Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

drkpower · 25-01-2009 07:08PM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

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

Thats all very laudable but, rightly or wrongly, its ultimately only window dressing - legal (and commercial legal) aptitude and experience is the key - and the manner in which an application form is written is vital, it needs to jump off the page, and so many people either write the same old stuff or fail to tailor their cv to the firm they are applying for.

drkpower · 25-01-2009 07:14PM

a-ha wrote: »

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..

You may believe that but as you progress through a career, one's academic resultts when they were 18-22 years old simply doesnt matter a whole lot and partners making decisions on who to give an interview to/employ do so more on the assessment of their characheter. Results are a part but so many people have 1.1/2.2s that it really is not a discriminating factor of any significance. The practice of law is more about judgment and cop on and less about academics.

a-ha wrote: »

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.

That is a different question though; exempting law graduates from FE1's is a good idea but preventing non-law graduates from entering the profession is an entirely different matter.

johnnyskeleton · 25-01-2009 07:32PM

a-ha wrote: »

They should not be forcing people with four year degrees to sit exams in all of their degree subjects again.

Read the Bloomer & Abrahamson decisions. The LS have to either:

a) exempt all law degrees from all the EU; or
b) require all applicants to sit the entrance exam (irrespective of having a degree or not).

a-ha · 25-01-2009 07:46PM

Valiant defender of the status quo eh? Not an imaginative answer my friend. Better to think critically about such decisions. Not necessarily the best or even the only answer. The courts don't decide cases in a vacuum.

CDfm · 25-01-2009 08:06PM

Nothing against you OP - but after my experiences as a guy in Family Law I have a very low opinion of solicitors. There are plenty of jobs in McDonalds and make more people happier.

drkpower · 25-01-2009 08:35PM

a-ha wrote: »

Valiant defender of the status quo eh? Not an imaginative answer my friend. Better to think critically about such decisions. Not necessarily the best or even the only answer. The courts don't decide cases in a vacuum.

In fairness, there is little chance, no matter what the circumstances, that those decisons would be overturned given EU law. It would be open to the LawSoc to exempt law graduates europe-wide from the FE1 requirement but that may pose its own difficulties.

jdscrubs · 25-01-2009 09:31PM

looking4advice wrote: »

Hi all. I am a trainee Solicitor and am due to qualify in December '08. I would like to hear other trainees views on the fact that there will be probably very few jobs when we do qualify. I know a lot of you will have little sympathy for lawyers (who does?!) but I am really annoyed at the way the Law Society have handled the numbers qualifying.

I think a in '03 there was about 250 qualifying which was fine. Now there is 3 times that! The Law Society are obviously afraid of what the Competition Authority will do if they limit the numbers. I think the Law Society were quoted as saying re numbers qualifying "it is our job to educate not to regulate the numbers" which is total bullsh*t.

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's. i know the FE1's are tough but a lot of people can pass 8 exams in 10 seperate sittings. I met a lot of non BCL people in Blackhall and they really don't understand the basics of law.

I can understand this argument. The Law Sociey is meant "train" people to become solicitors. I put "train" like this cos I dont think this is actually their primary objective. I think their primary objective is to make money and lots of it.

Over the last few years, the amount qualifing have reached record numbers. This was fine when there was enough work to go around. However this is no longer the case anymore what with the recession. You would think that the Law Society would cap the amount of people coming in so as to clear out the system. This is not happening. Now I know the Competition Authority will argue that the Law Society cannot reduce numbers as it would be anti competitive but surely its better to cap the numbers then having more qualify and ending up on the dole. However the Law Society keep letting more & more in. Yet the ones who are qualifying are finding there is no work for them. Are the Law Society doing anything to help these newly qualified solicitors. Of course not cos there is no money in it for them.

