Well, that's a kick in my careers teeth!

johnnyskeleton

In relation to your point Morbo, I would agree that the gardai are not as effective as they could be. Garda complaints is a fairly new and improving area. I think that it is a separate issue to tough sentences. However I recognise that a lot of the public calls for blood are based on a feeling that there is too much crime and that the criminal justice system is failing overall. I do not think that tougher sentences will make any significant difference to crime rates in general.

stirling wrote:

To my mind the criminal is too often treated as the victim and thus the focus is put on the need to rehabilitate them more than it is on the impact that the crime has on the victims.

No, the paramount concern in sentencing is to prevent reoffending on the part of the offender, and to turn them away from a life of crime. This is what rehabilitation is; it has nothing to do with sympathy for the offender or treating them as a victim of their circumstances.

stirling wrote:

As for the Civil Liberties arguments I say that most people who are strong proponents of the ICCL and the ACLU are those that have lived a very sheltered existence where neither they nor their families have been exposed to Crime in a real way either as victims or as members of the Gardai.

I don't know anybody in the ICCL or the ACLU, so I can't say whether they lead sheltered lives or not. But I would imagine that people who support civil liberties generally don't lead sheltered lives, but work in the criminal justice sphere.

What is the benefit of depriving them of their civil liberties? Especially if they were falsely convicted (e.g. henri charriere) or if they are in prison for political reasons (e.g. bobby sands, Joe Higgins ).

With respect, I don't think anyone could be so sheltered that they have no experience of crime. It seems to me that you are suggesting that being the victim of crime puts you in a better position to decide how the criminal justice system should be run than a person who works in the area.

In any case, as maidhc points out, the criminal justice system is concerned with society as a whole, and not with revenge for the victim. The purpose is to reduce the amount of crime in society as a whole. But if people really want a system of retribution, why don't we bring tar-capping back in? Or public stoning? Maybe every victim should be entitled to a pound of flesh...

morbo

maidhc wrote:

By all means. But at present giving someone a massive long sentence is just putting them out of sight. I don't think prison is quite the junket some people in the media make it out to be though. I don't see how prison can be made cheaper.. unless we just bring back hanging.

Prison can be made much cheaper quite easily. Stop enacting laws that give prisoners more civil and political freedoms. For example, the prisoner voting rights issue. 800 prisoners have registered to vote so far. Think about how much money was wasted in drafting the bill, enacting it, and putting the infrastructure in place to allow them to vote! That was money that could have gone towards education, welfare, or even building public amenities in disadvantaged areas. But no, a bunch of people that though they were above the law wanted to be able to vote.

maidhc wrote:

I just don't buy this modern notion that the victim is entitled to some sort of moral victory and "justice". The criminal action is one between the state, and the accused. The verdict should hinge upon implications for society, both from a public order and economic point of view, not someone sobbing at the back of the courtroom, as upset and all as s/he may be.

It’s not a modern notion. What is modern is the notion that the person has offended against society as a whole. I’m pretty sure if a member of your family was murdered and the person was convicted, you’d see it as a victory for your family against the murderer; that you are a morally better person than the murderer, because you would never do such a thing. You seem to have a very twisted view of the law.

maidhc

morbo wrote:

Prison can be made much cheaper quite easily. Stop enacting laws that give prisoners more civil and political freedoms. For example, the prisoner voting rights issue. 800 prisoners have registered to vote so far. Think about how much money was wasted in drafting the bill, enacting it, and putting the infrastructure in place to allow them to vote! That was money that could have gone towards education, welfare, or even building public amenities in disadvantaged areas. But no, a bunch of people that though they were above the law wanted to be able to vote.

I think you will notice most of the money is spent on things like security, light and heat, food, and the general maintanance of x hundred/thousand people. No real savings to be made there.

morbo wrote:

You seem to have a very twisted view of the law.

Id have thought after some legal education you would have a better understanding of how the criminal justice system works. It isn't about moral victories, and it never should be.

morbo

maidhc wrote:

I think you will notice most of the money is spent on things like security, light and heat, food, and the general maintanance of x hundred/thousand people. No real savings to be made there.

So in your view setting up polling stations in a prison, arranging for transport and security of those ballets, the need for extra security of the prison on polling day, the risk/cost of prisoners using it as an excuse for rioting, the cost to the tax payer to have the legislation drafted, the cost of implementing it, the cost of training the staff in new procedures, the cost of counting those extra ballots, the cost of having to bear the brunt of more cases going to court for criminals that want more freedoms, etc. is negligible? In your view, that couple of million is better spent on letting prisoners vote, than say, building a community centre, or children’s playground in a disadvantaged area? Just one simple piece of legislation costs millions to the tax payers of this country.

maidhc wrote:

Id have thought after some legal education you would have a better understanding of how the criminal justice system works. It isn't about moral victories, and it never should be.

Well, in that case, why not get rid of solicitors and barristers altogether? If the State is clearly the one that is offended by all criminal acts, why allow legal professionals to make money from the individuals that are in no position to claim? Surely that would be an offence to the State, too? And the criminal justice system is based heavily on what is morally acceptable today. Murder, incest, theft, etc. all are illegal, because they are immoral. When someone is convicted of one of these crimes, the victims/society wins a moral victory. As society moves on, our morals change. Homosexuality is no longer a crime, but it once was. Why? It is morally acceptable. It was immoral to be gay, now it is morally/socially acceptable. The face of justice being served is not that of a government minister with a smile giving the thumbs up, it is the face of the victim when the person that offends against them gets their just-deserts. Perhaps you missed the opening few weeks of your criminal law lectures where it’s almost entirely based on morality and the law. The Hart/Devlin debate? J.S. Mills? Stevens? Hobbs? Bentham? Any of this sounding familiar?

maidhc

morbo wrote:

Just one simple piece of legislation costs millions to the tax payers of this country.

I know, tell Michael McDowell that. He drafts new legislation faster than most can read it. But giving prisoners the right to vote (which personally I don't think they should have) doesn't make up the entire prison service budget. There are 30-40 Acts drafted every year... that is the cost of running a country!

morbo wrote:

Perhaps you missed the opening few weeks of your criminal law lectures where it’s almost entirely based on morality and the law. The Hart/Devlin debate? J.S. Mills? Stevens? Hobbs? Bentham? Any of this sounding familiar?

I'm not saying the criminal code isn't based on moral principles, just that the criminal trial isn't about the victim winning a moral victory over the accused.

morbo

I totally agree with you on both points. I guess it’ll just take a few years as an apprentice for me to become battle-hardened, emotionally detached, and bitter!

Also, as we are both from Cork, I took the liberty of basically taking as many sarcastic digs at you as possible. No offence intended!

I say bring back precedent. To hell with your filthy legislature, McDowell! Precedent doesn’t have any downsides. Well, OK, a few. Maybe allot. God help us if he makes it to the bench!

morbo

Actually, that raises a good question. Can former TD's or Ministers of State become judges? I know Judges can't go back to being barristers, and such. But where do politicians stand?

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

So in your view setting up polling stations in a prison, arranging for transport and security of those ballets, the need for extra security of the prison on polling day, the risk/cost of prisoners using it as an excuse for rioting, the cost to the tax payer to have the legislation drafted, the cost of implementing it, the cost of training the staff in new procedures, the cost of counting those extra ballots, the cost of having to bear the brunt of more cases going to court for criminals that want more freedoms, etc. is negligible? In your view, that couple of million is better spent on letting prisoners vote, than say, building a community centre, or children’s playground in a disadvantaged area? Just one simple piece of legislation costs millions to the tax payers of this country.

