Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

elgransenor · 16-10-2008 05:07PM

TheDemiurge wrote: »

As opposed to you, running out of Blackhall with your hot little parchment in hand in 3 months' time? :D:D Do you seriously think that the world is just waiting for you to qualify, chequebook in hand, ready to hand over 300 Euro a hour just because now you have the scarecrow's piece of paper from the Wizard of Blackhall? You're still living in Mammy and Daddyland, my friend. You sound very smug, like you sincerely believe your particular future is assured, as opposed to anyone else's. What sets you apart from your contemporaries, or those with significantly more experience? Get real - no one gives a fiddler's you-know-what about newly qualified solicitors, and that includes you. There's less beauty salons for f**k's sake than solicitors practices.

Honestly, you come across as not having the remotest clue about a day in the life of a working solicitor. Are you a working trainee or one on paper with the time just ticking away?

Sorry to burst your cocky little bubble, but I won't be hanging around much longer in this game for extra regulation, extra competition, and far less pay. The likes of you can go down that road. If the historical snob value is what gets you off, I can think of cheaper ways of acquiring that. If helping others is your forte, I felt like that once, but lately most solicitors get nothing but abuse no matter how much work they do or how much injustice they overcome. Come back to me in five years time and tell me what you think.

The parsimonious Irish punter who believed media bull about solicitors and in turn treated solicitors like s**t will turn around in a few years and find there is no one there willing or able to help them when they most need it. And don't say to me that the big firms will act for them because they don't act on behalf of small individual clients who are out to challenge the established status quo.:rolleyes:

The demiurge is clearly disappointed with
1. the parsimonious Irish punter
2. the profession
3. the world at large and is thinking of leaving the profession.
Smart move my friend;) as you have practiced,by your own account,for the last 10 years and been disappointed/bitter as a consequence.
If you can't make it in a period of the highest,most rampant economic growth since people populated this island,(not just since the foundation of the state in other words) then it is unlikely that the next few years will be too kind to you.
So good luck with the life counselling game that you mentioned in another post which you are considering branching into.
Now theres a well regulated profession if I ever saw one.:rolleyes:

dazza21ie · 16-10-2008 05:46PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

No need to get nasty. Post reported.

Sorry Johnny didn't mean to sound nasty.

murrayp4 · 16-10-2008 10:10PM

Sooooooo, does anyone on here actually enjoy the job?

dats_right · 16-10-2008 10:23PM

elgransenor wrote: »

If you can't make it in a period of the highest,most rampant economic growth since people populated this island,(not just since the foundation of the state in other words) then it is unlikely that the next few years will be too kind to you.

What utter nonsense, in that time, as the demiurge has stated over and over again that the legal profession has faced unprecedented attacks from various quarters. It's all very well and good espousing Milton Friedman'esque principles to the legal profession and naively believing that the likes of demiurge are the problem, but by so doing you are really only fooling yourself. He along with others are telling the harsh truths and the stuff Universities or FE-1 Grind Schools don't tell you. It is of course very disheartening and we may prefer to adopt the osterich approach rather than face up to the very obvious realites that we as a profession are facing. Believing that because of your idealism and that you love the law so will be sufficient to overcome these challenges is akin to believing in Father Christmas.

Also, and this may come as somewhat as a surprise to you but the lot of your average solicitor has significantly disimproved in that time, notwithstanding said unprecedented 'rampant economic growth'.

hada · 16-10-2008 10:25PM

murrayp4 wrote: »

Sooooooo, does anyone on here actually enjoy the job?

of course people do.

this is the view of a small number of people.

And frankly I'm utterly sick of reiterating the same statements that, despite what some posters here believe, there is much enjoyment to be made out of the legal profession.

If you're not making enough money, go to Dubai - solicitors are needed there.

:pac:

elgransenor · 17-10-2008 07:12AM

dats_right wrote: »

What utter nonsense, in that time, as the demiurge has stated over and over again that the legal profession has faced unprecedented attacks from various quarters. It's all very well and good espousing Milton Friedman'esque principles to the legal profession and naively believing that the likes of demiurge are the problem, but by so doing you are really only fooling yourself. He along with others are telling the harsh truths and the stuff Universities or FE-1 Grind Schools don't tell you. It is of course very disheartening and we may prefer to adopt the osterich approach rather than face up to the very obvious realites that we as a profession are facing. Believing that because of your idealism and that you love the law so will be sufficient to overcome these challenges is akin to believing in Father Christmas.