Before one gets to Blackhall, one has to pass 8 exams, which when I did were around €80 each. I hear they are now €100 each. Most people do not pass all 8 on their first or second go so like me, takes 4 attempts to get all 8. Then when one passes them, one has to look for an apprenticeship so one can get into Blackhall. No help by the Law Society here as again there is no money involved in it. When one does get an apprenticeship, one then has to pay around €6500 for 6 months of college. You would expect 6 months of lectures and tutorials that are well thought and prepared. Not so especailly in conveyancing where most of the lecturers and tutors were terrible. They were done so badly that way to many failed conveyancing this time around and had to be repeated. You would think that after paying €6500 that that was it but no, one had to pay another €110 per subject if one wanted their exam to be rechecked and then another €100 per repeat. Again its all money for the Law Society who do not care about what they are meant to be doing, training. Then when one goes back to the 2nd stint in college for 2&bit months, which keeps reducing, one has to pay around €3,500, which keeps rising. Eventually when one qualifies more money is spent getting ones name onto the roll of solicitors and getting one's parchment. Unless you are getting everything paid for by your firm, which I know a lot arent, when one qualifies, they would have spent on average around more then €20,000 to become a solicitor only now to find themselves on the dole queue.

You would think that after having spent(money wise) and given so much money to the Law Society, that you would get some help from them, when times are bad, like they are now, for those qualifying. This is not the case. All the Law Society are interested in are making money and lots of it. There are still taking people for college this September and another 500 started in Dublin last September.

johnnyskeleton · 25-01-2009 11:31PM

a-ha wrote: »

Valiant defender of the status quo eh? Not an imaginative answer my friend. Better to think critically about such decisions. Not necessarily the best or even the only answer. The courts don't decide cases in a vacuum.

No, I'm just being pragmatic - as are the LS. You said they should not be forcing people with a law degree to sit the FE1s but they tried this and the High Court said no. They could exempt law grads EU wide if they want, but they don't want. I can understand why, as French law is very different to Irish law. No, the way they have it is fairer - a TCD grad with a first should have no problem with the exams, while someone without a law degree will need to study harder for them.

CDfm · 25-01-2009 11:39PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't know, if you're the solicitor who represented someone who was acquitted of murder, I'm sure you would make him or her much happier than the person who gives them a burger and fries!

McDonalds make more people happier than solicitors do. I thought it was the barristers who do the real work in murder cases.

And a good supply of solicitors will bring fees down - its about time?

If a solicitor is not good enough to be employed then is he asking too much money.Supply and Demand.

johnnyskeleton · 26-01-2009 12:19AM

CDfm wrote: »

McDonalds make more people happier than solicitors do. I thought it was the barristers who do the real work in murder cases.

Well I suppose that doctors and dentists don't exactly make people happy either, but they do provide a service that is unfortunately necessary at times. While murder cases will invariably have junior and senior counsel who will do most of the advocacy, ultimately it is the Solicitor's client.

CDfm · 26-01-2009 12:25AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While murder cases will invariably have junior and senior counsel who will do most of the advocacy, ultimately it is the Solicitor's client.

.. and its the solicitors job to run down to the local McDonalds;)

johnnyskeleton · 26-01-2009 12:37AM

CDfm wrote: »

.. and its the solicitors job to run down to the local McDonalds;)

Well no, although it might look like the solicitor and junior counsel are doing nothing and the senior counsel is doing all the work, you have to remember that there is a lot of paperwork, preparation and consultations to be done by all the lawyers involved. The solicitor's job can often be as stressful, as barristers can just go back to the law library after the case, whereas the solicitor has to break the news to the client that they are going to jail for life.

CDfm · 26-01-2009 12:42AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well no, although it might look like the solicitor and junior counsel are doing nothing and the senior counsel is doing all the work, you have to remember that there is a lot of paperwork, preparation and consultations to be done by all the lawyers involved. The solicitor's job can often be as stressful, as barristers can just go back to the law library after the case, whereas the solicitor has to break the news to the client that they are going to jail for life.

the client has the most stressful job then:D

drkpower · 26-01-2009 01:13AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well no, although it might look like the solicitor and junior counsel are doing nothing and the senior counsel is doing all the work, you have to remember that there is a lot of paperwork, preparation and consultations to be done by all the lawyers involved. The solicitor's job can often be as stressful, as barristers can just go back to the law library after the case, whereas the solicitor has to break the news to the client that they are going to jail for life.