Well then, in your view what ungodly expense is it to set up polling stations in every constituency, millions spent on advertising, the cost of counting and recounting all the ballots the fact that TD's don't seem to do much real work in the months coming up to the election (but still get paid), the cost to the tax payer of having a legislature in the first place, the cost of hiring independent invigilators on ballot day, etc only to have (in many situations) less than half the electorate (never mind the disenfranchised) not turn up? And why have referenda about something that people don’t understand until you subtly, but firmly, tell them to vote yes or we get turfed out of the EU? All this money could be used to run a highly efficient, highly satisfactory state. There would, however, be a tyrant running the show.

While you could make a valid point that no one really cares that much about prisoners voting, the economic path is the wrong way to criticise it. I'm sure they made the same arguments not to let women, Catholics and the landless vote back in the times of the British Empire.

morbo

A feature of governments all over the world is that they are completely inept at everything but wasting taxpayers money. But the point is, we are willing to take the expense of holding free and open elections to live in a democracy. But why the hell should prisoners get to vote?

Dictatorships do have their advantage. Better roads, and public transport systems, etc. and as Eamon Dunphy likes to point out, dictatorships bread great football teams. A good dictator and who knows, we may win the world cup!

johnnyskeleton

The theoretical reason why they should vote is that if any segment of citizens can be disenfranchised, then further groups can be too, leading to an elite holding all the power. If half the country was put in prison (or otherwise disenfranchised) by a government whose only policy is to keep that half in prison (or in the kitchen), then it flies in the face of democracy.

The human rights argument is that no one should be deprived of their civil and political rights, and that we should be all the more cautious of erosions of same bearing in mind the actions of the American armed forces.

The utilitarian and reformist argument is that allowing prisoners to vote is showing them dignity and offering to bring them back into society (on the grounds that anomie or social fragmentation is believed to be a cause of crime).

The lawyer's argument is that they are prima facie entitled to vote under the Constitution, and successive governments have excluded them on tenuous grounds. While there is provision in Art.16 for the exclusion by law of certain persons, the Oireachtas have heretofore failed in their duty with regard to the other provisions, and the spirit, of the Constitution. If the people, when promulgating the Irish Constitution, did not want prisoners to have a vote, they would have expressly stated that. But in any case, we don't have to prove that our clients should be entitled to vote, it is for the prosecution to prove that they should not.

The politician's argument is that they have a god-given, undeniable and sacred right to vote which no man may deprive them of (and plus, they might vote for me ).

The practical argument is that it might not really cost that much given the ludicrous wasting of money in other departments on invisible stadia, unfinished computer games, and the refusal to simply re-route a road when it runs through one of our nations most important historical sites.

As for me, I stand by the old chestnut that the only thing that should completely deprive a citizen of one of their constitutional rights, is a competing right.

Tom Young

Lads this is great discourse, have we digressed enough from the title of the thread to rename it or move the replies? Sorry for being a pain!

dats_right

Interesting discussion, if at times a little uninformed and simplistic. Anyway, it would take me half the day to address all the points made in this thread so far, so I will confine myself to those re the NY Bar.

When I was in college, I too became aware of the NY Bar route and immediately thought that I had found a simplistic and foolproof method of: a) qualifying as a lawyer in minimal time; b) bypassing FE-1's,PPC's and apprenticeships; c) opening the possibility of working in NY, and; d) obtaining a highly respected legal qualification with a trip to NY thrown into the bargain. However, with a little bit more research and a chat with Oliver Connolly of Friarylaw, I realised that my plan was indeed simplistic but was far from foolproof.

Firstly, if you plan to merely use the qualification to bypass the training process in Ireland then you should think again. Oliver Connolly himself will tell you as much. Reason being that a "fully-qualified" lawyer with no real experience is absolutely worthless (well unless daddy or an uncle run a firm). If your plan is to do the QLTT then you will probably need to spend at least 3years practising in NY first.

Secondly, securing a job in NY can be extremely difficult, not impossible but difficult. You will need very good academics and some larger firms may well insist that in addition to NY Bar exam that you possess an ABA approved LLM (i.e. American law school). And as everybody knows education in the US is not cheap.

Thirdly, do not underestimate the scale of the task that is studying and passing the NY Bar exam. It is regarded by some as amongst the toughest exams around and whereas your average BCL/LLB/BBLS student has sat what are admittedly 'p*ss easy' exams through college, you really are talking about light years of a difference in standard. I know 3 or 4 people who sat the NY bar through Friarylaw and although they will admit the course was excellent preparation, they all needed at least 2 attempts at passing. Combine this with the fact that in reality you are in all likelihood going to need to do the Friarylaw or similar course then it can turn out to be a very expensive also.

Notwithstanding all of the above, if the NY Bar is something that you genuinely want to pursue(and for the right reasons) then I would say go for it wholeheartedly. I suppose my advice really is aimed at those who see it as an easier way of qualifying, I think that it is fair to say that it is definitely not that. If you want to be a solicitor or barrister and merely see the NY bar as padding for the old cv, then my advice is to focus on obtaining those qualifications first. Once obtained then you can think about doing the NY Bar. Especially if you are a barrister who has completed devilling and has precious little else to do all day but sit around the law library spending your numerous idle hours by drinking coffee and doing theIrish Times crossword!

morbo

I agree with you. I have already said that I wish to practice in America for a few years prior to returning to Ireland, and that it would be stupid to use the Attorney~at~Law qualification to bypass the whole Blackhall/Kings Inns experience. I also pointed out the cost of doing an LL.M. in America (generally > $35,000).

Oliver Connolly was here a few weeks back and explained the same pit falls you have just mentioned. I’ve done a bit more research into the whole area, and for me, it is looking like a lost cause, while for the others in my course that wish to do it, arrangements are being made to accommodate the degree duration necessity.

I have talked to a few people that passed the NY bar exam on their first attempt, holding only a BCL. According to them, it’s not that difficult. You just have to be quick at identifying areas of law and ticking the appropriate box. And given that most American law grads never go on to do an LL.M., I’d say it is nowhere near a ‘requirement’ for sitting the exam. And the ABA recognises all the law degrees granted by Trinity and the NUI in this country.

dats_right

MORBO you obviously have done extensive research into this area and I would wish you every success with your future career. Just a couple of points, AFAIK it's not just NUI and Dublin Uni degrees that they recognise, I'm pretty sure that they recognise UL, Queens and the private colleges too. Also, I never said that having an ABA approved LLM was a "'requirement' for sitting the exam", but rather a requirement of certain employers in addition to having passed the Bar Exam.

Finally, have you considered the possibility of doing the 1 year BL course at Kings Inns and then sitting the California Bar Exam? I'm pretty sure the only requirement to sit the Ca exam is that you are a qualified lawyer. Perhaps then you could transfer to the NY Bar?

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote:

Interesting discussion, if at times a little uninformed and simplistic.

...

Firstly, if you plan to merely use the qualification to bypass the training process in Ireland then you should think again.

...

Secondly, securing a job in NY can be extremely difficult

...