Also, and this may come as somewhat as a surprise to you but the lot of your average solicitor has significantly disimproved in that time, notwithstanding said unprecedented 'rampant economic growth'.

Unprecedented attacks like the various tribunals?
Every profession and every epoch has its fair share of whingers........and protectionist acolytes.
You cannot let one 'disappointed' solicitor lead you to believe that his experience will be yours. It will be a factor in forming your opinion,fair enough,but not the final word on it.
But to patronise and condescend to other posters here and persuade them that because he is struggling every body will struggle is rubbish.
As for the experience, is that 10 years experience or 1 year repeated 10 times? Big difference you know.;)

dats_right · 17-10-2008 09:19AM

elgransenor wrote: »

Unprecedented attacks like the various tribunals?

I hope you are joking, because there is almost universal acceptance within the profession, that the tribunals were one of the worst things to ever happen the profession as a whole. Little more than a handful of solicitors benefited to any great extent from said tribunals but all of us suffer from the public backlash. Whereas, it is also true to say that nearly every practising solicitor has been affected by things such as; PIAB, pitiful conveyancing fees and indeed the dramatic fall off in this type of work, the over-supply of new solicitors, falling fees yet having to cope with ever increasing costs and regulation, and this is before you factor in the affect of the declining economy and general public distrust/dislike towards the profession, fueled mostly by mis-information and misunderstanding the work a solicitor does.

elgransenor wrote: »

You cannot let one 'disappointed' solicitor lead you to believe that his experience will be yours. It will be a factor in forming your opinion,fair enough,but not the final word on it.

'One disappointed solicitor', Have you been in some sort of cocoon or parallel universe for the past twelve months? His views are shared to a greater or lesser extent by nearly every solicitor. Okay, most solicitors aren't planning career changes, but most feel aggrieved at the way things have been going for the profession in recent times, this is particularly true of general practice practitioners, who afterall make up the vast bulk of the profession.

Don't confuse agreement with influencing. As it happens, I have been apprenticed now for just over two years and I don't need Demiurge or anybody else to form my opinions. I have eyes, ears and am reasonably quick. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to assess the way things have gone and where the profession is going

elgransenor wrote: »

But to patronise and condescend to other posters here and persuade them that because he is struggling every body will struggle is rubbish.
As for the experience, is that 10 years experience or 1 year repeated 10 times? Big difference you know.;)

The person who sounds like they have little experience around here isn't Demiurge, on the contrary, he has told it in terms that are very familiar to a great many solicitors and many more wannabees will shortly enough come to realise too.

I have not heard any of my colleagues who I have trained with, who hail from the big firms, the medium firms, the big regional/local firms, to the smallest of firms, in Blackhall place express a positive and rosey picture of the future. Indeed, some are fearful that they mighn't even get to complete their apprenticeships. I know of trainees who were told to find a new firm to transfer their indentures to or face the chop, I know of people who returned to their offices after Blackhall and were told there was no job for them, I know numerous trainees working half days, 3-4 day weeks, etc. Indeed, lots of firms (including the big ones) aren't retaining some or all of their trainees upon qualification. Lots of firms are also have letting staff go (both qualified and support) or put them on short time. Perhaps you might answer me this, if firms (generally) weren't struggling why would they be doing this?

It is extremely naive to think that many, many trainees won't struggle to succeed, particulalrly as the challenges and obstacles become greater. Maybe, demiurge is beaten down and had enough of it all but with things only set to get tougher and fees only going one way, it is very easy to fool yourself into believing that your idealism for the job will set you apart and refusing to accept the writing that is clealry evident on the wall. But, I bet you one thing, that there will be very many more solicitors vociferously expressing similar views of Demiurge in ten years time. Sure who knows elgran, maybe, just maybe you might desperately need to seek out demiurge in ten years time, who by then having quit practice is making a fortune on his visionary 'Way-Out' programme for disillusioned lawyers!

nuac · 17-10-2008 06:36PM

Have to broadly agree with Demiurge and Dats_right regarding trends in solicitors' profession over recent years. I speak from 30+ years in general practice, and from discussions with many colleagues both solicitors and barristers. It is becoming a very difficult profession.