dont fall for the bait!!

irish_hic85 · 26-01-2009 03:13AM

drkpower wrote: »

Thats all very laudable but, rightly or wrongly, its ultimately only window dressing - legal (and commercial legal) aptitude and experience is the key - and the manner in which an application form is written is vital, it needs to jump off the page, and so many people either write the same old stuff or fail to tailor their cv to the firm they are applying for.

i was just highlighting that i do in engage in a good variety of extra-curricular activites because another poster suggested that maybe i had to pad this area. I do believe, however, that such window dressing is somewhat important as it highlights key attributes in an individual.

I have had recruitment agencies read over my CV and I also had my CV proof read by two lecturers, one of whom is in UCD and the other is in independent colleges. Therefore, I have a very strong CV when one considers its acamdemic and extra-curricular content, in addition to its presentation. However, I still have the guts of 100 rejection letters or emails from solicitors (and a lot didn't even reply) and I was called for only one interview. I repeat, the market is saturated and the system has to be amended. I don't believe that law students should be allowed to attend Blackhall but if they had to be allowed then I would agree with a-ha when s/he stated that law students should be exempt from the FE-1s and that non law students should have to sit those exams as a form of aptitude test (with one proviso that those law students should have to have a 2.1 degree or higher to be exempt, the remainder being required to sit the FE1s). At least that would be fairer and would make a law degree worth more than the paper it's written on.

road_2_damascus · 26-01-2009 03:29AM

looking4advice wrote: »

Hi all. I am a trainee Solicitor and am due to qualify in December '08. I would like to hear other trainees views on the fact that there will be probably very few jobs when we do qualify. I know a lot of you will have little sympathy for lawyers (who does?!) but I am really annoyed at the way the Law Society have handled the numbers qualifying.

I think a in '03 there was about 250 qualifying which was fine. Now there is 3 times that! The Law Society are obviously afraid of what the Competition Authority will do if they limit the numbers. I think the Law Society were quoted as saying re numbers qualifying "it is our job to educate not to regulate the numbers" which is total bullsh*t.

Another point I'd like to make is I don't think that people who do not have a BCL degree or equivalent(e.g.BBLS) should be allowed do the FE1's straigt away. There should be a mandatory legal studies diploma for them to do. I am not saying that they should not be allowed in - just that it is unfair that you get the likes of Sols daughters/sons who don't have the intelligence to get the points for Law in college and then go to Griffith and pass the FE1's. i know the FE1's are tough but a lot of people can pass 8 exams in 10 seperate sittings. I met a lot of non BCL people in Blackhall and they really don't understand the basics of law.

Sorry for the rant but I'd like to hear other trainees views.

It will become like India, where there are lots of phd qualified people, and no jobs to go round. That is why they travel to the West to work... take a look at tho hospitals in Ireland, why are there so many Indian and Pakistani doctors on board? There is a guy in our town doing very well selling door to door logs for wood burning ranges

CDfm · 26-01-2009 07:47AM

road_2_damascus wrote: »

There is a guy in our town doing very well selling door to door logs for wood burning ranges

an honest calling and the OP implied there is no work for solicitors

but there was always an over supply of lawyers that went into business or industry etc

they do have transferable skills;)

if a guy really wanted to practice he would find a way - there are loads of seperated guys looking for solictors they can afford and small or old solicitors firms etc that would take on affordable people.

if its your vocation you will find a way

newby09 · 26-01-2009 12:28PM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

....I have had recruitment agencies read over my CV and I also had my CV proof read by two lecturers, one of whom is in UCD and the other is in independent colleges. Therefore, I have a very strong CV when one considers its acamdemic and extra-curricular content, in addition to its presentation.....

A lot of firms use application forms so maybe you have a good CV but fail to transfer that info into the applications and end up leaving out things unconsciously as you just answer the questions asked?

From your other comment you have good extra curricular activities so they aren't the problem, but I know of others with absolutely F-all extra curricular and they got interviews so they aren't the be all and end all either. However, academics can be. Maybe thats the problem?