Notwithstanding all of the above, if the NY Bar is something that you genuinely want to pursue(and for the right reasons) then I would say go for it wholeheartedly. I suppose my advice really is aimed at those who see it as an easier way of qualifying, I think that it is fair to say that it is definitely not that.

...

Finally, have you considered the possibility of doing the 1 year BL course at Kings Inns and then sitting the California Bar Exam? I'm pretty sure the only requirement to sit the Ca exam is that you are a qualified lawyer. Perhaps then you could transfer to the NY Bar?

I liked the way you came in and insulted our discussion as occasionally "uninformed and simplistic" and then proceeded to list out the same points.

As regards your point that the NY Bar Exam is one of the toughest around, I would be of the view that it is not as hard as the FE1s in terms of the standard and workload involved.

dats_right

Some of the points were indeed made out Johnnyskeleton but not all. Didn't you yourself ask:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I wonder where is the catch? Why doesn't everybody who wants to be a solicitor in Ireland do it this way - they get a free holiday in NY to boot?

I attempted to summarise some of the main 'catches' or drawbacks. And besides my earlier criticism really related to certain comments by individual posters regarding the non-NY Bar aspects of this thread.

As regards the FE-1's being harder in terms of workload and standard than the NY Bar exam, well there is no doubt that everybody is entitled to their opinion, and that is your opinion. However, I don't think that such a statement holds up well to objective scrutiny. Having sat and passed all of the FE-1's myself, I know that they are probably not the easiest exams around and whilst there is a substantial enough workload, I really think that you are being somewhat disingenuous to compare the FE-1 workload and standard with that of the NY Bar exam.

maidhc

dats_right wrote:

I really think that you are being somewhat disingenuous to compare the FE-1 workload and standard with that of the NY Bar exam.

Either way, if you the FE1s you come out having some understanding of Irish law, you won't get that from the NY Bar. Understanding the significance of Irish law should not be underestimated if practicing in Ireland.

I don't think having the NY bar exams is much use tbh. Once you are a qualified solicitor/barrister you will rise or fall on your reputation/appetite for work.

dats_right

100% agree with you Maidhc.

morbo

dats_right wrote:

MORBO you obviously have done extensive research into this area and I would wish you every success with your future career. Just a couple of points, AFAIK it's not just NUI and Dublin Uni degrees that they recognise, I'm pretty sure that they recognise UL, Queens and the private colleges too. Also, I never said that having an ABA approved LLM was a "'requirement' for sitting the exam", but rather a requirement of certain employers in addition to having passed the Bar Exam.

Finally, have you considered the possibility of doing the 1 year BL course at Kings Inns and then sitting the California Bar Exam? I'm pretty sure the only requirement to sit the Ca exam is that you are a qualified lawyer. Perhaps then you could transfer to the NY Bar?

They do recognise UL, Queens and others degrees. They do not however, recognise the duration of the degree as being long enough. If you do law as an undergrad anywhere in Ireland, (meaning the State or the Island of) you will meet the durational requirement of a 3 year minimum. If you do the law postgraduate courses (what I'm doing) offered by UL, Queens, NUI Galway, etc. you will not meet this durational requirement, as these LL.B. courses are generally only 2 years in duration.

I put ‘requirement’ for having an LL.M. in the single quotation marks simply to highlight the meaning you had ascribed to it, rather than taking it at its literal meaning. I thought it was clearer than it seemed so apologies for any misunderstanding.

As was said earlier (at quite some length), the NYSB only recognise your primary legal degree. Doing a masters or Ph.D. doesn’t count towards the durational requirement. The BL from Kings Inn is not a primary law degree, or even a law degree as such; it is basically a qualifying exam/apprenticeship that ends in you having a professional qualification that allows you to practice as a barrister in this country.

The California State Bar requires you to have a minimum of 5 years experience as a practicing barrister or solicitor in this jurisdiction to qualify to sit the bar exam. This leads me back to your point about doing the BL in Kings Inn. Just because you have a BL, does not make you a practicing barrister. You might not get ‘called to the bar’ for a long time, and you are not a practicing barrister until you are called to the bar. This would basically mean; 1 year for the BL; 2 years Devilling; and god only knows how long after that before one would be qualified to sit the exam.

Also, johnnyskeleton is right to point out that you just jumped into the middle of our discussion, calling it “uninformed and simplistic”, when it is clear from your first post that you had not read all the previous posts and gotten the facts as they stood on this matter prior to giving your opinion, every part of which had already been discussed (at quite some length) by others on the matter. That doesn’t mean I am not grateful for your input, but perhaps you should refrain from making such opening statements in the future.

I am starting to think I should become a barrister. (Possibly because it seems like an impossible career to get off the ground, and I never do things the easy way!) What do you guys think? Is being a solicitor the 'easy road' by comparison? Or should I feel shame for wanting to be a barrister?

solas

didn't read right through but fr what it's worth if it's the extra points you're looking for W.I.T has added an extra one year in criminal justice studies at degree level. (me thinks, it wasn't on the handbook as its the first time it's being offered, will take a look for you)

edit: it's not the one I was thinking of but you might find it useful

BA in Legal studies [WD073]
one year add on full time course of study of a law subject deemed relevant to students who wish to seek employment in earas where law plays a prominant role and to those students who wish to proceed to honours degree level studies having attained the required standards in the degree examinations.

morbo

Cheers adequately proportioned ears!

I don’t think I could afford to do it though, but it is definitely an option. (Stupid funding is only available for ‘further’ education!) Had I just took the place I was offered in law in UCC, none of this would be an issue! I’d have had to pay a massive amount of money over the three years, but I’d have piece of mind, damn it!

Jo King

morbo wrote:

As was said earlier (at quite some length), the NYSB only recognise your primary legal degree. Doing a masters or Ph.D. doesn’t count towards the durational requirement. The BL from Kings Inn is not a primary law degree, or even a law degree as such; it is basically a qualifying exam/apprenticeship that ends in you having a professional qualification that allows you to practice as a barrister in this country.

I recall you stating on the first page of this thread that New York do recognise the Kings Inns. Is this a change?
One can be called to the Bar within a few days of graduating from the Kings Inns provided one has passed the Irish exam. Many people however do not go to devil in the year of call, some never devil and others postpone it for one or more years.

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

The BL from Kings Inn is not a primary law degree, or even a law degree as such; it is basically a qualifying exam/apprenticeship that ends in you having a professional qualification that allows you to practice as a barrister in this country.

It's a recognised degree - the degree of barrister-at-law. They say it is a masters level degree, but I think it would be just under a masters. But it is a law degree.

morbo wrote:

Is being a solicitor the 'easy road' by comparison? Or should I feel shame for wanting to be a barrister?

They're both good, and you shouldn't feel shame for wanting to be either (not that you're going to get a contrary view in this forum).

I have come to the conclusion that solicitors make more money than barristers at almost every stage of their respective carrers. Obviously there are lots of exceptions, but:

1) solicitors make more money at the start
2) the principle or a senior partner in a huge firm must make more money than any barrister ever could - the top solicitors can make profit from a huge staff under them
3) in the creamy and varied middle, they can both make decent money, but for solicitors it is a little more guaranteed.

So choosing the bar is, in my opinion, more about lifestyle than money. You are self employed, and it can be fun (if you consider not knowing where your next meal is coming from to be fun).