I note a comment regarding ten years experience or one years experience ten times. Not so in practice. In actual practice one meets different colleagues while doing different cases and transactions, so over 30+ years you get to know many other lawyers well enougb to be able to discuss problems frankly. Also over the years the clients and nature of work changes, and of course law and procedure is always changing.

Therefore I suggest to those considering a career in law that the views of Demiurge and Dat_right reflect current trends within the profession, and to carefully consider their choices..

I note and admire the optimism of other posters, but most of them appear to be still students or have little practical work experience.

TheDemiurge · 17-10-2008 08:54PM

Thanks for the messages of support. I've been offline doing accounts for most of today.

I'm not going to post an overly long response tonight but I would like to point out to one particular poster who has deliberately misquoted me that I was using the services of a lawyer life coach, not re-training to be one. Elgransenor, the particular post I wrote was quite clear in this respect. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D

dats_right wrote: »

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to assess the way things have gone and where the profession is going

:D:D

elgransenor wrote: »

As for the experience, is that 10 years experience or 1 year repeated 10 times? Big difference you know.

It's ten years post qualification experience in which I've worked in general practice, telecommunications, and entertainment law - yes, entertainment law, the last hope of frustrated and bored trainees. I don't want to say much more because given how few solicitors in Ireland actually get to do entertainment law - despite the ambitions of thousands of wannabe James Hickeys the length and breadth of the country - my internet cover might be blown. I'm coming to the point though where I might go public on just how hard it is for solicitors and how it's about time the general population started showing us some respect again.

That aside, your assertion that I am somewhat of a crap solicitor because I didn't make millions during the boom - whereas you my friend seem to believe that the world is waiting with baited breath for you to qualify - is, quite frankly, very silly, and I'm finding it hard to accept that you have much in-office experience to date from the statements you've made.

Anyone who has in-office experience would know that during the years of easy credit - the "boom" to you - solicitors, very stupidly, dropped their legal fees. They did it because a few firms were trying to get every single conveyance going - then get out of the game and do something else, leaving the smouldering ruins behind them. Everyone else - including the respectable old mid-tier firms - had to follow. The supply of McLaw worked for some for a while - but not for others - and we all know how that ended. It simply is not sustainable in the long run to engage in below cost selling.

If you don't believe me, there's a very well respected guy who acts as a financial advisor to law firms. He's willing to tell you what I'm telling you, for 250 Euro an hour. I thought I was in a bad situation - I'm the pennyboy compared to the trouble some guys are facing. It's all very saddening, more than anything else. We live in an increasingly policed and harsh world, where we have little or no control over the decisions taken that affect our daily lives. My own personal belief, is that solicitors such as myself and other small to medium sized firms, are being targeted, both directly and indirectly, to make it more difficult for non-qualifieds to access legal services, and obtain redress against those who exploit them. Just look at events of the last few days - solicitors are desperately needed, but if the numbers don't add up, we can't do what it is that we would most like to or should.

I appreciate that you can't handle the truth. The truth isn't easy when you're invested so much. I think the best that can be said for overly optimistic trainees is that they're still at the academic stage. When they qualify - let's see how they get on with the practical.

Johnny Utah · 17-10-2008 10:46PM

TheDemiurge,
I appreciate your honesty and I'm sorry to hear that you're thinking of leaving the profession. Are things really that bad? Have things got to the point that you just cannot make money in general practice anymore, or is it a case that you can make a small income but it isn't worth the hassle/stress?

Have you got any support from the Law Society on what your best options are?

Have you considered applying for a position as a solicitor in the civil service?

Maximilian wrote: »

Johnny, what is the difference between limiting numbers and raising the standard of the fe1's? The purpose of the latter being of course to limit numbers which you accept is wrong.

In your last post you said that the fe1s do not limit numbers, or at least that's the way the Law Society see it. If that is the case, then why don't they just drop the pass mark to 40%, which wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. Hell, why don't they go all the the way and make them as easy as college exams. If they did, there would probably be about 2000 a year passing the fe1s, and dare I say it the Law School wouldn't want that.

