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive.
dats_right wrote: » Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world.
hada wrote: » Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.
maidhc wrote: » I am in the position where I could go either way, e.g. into academia or practice. I asked an emminent professor from the UK at a conference I was at recent of his opinion on combining the two. He said "you can't have two masters". Again, you will note in mainland europe it is not uncommon for lawyers to have PhDs engage in research, but still work for firms such as linklaters. We have a different tradition here, and I think you need to be very careful not to go too far down the academia route if you actually want to work for McCann Fitz etc (I don't know about Clifford Chance, in fairness they are in a different league to the Irish firms!)
Johnny Utah wrote: » Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?.......
Johnny Utah wrote: » /Back on topic........ Got 4 more PFO e-mails/letters this week. Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?....... Very depressing:( Seems hopeless at this stage
TheDemiurge wrote: » Yes do tell. I'm isolated out here!
paulanthony wrote: » Maybe its MH+C, they're in D4. Sent out an e-mail saying they are not holding interviews in January as they made offers to some of their iterns from last summer. Or maybe it's something else completely.
hada wrote: » First of all, I'm not going to turn this into a pissing competition which I think you are trying to do.
hada wrote: » secondly Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.
hada wrote: » Yes dats_right, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to get my LLM, PhD and then walk up to Cox, McCann, Clifford Chance, etc, and demand a position as a consultant. :rolleyes:
hada wrote: » Did it ever enter your mind that I would like (realise I have) to spend a considerable time establishing myself in academic circles before I could even be considered and have absolutely no problem doing this?? Evidently not.
hada wrote: » ps. Firms will not be intesested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts --> Oh come off it.
dats_right wrote: » ? That sort of pedanticism is best left to the academia, because in legal practice you will come to realise that there is very seldom black and white rather many, many different shades of grey. For somebody so learned as your good self, I would have thought you would be able to comprehend what was actually said rather than letting your emotions get the better of you. Where did I use such colourful language as this or talk of demanding anything? Well if you have at least 10-15+ years to spend building up your academic reputation the very best of luck to you. The point is that there are countless very bright higher law graduates from very prestigous institutions out there with enviable qualifications who have not even succesfully managed to have a modest legal practice, let alone combine that with an academic career also. The people you talk of such as Tom Courtney qualified as a solicitor some 16-17 years ago and are very much the exception rather than the rule, it should also be remembered that he has only relatively recently left his role as Legal Officer to Bank of Ireland to work in private practice. I wonder will he still find the time to write textbooks when the pressures of fee earning are bearing heavily on his shoulders? Well, like it or not that is the way firms view trainees and that is regardless of the letters after their name. But firms will tolerate having these inconveniences around the office because the firm is aware that these inconveniences are the future fee earning partners and associates and they all have to start somewhere i.e the bottom. But to think that these firms are going to be somehow bowled over by Mr LLM, PH.D (never met a client before) academic lawyer who hasn't put in the hard slog of practice and starting at the bottom is disingenuous. One must accept that Consultants in these firms, almost without exception have practiced law from the bottom up for many, many years, most are also former partners (some may have higher degrees in law but that certainly wouldn't be a pre-requisite). To think that firms are going to turn to academics with no practical experience as consultants is nonsensical and you are fooling yourself to think otherwise. To think further about it for a second, when a partner of one of these firms requires specialist advices do you really think he's going to turn to somebody with no experience of the practice of law, just because they have a Ph.D and teach spotty teenagers in TCD or UCD? The answer of course is no. They will turn to the services of eminent specialist barrister(granted a very small proportion of whom may also juggle academia) or perhaps a consulatant, in the true sense, with significant specialist and practical experience. The bottom line is that academia is not a short cut to starting at the bottom of legal practice. Nonetheless, I would concede one thing, that is I suppose the academics might come in very handy if you want to be a PSL, but then again I don't suppose that compiling and updating firms precedent banks constitutes consultancy!
guerito wrote: » Getting back on-topic, just got an email pfo from William Fry. Only Dillon Eustace left.
johnfás wrote: » Got the Fry one there too. Just one interview for me so... better not seem like I'm begging