In an ideal world, it would be easier to change between the professions, but then I suppose that leads to a unified profession.

morbo

They do recognise the BL from Kings Inn. But it is not a primary law degree. In America to become an attorney, you must have a 3 year degree. They see the BL as being just a qualification that you must have a 3 year degree to get, like the Attorney-at-Law qualification. I don’t know how to say it any plainer, really. But as it stands, you have to have a 3 year minimum law degree, or be a practicing solicitor/barrister.

Either way, I would have to spend at least €30,000 (fees, living expenses, etc.) here just qualifying as either a barrister or solicitor, which would make moving to America and practicing there a virtual impossibility money wise. I’d be stuck here paying back loans and such for years before I saved enough to make a real go of it in NY or Boston or somewhere like that. There is no way I would be moving to America with any debts hanging over me given the cost of getting set up over there.

And given the insight on the steadier flow of income that a solicitor makes, I think it would be a healthier option for me. Thanks for the info. It would be nice to hear from a practicing barrister on the matter though. My basic plan was to be a barrister and sponge cases off of everyone in my course that wants to be a solicitor. They’re nearly all from Cork, Limerick or Kerry, so it’s not like I’d be travelling all around the country begging for cases (and possibly a meal) from random unknown solicitors. But that could turn out to be a dodgy plan!

dats_right

Here is a link to the ABA Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements. Therein is contained most of the information that one could possibly want on all State Bar Admissions.

http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Comp_Guide/2007CompGuide.pdf

johnnyskeleton

Well, it is a degree in real terms - it's a post grad degree. It is not just a professional qualification.

You would also spend a lot of money elsewhere, and if you worked part-time and in the summer before and after (and maybe applied for a grant/scholarship), you could get the price down.

morbo wrote:

It would be nice to hear from a practicing barrister on the matter though.

I'm not sure what you want to hear; high earning established professionals will obviously have made it, and even if they tell you it is risky etc, you will tend to think it's false modesty on their part. People who have left may still be dwelling on what made them leave (e.g. job security, money, stress). Devils likewise only focus on the bad aspects - lack of money and work. Add to that the bar is possibly oversubscribed at the moment, so the information you get from any one person is never going to be 100% accurate.

Plus, and this is probably the most important, no one can ever tell you how you will get on at the bar. They can give examples, but by and large it will never work out exactly as planned. The same is true with the Solicitor's profession, but to a much lesser degree. If you do your apprentiship with a big firm, even if they get rid of you, you are a valuable commodity. The same is true if you are an expert in a particular area.

morbo wrote:

My basic plan was to be a barrister and sponge cases off of everyone in my course that wants to be a solicitor. They’re nearly all from Cork, Limerick or Kerry, so it’s not like I’d be travelling all around the country begging for cases (and possibly a meal) from random unknown solicitors. But that could turn out to be a dodgy plan!

It is a dodgy plan, because I think for most people at the bar it never works like that. Firstly, those solicitors will be trying to get on well themselves, they don't want to take risks to help a friend. Secondly, at the start neither a solicitor or a barrister can guarantee what area of law they will be working in - your friends might work in tax but you want PI cases. Third, there isn't really that much work that a devil can do, other than motions or district court work - if you are asked your opinion on a more complicated matter, you will basically be relying on text books and a few helpful words from your senior coleages. Fourth, if they know you from drinking and having fun in college, they might not see you as the professional you are. Fifth, they might consider you their coleague or as an equal, and it is hard to ask an equal to tell them what to do in a case, especially if they know that they have spent just as much time studying as you. Sixth, they might have other friends starting out, and they can't help all of them.

The reality is, make a new start, meet new solicitors and try to get in that way. Many of your friends will be working for bigger firms anyway, and they tend not to want counsel. When you are established as a barrister in a particular area, then they might all flock to you, asking your opinion left, right and centre. But I think the reality is that they are no more going to help you as you are going to help them.

morbo

That is exactly the type of information I am looking for. Thanks Johnny. Believe me; I know the pitfalls of industry all to well. I went through a spate of jobs in established and upstart companies in the computer industry that all went bust.

At the same time, a friend of mine got lucky. He’s about 4 years out of college, and he’s making in excess of €150,000 a year in basic wages. He also gets bonuses, and his company sends him to San Francisco for 3 weeks a year for further training, and then sends him to Prague for a month to train others! (He is paid extra for the ‘inconvenience’ of these trips. Probably to compensate him for the ‘all expense paid luxury’ that he forced to endure!) The only difference between me and him is the fact that he graduated 2 years before me. Getting a good job can be luck of the draw, really.

My real issue with the money is this; you can sit the Friary Law NYSB prep course (or another like it) for €4,500. Then, you pay $400 to sit the actual bar exam. After that, you are qualified, and you go to work for a firm and earn good money. Here, you have to work for pittance and spend allot of money to get qualified. So my dilemma is this, if I was doing a 3 year degree, it would only cost me €5,000 to become qualified to work in America. If I qualify here in order to qualify there, I will be paying about €35,000! That’s what I think is the most ridiculous thing about the whole 3 year duration requirement.

I have no real strong leaning towards being a solicitor. No idea why really. As I said earlier, I never take the easy option. (I chose computer science over law, despite the fact that the industry was falling apart before I started it in college.) The thing I like about being a barrister is not the going to court part. It’s the opinion writing, the ADR (which I could do as a solicitor, I suppose), the possibility if being a legal journalist or even a tutor/lecturer (general academic) while practicing (let’s face it, solicitors will be doing all the work for me, so I’ll have loads of free time!), etc. I’m not averse to going to court; I just prefer the other areas.

On the flip side to that, it’s hard to get established. I have no idea what area I want to get into, nor what areas my friends will be practicing in. We all have great notions of opening a private practice in Cork, where I’m basically the ‘barrister of choice’ for all the cases they get in. But realistically, that’s a far fetched dream. I hate when someone paints a rose dream picture of an industry. I want the hard facts. I want to balance the disadvantages of being a barrister against the disadvantages of being a solicitor and see which is more viable for me.

I do like the idea of being my own boss. However, being a barrister, how much room for advancement is there really? Get to senior council, maybe someday be a Judge? Or possibly take the McDowell route and go from AG to f**ktard, eh… I mean Minister for Justice? Solicitors can at least have partners and employees (in a conventional sense), and can open offices all around the country, possibly in other jurisdictions, etc. being a barrister does seem to be a little bit lonely. Why are barristers actually forbidden from doing anything other than living a life as Billy-no-mates? Really though, I haven’t found the actual reason in any of my research. Can somebody shed some light on it?

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

Why are barristers actually forbidden from doing anything other than living a life as Billy-no-mates? Really though, I haven’t found the actual reason in any of my research. Can somebody shed some light on it?

Another way to think about this is that as a member of a profession almost 2000 members strong, with most of them working from the same premises, you are part of an organisation larger than any solicitor's firm. Every single one of your coleagues at the bar is your friend, from day one you are on a first name basis with top senior counsel, former attorney generals, etc.

If barristers could form partnerships, you would get large firms bullying out the little guy. Only the big solicitors firms would have access to the big chambers.

Plus, and this is of the utmost importance, it is the way that it has always been done, and it will stay that way forever (competition authoirty notwithstanding).