Having high academic standards is quite common- eg. cao points to get into medicine, architecture, dentistry, etc. All it proves is that the successful applicants performed better on the day of the exam.
And, furthermore, if having a high academic standard in order to get into a particular college course constitutes illegal protectionism, then why hasn't the cao points system been successfully challenged?

(All of the above is pretty pointless debate anyway. The Law Society is not going to restrict/limit numbers. However, it's quite clear that there will be less new solicitors qualifying in the next few years- I can guarantee you that. Firms will take on less trainees than they did a few years ago, so it doesn't really matter how many pass the fe1s if they cannot ultimately secure a training contract.
A few months ago, I predicted that numbers on the ppc would drop, and I think they are down about 100 on this year's course.)

nuac wrote: »

To those embarking or thinking of embarking on a legal career, think it over seriously while the shore is still within swimming distance.

How do I know if the shore is still within swimming distance? (serious question)

Maximilian · 18-10-2008 12:39PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

In your last post you said that the fe1s do not limit numbers, or at least that's the way the Law Society see it. If that is the case, then why don't they just drop the pass mark to 40%, which wouldn't make much of a difference anyway. Hell, why don't they go all the the way and make them as easy as college exams. If they did, there would probably be about 2000 a year passing the fe1s, and dare I say it the Law

The purpose of making the pass rate lower would be to lower the numbers qualifying and for no other justifiable reason. They can't do that.

Duffman · 21-10-2008 06:14PM

Here's a question for the experienced solicitors in this thread.

Some posters have warned against entering the profession and said that they would get out if they could. This obviously hasn't dissuaded some keen students and trainees above.

Whether or not this is foolish is one issue. But assume for a moment that you were committed to the profession and/or shared their ambitions (or delusions).

If you were in their position today, under present market conditions but with the knowledge and experience you have acquired over the years where/what would you practice for your own sanity and security?

Maximilian · 21-10-2008 06:30PM

If it were me I would be looking at commercial litigation and insolvency. I would have thought those two areas will continue to perform well through a recession.

johnnyskeleton · 21-10-2008 06:44PM

Duffman wrote: »

If you were in their position today, under present market conditions but with the knowledge and experience you have acquired over the years where/what would you practice for your own sanity and security?

While I don't claim to be a solicitor, you have to ask yourself why you would be so committed to the profession, and I think the only logical answer is that you enjoy the work.

Therefore, the real question is, what kind of work do you want to do? Are you passionate about human, civil and political rights, or do you love the idea of precisely dealing with the remains of a once profitable company? How about helping people deal with the most emotionally difficult times in their family lives? Do you have wet dreams about gardai forgetting to prove the road traffic regulations? Can you imagine yourself sitting up late (by candlelight) carefully reading a crumbling, handwritten fee farm grant? There is one other option - do you like the idea of general practice, where you have absolutely no idea (but a good guess) what type of client will walk through your door?

As has already been pointed out in this thread, if you are only interested in the money you will more likely than not be disappointed. However, there are no absolutes.

happygal82 · 21-10-2008 10:45PM

Badboy21 wrote: »

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

so bad boy have u decided what u got in ur leaving cert 510 on this thread or 600 on another thread???

a-ha · 23-01-2009 03:16AM

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.

The bar is now nigh impossible for those without family connections. I have long since rationally accepted that I may never succeed and that the ten years of hard graft it has taken me to get this far is probably wasted, not for lack of work ethic or ability, but because I lack connections. I need an income (my two year's devilling was of course unpaid) I'm out on my own now) but with my day job making a loss I'm trapped in a cycle of working insane hours just to eek by. My job is destroying me but I lack the courage to leave because I will have failed.