CDfm · 26-01-2009 01:08PM

i dont think extra curricullar activities count for much

if i saw someone as a treasurer of something or even an assistant petrol station manager it would say he can be trusted with money

a comitee member of a gaa or rugby club or even political party would say he mixes and can bring in business

junior chamber of commerce the same

so you can have interests but do they havbe a commercial application and can they be used to generate fee income

Amazotheamazing · 26-01-2009 01:54PM

The only way to restrict numbers is to make the FE's harder. It's pointless whining about it being open to everyone. The FE's are jokes of exams, imo.

irish_hic85 · 26-01-2009 02:06PM

impr0v wrote: »

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.

As i have shown, i have more than just mere academics. The point i'm making is that I can't even get an interview, let alone job. I never said I have a God given right to a job but the market so saturated by non-law graduates, such as your good self, that people who have studied law can't even get an interview in law .

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.

It's very easy to sit up there on your pedestal, high horse, or whtever you want to call it and look down on the rest of s just because you have a job. but i did not denounce anybody who took advantage of the opportunity - i am stating that the opportunity should not be there in the first place for non law graduates, or at least that law graduates should have an advantage - such as exemption from the FE1s. So don't dare call me a whinger just because you have a job.

a-ha · 26-01-2009 02:10PM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

It's very easy to sit up there on your pedestal, high horse, or whtever you want to call it and look down on the rest of s just because you have a job. but i did not denounce anybody who took advantage of the opportunity - i am stating that the opportunity should not be there in the first place for non law graduates, or at least that law graduates should have an advantage - such as exemption from the FE1s. So don't dare call me a whinger just because you have a job.

Here, here. There are a lot of people out there who would feel very differently if the shoe were on the other foot. A little empathy never hurt anyone.

dazza21ie · 26-01-2009 02:17PM

I don't really agree with some of the arguments being made here. Firstly people are arguing that people with law based degrees should be exempt from the Fe1's and secondly people are complaining about the market being saturated.
If you exempt people with law degrees from doing the Fe'1s i would think this would really flood the market. I know alot of people are put off the qualifying route because they don't fancy the Fe1's.
Would it not result in a drop of standards also e.g. a person who just scraps a pass in their degree and would really struggle with the Fe1's is given an exemption and therefore could easily qualify if they have an apprenticeship setup.

3DataModem · 26-01-2009 02:20PM

ronnie3585 wrote: »

The point I was trying to convey is that the dog on the street could have foreseen the situation that trainees and newly qualifieds are facing now.

But you didn't forsee it... ? Or you did, and still chose to do a law degree.. ?

Forget about THEIR plan B.

What's YOUR plan B?

irish_hic85 · 26-01-2009 03:04PM

dazza21ie wrote: »

I don't really agree with some of the arguments being made here. Firstly people are arguing that people with law based degrees should be exempt from the Fe1's and secondly people are complaining about the market being saturated.
If you exempt people with law degrees from doing the Fe'1s i would think this would really flood the market. I know alot of people are put off the qualifying route because they don't fancy the Fe1's.
Would it not result in a drop of standards also e.g. a person who just scraps a pass in their degree and would really struggle with the Fe1's is given an exemption and therefore could easily qualify if they have an apprenticeship setup.

I see where you're coming from dazza but if you check my post at the top of this page, #226, I already stated that I believe only those law students who obtained a 2.1 degree or higher should be exempt and that the FE1's should operate as a form of aptitude test for non law graduates, or those law graduates who did not get a 2.1 or higher. I believe such a system would be fairer as it is the Law Society of Ireland, so surely successful law graduates should not have to go through the same stringent tough exams as non law graduates given that they have already successfully passed those modules in college. Furthermore, there would be no drop in standards.