Jo King

morbo wrote:

They do recognise the BL from Kings Inn. But it is not a primary law degree. In America to become an attorney, you must have a 3 year degree. They see the BL as being just a qualification that you must have a 3 year degree to get, like the Attorney-at-Law qualification.

There are lots of barristers who do not have a three year law degree or even any law degree. I spoke to Oliver Connolly some years ago. He did not think that they could do the New York bar. Some judges on the Supreme Court do not have law degrees. What is the cost of stretching you current course out to three years? I am aware of barristers with several years in practice going out to District courts around Dublin for a €30 euro fee. Yes THIRTY euro. It can take months to get paid if it is ever paid. It can also mean a day spent hanging around whatever court it is. The subscription to the Law Library costs several thousand euro per year. Why do they do it?

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote:

Why do they do it?

The girls, the wig, the hope that you can one day be a top senior counsel, stroking your beard and smoking a fine cuban cigar.

In that order.

For young female barristers there might be other reasons.

Jo King

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The girls, the wig, the hope that you can one day be a top senior counsel, stroking your beard and smoking a fine cuban cigar.

In that order.

For young female barristers there might be other reasons.

Girls! On €30 a day?

Tom Young

Have to agree with Johnny. Fiesty brainy ladies.

I also think that the vocational course and general vocation that the BL requires is far more solid that many other professions. There is also the collegiate aspect that comes with the course, contact with other barristers and even (I don't like to admit this) a high sense of connection with Irish, in terms of language and culture.

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote:

Girls! On €30 a day?

It's a straightforward con:

1) Hey babe, I'm a barrister (gets them interested)
2) Only trouble is, I only make €30 a day (hopefully gets some sympathy)
3) It's crazy, because in a few years from now I'll be raking it in, but for now I can't even afford to get a pint. :rolleyes:

Her response (with a speculator's twinkle in her eye): let me buy you a pint.

Another variation is the defender of truth and justice living in a hovel, for the girls that don't care about money.

Or, you could just be yourself and let your wonderful personality blossom. At very least, you might have some funny stories from the district court (without, of course breaching confidentiality). :cool:

newestUser

morbo wrote:

However, being a barrister, how much room for advancement is there really? Get to senior council, maybe someday be a Judge?

<prick>
You mean senior counsel.

But of course, as a self-professed grammar-nazi smart-guy who's done his homework on all aspects of the legal profession, I'm sure you knew that anyway.
</prick>

morbo

According to Oliver Connolly, and what I heard from the NY bar, you either have to have a 3-year degree, and/or be a practicing solicitor or barrister. Either is acceptable to them. I’m pretty sure the NY bar wouldn’t turn do the chance of having a judge on the Irish Supreme Court join their ranks. (For some reason, I think an exception would be made!)

I don’t by to barrister monopoly bull. Microsoft is the almighty in the software industry, but guess what, they still have competitors! Nobody can ever truly dominate a single market place these days. They would be legislated into submission. The Law Society and Kings Inn are about 1 step away from having the competition authority clamp down on them.

If the monopoly risk was the case, why don’t all 6,000 solicitors band together and hold the country to ransom? I’ll tell you why, because there’s always more money to be made by going out on your own, or being the alternative to the monopolistic monster. It just seems ridiculously unfair to block barristers from forming partnerships/companies.

Solicitors also ‘bond’ with other ‘high power’ people in the course of their training, whether it is at Blackhall or during their apprenticeship. Solicitors are in a much better position to create a monopoly than barristers. I think solicitors did use their power once … to shaft barristers!

I didn’t even notice the whole council/counsel mistake I made. Good catch! I’ve done projects with people this year that do not even know the difference between weather and whether. I mean come on. It’s ridiculous!

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

I don’t by to barrister monopoly bull. Microsoft is the almighty in the software industry, but guess what, they still have competitors! Nobody can ever truly dominate a single market place these days. They would be legislated into submission. The Law Society and Kings Inn are about 1 step away from having the competition authority clamp down on them.

How so? What are the competition authority going to do? Will they force people to employ young inexperienced barristers over more experienced ones so that the work is more evenly spread our? Will they create a third legal profession (in addition to the conveyancing profession they are talking about)?

In any case, are you saying that barristers do have a monopoly or that they don't, and are you implying that they shouldn't have it or that they should?

morbo wrote:

If the monopoly risk was the case, why don’t all 6,000 solicitors band together and hold the country to ransom? I’ll tell you why, because there’s always more money to be made by going out on your own, or being the alternative to the monopolistic monster. It just seems ridiculously unfair to block barristers from forming partnerships/companies.

One reason why solicitors can go out on their own is the existence of the independent referral bar. If they are asked about a case outside of their area of expertise, they can get counsel's opinion. This might not hold true where the expert chambers has an exclusive deal with one of the top 5 firms.

There is money to be made on your own, which may well be a reason why barristers don't form partnerships, but there is much more money to be made in a partnership. Also, I don't think there is a chance of there being one gigantic body of lawyers, but it is possible that monopolies will be formed by the most talented lawyers in a particular area.

There is a disproportionate number of barristers in Ireland than there are in England (as compared to population). This is largely due to the chambers system, where of all the people who finish the Bar Vocational Course, only about 50% get a master. Only a small proportion of those who complete their pupilage get into a chambers, and only a small proportion of them get tenancy.

The Irish system is harsher when you are entering it, but you can enter it. So partnerships, or even chambers (which are not partnerships as such) reduce the numbers of people entering the profession.

morbo wrote:

Solicitors also ‘bond’ with other ‘high power’ people in the course of their training, whether it is at Blackhall or during their apprenticeship. Solicitors are in a much better position to create a monopoly than barristers. I think solicitors did use their power once … to shaft barristers!

Do you want to explain this?

morbo wrote:

I didn’t even notice the whole council/counsel mistake I made. Good catch! I’ve done projects with people this year that do not even know the difference between weather and whether. I mean come on. It’s ridiculous!

Anyone can make a spelling mistake, it's not a big deal. Judge not lest ye be judged is, I suppose, newestUser's point.

morbo

johnnyskeleton wrote:

How so? What are the competition authority going to do? Will they force people to employ young inexperienced barristers over more experienced ones so that the work is more evenly spread our? Will they create a third legal profession (in addition to the conveyancing profession they are talking about)?

In any case, are you saying that barristers do have a monopoly or that they don't, and are you implying that they shouldn't have it or that they should?

Of course I don’t mean competition authority (CA) would force companies to hire less qualified people. That’s just stupid. The CA may decide it is fair for the government, or a group of legal professionals to open ‘The Honorable Association of Barristers’ to compete with the Kings Inns. They may decide there should be the ‘Solicitors Association of Ireland’ to compete with the Law Society. Then there would at least be 2 groups offering professional accreditations in each discipline. This would tend to counter-act, what is for all intents and purposes, an existing monopoly.

How could barristers have a monopoly? They can’t even work together. The Kings Inn has a monopoly on accreditation. That’s about all.

I’m talking about Microsoft in the sense that, they control the software market. But the CA stepped in and fined them quite heavily for just that reason. If a group of barristers got together and took over the legal profession, I’m pretty sure the CA would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

One reason why solicitors can go out on their own is the existence of the independent referral bar. If they are asked about a case outside of their area of expertise, they can get counsel's opinion. This might not hold true where the expert chambers has an exclusive deal with one of the top 5 firms.