irish_hic85 · 23-01-2009 04:11AM

I'm new to this thread so I apologise if I am rehashing old arguments.
The original poster criticised the fact that people from Griffith College are able to sit the FE1's and attend Blackhall. I find such an argument to be completely ridculous. I attended Griffith and I now have a law degree. That does not mean that I also did not work my a-ss off for my leaving certificate. I was unlucky and did not get enough points to go to one of the big universitys but I really wanted to do law and I don't believe that the fact that I wasn't all that great at biology should hold me back from pursuing a career in law. A better argument than that of the original poster, and one which I agree with completely, is that those who do not have a law, or law-based, degree should not be eligible to sit the FE1's. This would be a better scenario than that which the original poster enuncated from way up there on his high horse. The fact that Griffith College is fully accredited by the Kings Inns, in addition to the Law Society, should more than quash such a ridiculous argument.

irish_hic85 · 23-01-2009 04:16AM

Oh and I successfully passed all my FE1s in two sittings - five the first sitting and three the second sitting - and did not have to take them one at a time like some of you seemed to suggest would ne needed by a GCD graduate. :rolleyes: However, I think I should rethink my career in law because a law degree and eight FE1s means nothing when one considers that I couldn't tell you the ins and outs of amoeba at the age of 17. :rolleyes:

drkpower · 24-01-2009 01:08AM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

A better argument than that of the original poster, and one which I agree with completely, is that those who do not have a law, or law-based, degree should not be eligible to sit the FE1's.

I have seen this view expressed on many occasions. Can anyone tell me what the logic is?

I did a law degree (after a previous career), subsequently did FE1's and am now a solicitor. I essentially did my law degree while working in my previous career (on a locum basis) - i didnt attend lectures/tutorials much and essentially did the degree from the books. The value of the law degree is marginal at best and the skill sets that people bring from other degrees/careers at least makes up for the academic legal knowledge developed in a law based degree.

Johnny Utah · 24-01-2009 02:23PM

drkpower wrote: »

I have seen this view expressed on many occasions. Can anyone tell me what the logic is?

I did a law degree (after a previous career), subsequently did FE1's and am now a solicitor. I essentially did my law degree while working in my previous career (on a locum basis) - i didnt attend lectures/tutorials much and essentially did the degree from the books. The value of the law degree is marginal at best and the skill sets that people bring from other degrees/careers at least makes up for the academic legal knowledge developed in a law based degree.

What about all the other professions in Ireland which operate as a closed shop?

Take medicine for example. If a graduate wants to pursue medicine, they have to pass the Gamsat exam, pass an interview, and fork out ridiculously high fees for the course. The fees alone will put a lot of people off. Even if you are accepted on the graduate medicine course, you still go back to square one and study the exact same material as an undergraduate medicine student.

If the barriers to entry are removed in one profession (ie law), then I think it's only fair that similar rules are applied to other professions. Would you agree?

Medicine, dentistry, pharmacy etc (all of which are very lucrative) are essentially a closed shop in this country, and something needs to be done about it.

drkpower · 24-01-2009 05:09PM

Johnny Utah wrote: »

What about all the other professions in Ireland which operate as a closed shop?

Take medicine for example. If a graduate wants to pursue medicine, they have to pass the Gamsat exam, pass an interview, and fork out ridiculously high fees for the course. The fees alone will put a lot of people off. Even if you are accepted on the graduate medicine course, you still go back to square one and study the exact same material as an undergraduate medicine student.

If the barriers to entry are removed in one profession (ie law), then I think it's only fair that similar rules are applied to other professions. Would you agree?

Medicine, dentistry, pharmacy etc (all of which are very lucrative) are essentially a closed shop in this country, and something needs to be done about it.

I agree with the principle of making entry into all professions/careers more straightforward (medicine was my previous career). Medicine is a perfect example of a career that would benefit from attracting people with other, lets say, life experience.

Im not totally sure of the structure of the post-grad course but i do agree that the basic biology/chemistry/physics/biochemistry aspects of the post-grad should be fast-tracked or possibly should be part of the curriculum of the Gamsat (is it not?) ensuring that people getting through the Gamsats have some basic science knowledge base.

I dont think you can fast-track beyond that though. Anatomy, histology, pharmacology are so fundamental a part of a medical degree that i think they need to be covered fully before people move onto the clinical/practical aspects of the degree.

irish_hic85 · 24-01-2009 07:37PM

drkpower wrote: »

I have seen this view expressed on many occasions. Can anyone tell me what the logic is?