CDfm · 26-01-2009 06:46PM

a-ha wrote: »

Here, here. There are a lot of people out there who would feel very differently if the shoe were on the other foot. A little empathy never hurt anyone.

your drive to be a solicitor may have been for the money

its not a vocation to you because if it was you would get a law directory and phone every solicitors practice in the country looking to speak to the boss and to see if they are hiring

a-ha · 26-01-2009 06:57PM

CDfm wrote: »

your drive to be a solicitor may have been for the money

its not a vocation to you because if it was you would get a law directory and phone every solicitors practice in the country looking to speak to the boss and to see if they are hiring

Wrong poster CDfm. I am a barrister. If I was in it for the money I would have left long ago. I was merely sympathizing with the young solicitor who is having difficulty finding work. He/she probably has sent out hundreds of CVs. I am sure it is a painful and demoralizing process. If you were in that position you'd be irritated also, have a little compassion.

CDfm · 26-01-2009 07:28PM

a-ha wrote: »

Wrong poster CDfm. I am a barrister. If I was in it for the money I would have left long ago. I was merely sympathizing with the young solicitor who is having difficulty finding work. He/she probably has sent out hundreds of CVs. I am sure it is a painful and demoralizing process. If you were in that position you'd be irritated also, have a little compassion.

I work in a more competitive area and its a salutory lesson for a young solicitor to have to learn that life is hard and competitive.

I am sure prior to the recession things were rosy but he has little experience but has transferable skills.

Plenty of lawyers I know came up the hard way and he could do a lot worse then swotting up on the drink driving and traffic law and family law as we are in for a bumpy ride,

impr0v · 26-01-2009 10:57PM

irish_hic85 wrote: »

It's very easy to sit up there on your pedestal, high horse, or whtever you want to call it and look down on the rest of s just because you have a job. but i did not denounce anybody who took advantage of the opportunity - i am stating that the opportunity should not be there in the first place for non law graduates, or at least that law graduates should have an advantage - such as exemption from the FE1s. So don't dare call me a whinger just because you have a job.

I didn't call you a whinger because I have a job, I called you a whinger because you were whinging. You've thought about it for a while and seem to have decided that the fault isn't with you, it's with: (a) the gosh-darned system, (b) the people coming to the crowded table with a non-law primary degree, or (c) a combination of both.

You're clearly quite a rational person and capable of articulating your ideas, and I'd certainly look at your cv, but not everyone seems to share my view.

It's obviously somewhat facile at the moment to theorise in an economic vacuum, but the strike rate that you've described would seem to suggest that the firms you want to work for want something that you don't seem to offer them. Now, I can't tell you what it is because I haven't seen your cv and don't know you, and besides, I don't know exactly what they look for (and, believe me, it certainly isn't clear from one crop of trainees to the next). However, I'm pretty certain that it's not solely the reasons that you've come up with.

With regard to pedestals, i admit that it was a lazy way of claiming credibility and I did contemplate omitting the last paragraph of my previous post because it left me open to such accusations, but I thought it was worth pointing out the fact that I'm prone to being knocked off my pedestal in a matter of days or weeks, and that I won't waste my time pointing out the flaws in the system when and if it happens.

In addition, I wanted to make clear that I'm coming from a non law-degree background. The instances of that argument in this forum have risen roughly in proportion with the "C'MON, LET'S LYNCH THE PUBLIC SERVANTS" threads in after hours.

Despite the steep curve, I've yet to see a good argument as to why everyone thinks it's the panacea it's claimed to be. As far as I can see, it's little more than embryonic professional snobbery.

TheDemiurge · 26-01-2009 11:03PM

CDfm wrote: »

I am sure prior to the recession things were rosy but he has little experience but has transferable skills.

This old chestnut that's always wheeled out to lawyers who can't find work or a sufficient client base. :rolleyes:

For every employer who's impressed that someone has a law degree or legal qualification, there's ten who believe the hype that law is easy money for easy work, and that anyone wanting to leave it must be a serious flunkhead. Alternatively, they think you'll leave at the first opportunity, which may not be true.

If I could get a permanent job as a secretary tomorrow (I have a secretarial course and good temping experience), I'd jump at it. It's the thorny issue of ten years pqe as a solicitor that gets in the way. It's either admit it outright or pretend that I've spent that period overseas with Bhutanese mercenaries.

Annoyed Trainee Solicitor

Comments