Well, there is independent referral to the bar, but barristers rely on solicitor to give them work. Barristers only specialise in a one area. That means a barrister may only ever be called to give their opinion rarely, and by a limited number of clients. Solicitors on the other hand, well they can band together into a group. That means they will have people specialising in land law, constitutional law, labour, contracts, etc. If they have a question about some other area of law, they may never actually need to ask a barrister their opinion, as they can simply pop into the office next door to have a chat with the constitutional law guy… for free!

johnnyskeleton wrote:

There is money to be made on your own, which may well be a reason why barristers don't form partnerships, but there is much more money to be made in a partnership. Also, I don't think there is a chance of there being one gigantic body of lawyers, but it is possible that monopolies will be formed by the most talented lawyers in a particular area.

This is exactly my point, but you seem to be confused as to where I’m coming from with it. A solicitor may work for a gigantic firm. They are a nameless face in the crowd, and there is some pay structure in place that limits the amount of money they make. So, they can get a few buddies together and open their own firm, where they have the opportunity to make much more money than they ever thought possible. They may also decide to go it alone of course. However, barristers will never know what it is like to work for a large corporation, or what it is like to start a business off with other equally qualified barristers to try and maximise their profits. No, barristers are limited to being a one-man-band for their whole career. It’s simply not a fair system. You said it yourself, “There is money to be made on your own, which may well be a reason why barristers don't form partnerships, but there is much more money to be made in a partnership.” So why ban barristers from forming partnerships?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The Irish system is harsher when you are entering it, but you can enter it. So partnerships, or even chambers (which are not partnerships as such) reduce the numbers of people entering the profession.

That’s like saying, if you open a massive pharmaceutical plant it will limit the opportunities of newly qualified chemistry graduates. That’s a big load crap. I honestly cannot understand your point of view. There are big firms of solicitors all over the country. Are they limiting the amount people that can qualify as a solicitor? No, they are increasing the opportunities available to solicitors. If there were more opportunities available for barristers, it wouldn’t be the dying, limited profession it is today. If we had more barristers, this would probably warrant the opening of more courts, therefore more judges, and less time spent waiting for your case to go to court. Having more barristers may have a knock-on effect, and would make solicitors more money, too. This again would mean that we need more solicitors and more firms. It’s actually not a complicated idea.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Do you want to explain this?

Not really. It’s pretty self-explanatory. But nevertheless, here goes! It was a joke. Having said that, if you want to take it seriously, then you could imply that the 3:1 ratio of solicitors to barristers in the country may have had something to do with the ‘limiting’ of the profession of barrister-at-law, while the profession of solicitor-at-law flourished and grew. But nevertheless, it was meant to be a joke.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Anyone can make a spelling mistake, it's not a big deal. Judge not lest ye be judged is, I suppose, newestUser's point.

Yes, anyone can make a spelling mistake. I however try to minimise the amount of errors in everything I write. I hate reading ‘txt speek’. It’s just bastardised English. There are no doubt hundreds of grammatical errors in what I have just written. I make no claim to being a fantastic writer, but I try to do my best, and better myself all the time.

Here’s a question for everyone else that has read this thread, what would your point of view on the whole barrister/solicitor thing? Do you think barristers are treated unfairly? Do you agree with my point of view, or Johnny’s?

Jo King

morbo wrote:

Here’s a question for everyone else that has read this thread, what would your point of view on the whole barrister/solicitor thing? Do you think barristers are treated unfairly? Do you agree with my point of view, or Johnny’s?

I think Johnny has a much more realistic take on the situation than you do. You haven't got a clue.
Look at the Law Directory. Many barristers hold themselves out as practising in a number of areas.
Outside of Dublin where are the big solicitor firms? There are very few firms with more than ten partners. In Galway how many have more than five?
As for more barristers warranting the opening of more courts you have got the wrong end of the stick completely. Do you seriously think that the government is going to employ more judges, equip more court buildings, deploy more court clerks etc with consequent costs in salaries and future pensions just to give under-employed junior barristers something to do? In the eighty-five year history of the state there has always been a cohort of under-employed barristers. Some wait around to progress their careers, some leave for other employment. Has the number of judges ever been increased for their benefit? The number of judges has been increased from time to time to deal with increasing case-loads and for no other reason.
there is no law stopping barristers from operating partnerships. They have chosen not to do so themselves. They could vote to change it any time they want.Ever wonder why they don't?

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

Then there would at least be 2 groups offering professional accreditations in each discipline. This would tend to counter-act, what is for all intents and purposes, an existing monopoly.

How could barristers have a monopoly? They can’t even work together. The Kings Inn has a monopoly on accreditation. That’s about all.

I don't think a second professional body will affect matters much. Will they operate out of a different law library? Unless there are demands for a second body among members of the profession, I don’t see how it could be imposed.

In any case, I don't think there are many people who don't get into KI (for reasons other than financial). The Kings Inns is not run for profit, so what you pay for the course determines what you get. They bring in good barristers to teach students in small groups and this means that they give lectures 9-5. That's pretty expensive. Add to that the materials that they give you throughout the year. They run an extensive library, dining, extra curricular activities, etc and generally it costs quite a lot to run a college course. So if there were a competing institution, they couldn't get the prices down significantly without a correspondingly significant decrease in the standard of education. Plus, if there were a new body, there would still be a prestige value attached to KI (e.g. why go to DCU when you can go to Trinity, even if the course is better in DCU?)

morbo wrote:

That means they will have people specialising in land law, constitutional law, labour, contracts, etc. If they have a question about some other area of law, they may never actually need to ask a barrister their opinion, as they can simply pop into the office next door to have a chat with the constitutional law guy… for free!

Well, the main area in which barristers work is litigation; they must be fully aware of procedure, evidence, and the intricacies of a particular aspect of substantive law.

By contrast, solicitors are mainly in the business of advice and preventing their clients getting into the position where they have to litigate. So, in my view, they need to know all areas of substantive law to a reasonable standard. For example, it is not enough to know conveyancing law in order to carry out a conveyance. You must also know (or at least be highly aware of) contract law, land law, environmental and planning law, building law, company law, commercial and competition law (if there is a deal between a developer and land-owner), etc.

I guess this ties in with the way solicitors can form partnerships with one specialist in each area and they are thereby able to give complete advice to their clients without the need for a barrister's advice. However, barristers don't have the same impetus to form partnerships because of the nature of the profession. If they did form partnerships e.g. 2 partnerships in one highly specialised area (say copyright law), then any litigation must take place between these two partnerships, thus limiting consumer choice. Another example would be if there were two big partnerships in the criminal bar - prosecutors and defenders. There would then be virtually no crossover between the two partnerships, and part of the charm of the bar, for some people at least, is that you could be prosecuting one case, defending in the next and acting for a third party in the third.

morbo wrote:

So why ban barristers from forming partnerships?

If nothing else convinces you, then they are prohibited from forming partnerships because they have always been prohibited from forming partnerships ( Nolimus Mutari). I suppose also that chi ha compagno ha padrone, and many barristers don’t want a partner unless they have to have one.

morbo wrote:

That’s like saying, if you open a massive pharmaceutical plant it will limit the opportunities of newly qualified chemistry graduates. That’s a big load crap. I honestly cannot understand your point of view. There are big firms of solicitors all over the country. Are they limiting the amount people that can qualify as a solicitor? No, they are increasing the opportunities available to solicitors.