I did a law degree (after a previous career), subsequently did FE1's and am now a solicitor. I essentially did my law degree while working in my previous career (on a locum basis) - i didnt attend lectures/tutorials much and essentially did the degree from the books. The value of the law degree is marginal at best and the skill sets that people bring from other degrees/careers at least makes up for the academic legal knowledge developed in a law based degree.

My logic is concerned with the general tenet of this thread - namely that too many people are allowed to sit the FE1 exams. A ridiculous number of people sit the FE1s every year, and it has made the profession a flooded market whereby hundreds of people are competing for the one traineeship. My argument is based on the belief that if you want to practice in law, then a law or law-based (i.e business and law etc.) degree should be a prerequisite. I've no doubt that other degrees would provide valuable skill sets when entering the legal environment, but by allowing all manner of graduates to sit the FE1s willynilly almost makes a law degree redundant unless, of course, you want to be a barrister.

For example, if you want to be a doctor you have to study medicine. However, consistent with your argument drkpower, if a law graduate was allowed to become a doctor he could add some valuable skills to the profession, such as a more extensive knowledge, perhaps, of medical negligence issues. But I don't think for one second think that anybody but a medicine student should be allowed become a doctor, i don't think that somebody who hasn't studied pharmacy should be allowed to become a pharmacist etc tc and therefore i don't think that anyone who hasn't studied law should be allowed to practice in law.

drkpower · 24-01-2009 10:08PM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

For example, if you want to be a doctor you have to study medicine. However, consistent with your argument drkpower, if a law graduate was allowed to become a doctor he could add some valuable skills to the profession, such as a more extensive knowledge, perhaps, of medical negligence issues. But I don't think for one second think that anybody but a medicine student should be allowed become a doctor, i don't think that somebody who hasn't studied pharmacy should be allowed to become a pharmacist etc tc and therefore i don't think that anyone who hasn't studied law should be allowed to practice in law.

But the key part of the training to be a lawyer is Traineeship in a firm and Blackhall. The law degree is valuable for sure but it really is only a basic grounding in the study of law and the FE1's do ensure that people going into a traineeship have a reasonable grounding in law.

The analogy i would make with medicine is that the basic science subjects + biochemistry/pharmacology (and at a push histology/pharmacology) are the basic grounding and i wouldn have a problem with people coming in from other disciplines and doing a "conversion" exam which ensures that people have a basic knowledge in those subjects. The important bit is the advanced anatomy and clinical teaching which I would compare to the traineeship/Blackhall part of becoming a solicitor.

The law degree and science based academic study are not vital to the training of a lawyer/doctor; what is vital is the "2nd half" of the training.

irish_hic85 · 25-01-2009 04:24PM

drkpower wrote: »

But the key part of the training to be a lawyer is Traineeship in a firm and Blackhall. The law degree is valuable for sure but it really is only a basic grounding in the study of law and the FE1's do ensure that people going into a traineeship have a reasonable grounding in law.

The law degree and science based academic study are not vital to the training of a lawyer/doctor; what is vital is the "2nd half" of the training.

I'm firmly of the opinion that you have to have took part in the first half of the law in order to be entitled to take part in the second half. I agree the second half is more specific and job oriented but I still believe that a more clearly defined structure should be reached so that there isn't the same vast degree of people qualifying each year which has had the effect of flooding the profession. Education by necessity has operated as a closed shop - our system requires a person to sit the leaving cert - then requires them to get enough points to attend certain third level courses - it also requires certain grades in specific subjects (e.g. you must have good grades in leaving cert maths to attend maths in uni) etc. etc. Therefore, given the underlying theme in our education system, you should have to have good enough results in law subjects and a high overall degree GPA to be allowed to go from uni to attend Blackhall, in the same manner that you have to go from secondary to uni in the first place.

I am particulary bitter about the present system as I obtained first class honours in law, finishd as top student in my class and was awarded with the best academic achievement award but I still can't get an interview let alone a traineeship given the sheer amount of people who are allowed to enter the profession. It would seem that I would have been as well off pissing into the wind for the last four years as I was doing a law degree. What was the point in studying night and day in order to get good law degree results when I can't get a job in law because the positions are being filled by non-legal students. I am now going to have to shell out more money and become more indebted to the bank in order to sit a masters so that I can at least give myself a fighting chance at having a career in the profession I chose five years ago before i started college, as opposed to other candidates who have decided to jump ship upon finishing their non-legal degree.

drkpower · 25-01-2009 05:05PM

I hear you and feel for you and anyone starting a legal career right now (including me, altthough i ahve a couple of years under my belt).