At present, anyone who wants to devil, can usually get a master. They will be unpaid, but they can enter the profession. By contrast the situation in England is quite different. There, only the busiest masters will take on a pupil (because pupils have to be paid), and it is even harder to continue in the profession after pupilage because the system is by and large tied up. English legal work goes from a solicitor to a law clerk who brings it to his chambers, so it is essential to have a chambers. Each chambers has a limited number of places for new entrants to the profession. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to start out at the English bar as a sole trader in the way it happens at the Irish bar.

Where a company comes along and provides X amount of jobs, it will increase opportunities for newly qualified graduates, if they are required. This is because they make their money directly from the work of those graduates. By contrast, a barrister/chambers does not stand to make that much money from their devil/pupil in their first year. A more appropriate analogy would be a situation where, for example, only the big firms of solicitors will take on an apprentice. It is important to note that an apprentice solicitor can start earning money for their firm straight away, whereas for a barrister it takes a while to build up the litigation skills and experience necessary. So, if taking on an apprentice created a loss, less apprentices would be taken on. Even now, it is not exactly easy to get an apprenticeship.

I suppose, in the interests of competition, young barristers should be allowed to work for a solicitor’s firm in a legal capacity for a year or two before commencing practise. That way, they would be paid and they would get valuable experience. However, this may be the start of a unified profession.

morbo wrote:

If there were more opportunities available for barristers, it wouldn’t be the dying, limited profession it is today. If we had more barristers, this would probably warrant the opening of more courts, therefore more judges, and less time spent waiting for your case to go to court. Having more barristers may have a knock-on effect, and would make solicitors more money, too. This again would mean that we need more solicitors and more firms. It’s actually not a complicated idea.

I don't agree that it is a dying or limited profession, but I do think more courts are needed. There is a bill at the moment that proposes to introduce 4 more HC and CC judges, and 6 more DC judges, and this will obviously improve waiting times, competition, and hopefully the courts in general.

morbo wrote:

Here’s a question for everyone else that has read this thread, what would your point of view on the whole barrister/solicitor thing? Do you think barristers are treated unfairly? Do you agree with my point of view, or Johnny’s?

I suppose that if I have to lay out my position I would say that neither profession should be looked at as the easy route, and also that a lot of the barrister/solicitor disputes are just jocularity. But I don't think barristers are treated unfairly, because they know what they are getting into, their future is in their own hands, and I don't see any great need to have a second professional body or the need to have partnerships.

Reckon So

I know that many of the graduates from King's Inns don't actually end up working as barristers. Is the qualification worth getting if you aren't going to end up as a practising barrister?

morbo

To Joe,

There maybe only a few firms in Galway that have four or five partner solicitors? Wow, I feel sorry for them, but all barristers in the country are limited to being sole traders. That’s my point. Imagine if you told them they had to disband their partnership in the morning. All solicitors must be sole traders for the good of the legal system. There would be uproar!

And no, barristers do not ‘choose’ to be sole traders. It is a rule set out in the ‘Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland, Adopted on 13 March 2006’ (the same rule existed in all previous codes). Any barrister that does so will be disbarred.

To Johnny,

You keep going on about how hard it is to be a barrister in England. (By England, you realistically mean London.) I have no interest in how things are done by, as Seán Kelly, the independent adjudicator from the GAA’s department of assimilation would say, “them across the water”.

As far as ‘Nolimus Mutari’ goes, there are many reasons to ignore such a ridiculous saying. Look at the Doctrine of Privity for one. A judge misread the law close to 200 years ago, and instead of changing it since then, people have danced around the issue. Everyone wants to change it, but nobody wants to be the first person to say so. Refusing to change is a death sentence to any industry. Why don’t you say, “Well ladies, we’ve rethought the whole issue, and we’ve decided that you shouldn’t have the vote anymore. We’re just going to stick to the historical norm. I mean, come on, that’s the way it was all along, right?”

As far as the pharmaceutical plant idea goes, even if that plant doesn’t hire a single graduate and only hires in established professionals from another company, guess what, those companies will have to replace the people they have lost. There’s some indirect opportunity at least.

Why go to DCU when you can go to Trinity? Well, people still go to DCU. Last I heard DCU were doing quite well.

maidhc

Are things not working OK the way they are?

I can't see the benefit in having a "partnership" of barristers, as their job isn't really suited to this. You (generally) get a barrister to advise on a certain matter. You want their advice, not the advice of some guy fresh out of the inns. It is a personal relationship.

On the other hand a solicitors practice is more varied, and their is a lot of mundane crap that could be done by a monkey (or more likely, as I am too aware, an apprentice!). It is a less personal business, and one better suited to an employer/employee/partnership relationship.

Tom Young

Reckon So wrote:

I know that many of the graduates from King's Inns don't actually end up working as barristers. Is the qualification worth getting if you aren't going to end up as a practising barrister?

This is very much my opinion.

There is a problem with graduates who take law degrees in many cases then on to the King's Inns without the tenacity or strength to succeed at the Bar. Not only does sole trader existence require a level of discipline it also requires patience and skill in advocacy. Johnny makes a number of point throughout this thread which are correct.

Many who take the KI Diploma and have some levels of life experience tend to survive and do very, very well. I am not taking away from the exceptions.

Having looked into the CA report, I agree that modification would not in fact solve much and erode the expertise we have already. The review of the Northern Ireland Bar was interesting, opting to retain the old norms and not move in line with the UK.

James McDermott, BL, wrote an opinion piece in the sbpost last week which is very interesting:

Comment: Despite the hype, barristers are not such avaricious fat-cats
Sunday, April 01, 2007 - By James McDermott
I was recently reminded of a lucrative lecture tour undertaken by physicist Max Planck in the aftermath of his being awarded the Nobel prize.

During the tour, Planck was driven from venue to venue by his chauffeur, who would remain in the auditorium listening to the celebrated scientist delivering exactly the same speech to a different audience every evening.

The last night of the tour brought the duo to the prestigious University of Heidelberg, where Planck’s driver suggested that the two men swap roles for the night.

Planck readily agreed and that night watched in amazement as his chauffeur put in a bravado performance, delivering from memory a word-perfect lecture to universal acclaim.

But then an audience member asked a complex question about quantum mechanics that Planck knew that his driver would not even understand let alone have a clue how to answer.

Following a brief pause, the chauffeur stared angrily at his questioner and, in an annoyed tone, said: ‘‘I’m really surprised that in a sophisticated city like Heidelberg someone should ask me such an unsophisticated question,” before pointing at Planck in the audience and adding: ‘‘That question is so stupid I’m going to ask my chauffeur to answer it.”

Reading the recent report of the Legal Costs Implementation Advisory Group, I began to identify with Planck’s chauffeur.

This is not to suggest that I disagree with a lot of the content of the report. The transparency achieved by demanding that lawyers be asked to calculate their fees on work actually done, rather than charging unexplained lump sums in the form of ‘brief fees’, and to notify their clients in advance of the likely final bill, can only be welcomed.