But restricting the profession to people who have completed a pure law degree is not the answer; there are other ways of restricting access to the profession (if that is preferable is another question).

In my experience, there is almost no difference between the quality of my colleagues who have done a law degree or those who did a business/other degree. The imposition of the law degree requirement is just an artificial barrier to entry which has no real justification.

And when choosing people for interview, the fact that they have doen a law degree is rarely a significant factor at all.

And as for the quality of a law degree (in UCD anyway), i have my doubts.... but thats another debate

impr0v · 25-01-2009 05:12PM

Whine. You aren't owed a job by the marketplace, regardless of whether you decided you wanted one yesterday or five years ago.

I'm aware that there are difficulties in securing interviews at the moment, but you must be doing something wrong if you can't get one with those academics.

The firm I work for held interviews last week and when I hear the partners laughing about some of the answers they were given by candidates I think of this thread and the askaboutmoney thread and the people who list off their academic achievements and whine because they can't get jobs. I've no doubt that there are individuals that would make very good lawyers and who can't get the necessary breaks, but the conclusion that I've come to is that very many of the "I DESERVE A JOB" whingers would bring very little to a job other than their academics. Let's face it, law isn't that difficult a subject to study; good results are more about application than talent and, from that point of view, a shining academic cv says relatively little about someone other than attesting to their ability to put in the hours. That's certainly a useful ability to have in the workplace, but it does not mean that you have the full skillset.

In fact I would go as far as to say that coming on to a forum like this and ranting and raving about how people without a legal background have denied you your birthright is indicative of the absence of a "can-do" mentality. Making it in any profession is primarily about obtaining the prerequisite qualifications, but after that it's about distinguishing yourself from everyone else that has the same qualifications.

The person that came on during the week and posted in about four threads about how tough it was to make it at the bar without connections is a shining example. Who cares? We all know it's not easy, but the old chestnut about it being the fault of the pampered SoCoDu set hoovering up the work because Daddy is a solicitor is just a cop-out. If you've been hanging around the bar for 5 years and failed to make any impression on either of your two masters, or any of their friends, or any of the solicitors that you've met, or even any of the people that saw you on your feet making your master's applications, then the real problem is your inability to make connections of your own. If it hasn't worked out by now then it's not going to work and you'd be better off looking for other options than whining here about how damned unfair it all is.

For the record, my primary degree isn't in law. I work in a large commercial firm and, according to the legal500 (that gospel of truth), our team is the best at what we do in the country. There haven't been redundancies yet but, pragmatically, they're almost an inevitability in the current climate. If I get let go I won't be too worried about it, I'll go and do something else, perhaps completely outside law. One thing is for sure, I won't be on here singing from the "woe is me" hymnsheet and denouncing all those that have kept their jobs.

johnnyskeleton · 25-01-2009 05:30PM

irish_hick85 wrote:

It would seem that I would have been as well off pissing into the wind for the last four years as I was doing a law degree. What was the point in studying night and day in order to get good law degree results when I can't get a job in law because the positions are being filled by non-legal students. I am now going to have to shell out more money and become more indebted to the bank in order to sit a masters so that I can at least give myself a fighting chance at having a career in the profession I chose five years ago before i started college,

If you are not getting an interview notwithstanding your good academics, you should consider improving the other areas of your CV. If employers are not impressed by a 1st, will it really make much of a difference if you also have a 1st in a masters? Maybe a change of tack is what is required.

impr0v wrote: »

Let's face it, law isn't that difficult a subject to study; good results are more about application than talent and, from that point of view, a shining academic cv says relatively little about someone other than attesting to their ability to put in the hours. That's certainly a useful ability to have in the workplace, but it does not mean that you have the full skillset.

That's it, and I might go as far as to say that as a lot of the top lawyers wouldn't have law degrees (let alone firsts or a masters) they might have more sympathy for an applicant who has more life experience.

irish_hick85 wrote:

The person that came on during the week and posted in about four threads about how tough it was to make it at the bar without connections is a shining example. Who cares? We all know it's not easy, but the old chestnut about it being the fault of the pampered SoCoDu set hoovering up the work because Daddy is a solicitor is just a cop-out. If you've been hanging around the bar for 5 years and failed to make any impression on either of your two masters, or any of their friends, or any of the solicitors that you've met, or even any of the people that saw you on your feet making your master's applications, then the real problem is your inability to make connections of your own.

I would tend to agree, but with the caveat that there is an element of luck and randomness to it as well. Being a safe pair of hands and being in the right place at the right time is far more important than being a hard working expert on a particular area that no one knows about.

newby09 · 25-01-2009 06:13PM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

I'm firmly of the opinion that you have to have took part in the first half of the law in order to be entitled to take part in the second half. ..........Therefore, given the underlying theme in our education system, you should have to have good enough results in law subjects and a high overall degree GPA to be allowed to go from uni to attend Blackhall, in the same manner that you have to go from secondary to uni in the first place.

I am particulary bitter about the present system as I obtained first class honours in law, finishd as top student in my class and was awarded with the best academic achievement award but I still can't get an interview let alone a traineeship given the sheer amount of people who are allowed to enter the profession. It would seem that I would have been as well off pissing into the wind for the last four years as I was doing a law degree. What was the point in studying night and day in order to get good law degree results when I can't get a job in law because the positions are being filled by non-legal students.

If you got a first class honours at one of the good colleges and not a fee paying one then you should just work on your extra curricular activities to help get an interview. I dont think that opening Blackhall and FE1's to non law degree students has taken ALL the training positions away. There is still strong recruitment from the top universities in ireland and people who haven't a law degree but worked hard and passed the FE1's deserve the opportunity to become a solicitor. Just the same as you dont need to be a brainbox to be a good doctor applies to being a solicitor. I dont believe that there is more than 10-15% of training training contracts with the big 5 going to non law grads anyway? Please correct me if I'm wrong!

The market is saturated and therefore you should distinguish yourself from the non law graduates. (I havent a training contract but I am studying law at a good college and believe that I stand just as good a chance, if not better than non law graduates at securing a contract)
The current state of things will probably deter people taking the non law route as there is already plenty of people coming out of college who are already ahead of them in the queue in most cases, although there are some exceptions.

irish_hic85 · 25-01-2009 06:54PM

In terms of extra-curricular activities: i have represented Kildare in GAA at every level bar senior; i have captained my club at every grade; i was a kildare white star following the 2006 club championship season; i am a manager with the underage teams in my club and I am also a club committee member involved with the day-to-day running and organisation of the club. Furthermore I have played rugby, basketball and soccer for GCD and played soccer with my local team. I am also a volunteer at the Sisters of charity of jesus and mary home for mentally and physically challenged individuals and I also help raise money every year to fund our towns christmas lights!!!

Now I'm not on here to laud my own abilities and qualities, I am merely responding to other posts. However, had the market not be saturated by individuals who have not studied law then I believe that I would have been a shoo-in for a traineeship, given my qualifications and my experience from extra-curricular activities. But as it stands, I can't even get an interview. Unfair system full stop

a-ha · 25-01-2009 07:07PM

To quote a poster above "good results are more about application than talent".

If I was hiring I would care about the good results because they show both talent and hard work. People who graduate with first class honors (I didn't) do so because they have both talent and the ability to apply that talent through sheer hard work. To suggest otherwise begrudgery and nothing else.

I sympathise with the poster who is having difficulty securing a job. People with law degrees should not have to sit FE1s, pure and simple. The FE1s are a money spinner for the Law Society. They should not be forcing people with four year degrees to sit exams in all of their degree subjects again. It's a goddamn waste of time. They know the material already, relearning it and regurgitating it for an exam is a total waste of energy. The original poster is quite right in pointing out that the situation is unfair. If the shoe were on the other foot and non-law applicants to the law society were required to sit eight of their degree subjects again in order to gain admission they would be similiarly fed up.

Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

Comments