No, my sense of deja' vu comes from the persistent feeling that, having already digested the contents of the report of the Legal Costs Working Group, chaired by Paul Haran, and the various reports of the Competition Authority into the legal profession, I feel I have somehow heard this same debate on numerous previous occasions. What I find most objectionable about this plethora of reports is the assumption upon which they all appear to be based namely that legal costs need to be reformed because lawyers in general, and barristers in particular, are earning far too much money. While this may be a popular and vote-winning assumption, one wonders on what scientific basis, if any, is it based?

The most persistent and vocal critic of the legal profession in recent years has been the Competition Authority, yet a careful examination of its report into the legal profession paints a somewhat unexpected picture.

Included in the report is a table setting out the actual earnings of barristers, based on figures provided by the Revenue.

It shows that, in 2002, the average income for barristers who had been in practice for between seven and nine years was €81,422, and the median income (the income level at which half of those in the group are earning more and half are earning less) was €63,487.

While such figures hardly leaves barristers on the breadline, it is hard to see how they could rationally be classified as being exorbitant when one considers that to even get to this point in their careers the majority of these practitioners engaged in a minimum of six years of third-level education and followed this up with at least one year (and very often two years) of an unpaid apprenticeship known as devilling.

The people represented by these figures are the lucky ones who had the intellectual ability and financial durability to stay in the profession long enough to convert it into a respectable livelihood. Hidden from the Competition Authority figures are the significant number of barristers who left the Law Library before the 7-9 year mark - for what, in the majority of cases, one can only assume are reasons of financial hardship.

The myriad of critics of the legal profession would no doubt argue that, even allowing for the significant drop-out rate, an average salary of €81,422 is still excessive, but when you consider what such a person could realistically expect to earn outside the Law Library, then the figure is, if anything, on the low side.

For example, the Office of the Attorney General recently advertised positions as Advisory Counsel seeking applications from barristers with at least four years’ experience in practice. The advertised starting salary for successful candidates was between €71,395 and €91,747.

When one considers the wide range of other perks that usually attach to such a public sector job, such as paid holidays, pension entitlements and sick pay (none of which are enjoyed by practising barristers, who must remain self-employed), one can only conclude that, despite all the media hype, a huge number of members of the Law Library would be far better off financially if they pursued what is traditionally perceived as being a modestly remunerated career as a public servant.

So if the financial reality in the Law Library is so stark, then why is it that barristers are portrayed time and again in the media as a group of avaricious fat-cats?

Part of the reason is the level of attention given to the huge earnings of those barristers fortunate enough to be working for various tribunals of inquiry. This was highlighted again this week, with the news that the government had abandoned plans to reduce the remuneration of lawyers at the Mahon tribunal from €2,250 to €950 per day, which was to have taken effect from March 31, 2007.

While it is impossible to defend the cost of such tribunals, two things should be borne in mind when considering this week’s cabinet decision.

Firstly, if the government thought that paying the barristers working in such tribunals €2,250 a day was excessive, then it probably ought not to have agreed to pay such an exorbitant sum in the first place, knowing that in an environment as competitive as the Law Library, it could have got equally competent counsel to work for a far lower daily rate.

But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it should also be remembered that only a very small percentage of barristers ever get to work on such a tribunal. Of course, there are problems with the modern bar. With nearly 200 new entrants every year, the Law Library is at breaking point, to such an extent that a newly qualified barrister will struggle to find a worthwhile master to work under during their unpaid period of devilling and is unlikely even to be allocated a desk to work from for at least ten years.

In addition, the decision to give primary responsibility for personal injury actions to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board has meant that more and more barristers are chasing less and less work. What work there is often goes to those barristers with strong family connections to the law, rather than to those with the best ability to do it.

Such is the hyper-competitiveness of the modern bar that the validity or otherwise of the huge fees commanded by a small group of elite barristers is a long way down the list of concerns of most practitioners.

And, even if excessive, the fees of even this elite group may provide some small benefit to society. US lawyer F Lee Bailey was one of the most celebrated advocates of his generation but, like all criminal defence lawyers, was plagued by people asking him about how he felt in the aftermath of successfully securing an acquittal for a client he believed to be guilty.

Bailey’s response was to observe that ‘‘I have knowingly defended a number of guilty men, but the guilty never escape unscathed. My fees are sufficient punishment for anyone.”

James McDermott is a barrister and lecturer in law at UCD.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/04/01/story22327.asp

Jo King

morbo wrote:

To Joe,

There maybe only a few firms in Galway that have four or five partner solicitors? Wow, I feel sorry for them, but all barristers in the country are limited to being sole traders. That’s my point. Imagine if you told them they had to disband their partnership in the morning. All solicitors must be sole traders for the good of the legal system. There would be uproar!

And no, barristers do not ‘choose’ to be sole traders. It is a rule set out in the ‘Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland, Adopted on 13 March 2006’ (the same rule existed in all previous codes). Any barrister that does so will be disbarred.

Obviously you cannot read. You stated that there were large solicitor firms all over the country. You haven't read the Law Directory. Where, for example are they in Galway? Firms of four or five partners cannot have in depth expertise in every area of law. No one has ever suggested that all solicitors should be sole traders for the good of the legal profession. Indeed it is often recognised that to give a proper service to clients that larger practices are necessary.
Who do you think adopted the 'Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland'. Barristers! That's who! They could vote to change it at their next meeting if they wanted to. Barristers are in a partnership. It is called the Law Library which is a means by which they share expenses. Did any barrister even put down a motion to the effect that they be allowed form sub-partnerships or alternative partnerships?
Even in England the Barristers do not form partnerships. One of the reasons is that partnership brings financial obligation to fellow partners. In professional partnerships financial targets are set. Everyone working in large firms has a daily billing target which must be met. When billed the money must be collected. Barristers are supposed to be independent so that they can refuse to continue in a case for ethical reasons or take on a case pro bono without having to justify their behavior to partners watching the bank balance.

morbo

Try looking at it from a ratio type point of view. If you have a firm with 5 solicitors, limited as that may be in your eyes, it can still generally practice in more areas than a single barrister can.

And who the hell cares about where the firm is!? Any firm, anywhere in the country that has more than one person working there as a solicitor, is a bigger grouping of legal professionals than 1 lone barrister. 1 = 1. 2 >1. 3 >1. and so on!

johnnyskeleton

morbo wrote:

To Johnny,

You keep going on about how hard it is to be a barrister in England. (By England, you realistically mean London.) I have no interest in how things are done by, as Seán Kelly, the independent adjudicator from the GAA’s department of assimilation would say, “them across the water”.

I'm only using it as an example of how hard it is for people to enter the profession where there are chambers. I think a similar situation would prevail where there are chambers/partnerships in the Irish bar.

morbo wrote:

As far as ‘Nolimus Mutari’ goes, there are many reasons to ignore such a ridiculous saying. Look at the Doctrine of Privity for one. A judge misread the law close to 200 years ago, and instead of changing it since then, people have danced around the issue. Everyone wants to change it, but nobody wants to be the first person to say so. Refusing to change is a death sentence to any industry. Why don’t you say, “Well ladies, we’ve rethought the whole issue, and we’ve decided that you shouldn’t have the vote anymore. We’re just going to stick to the historical norm. I mean, come on, that’s the way it was all along, right?”

Who wants to change the barrister's profession? I agree with James McDermott's article, as posted by Tom Young, and would add that the reforms suggested by the Competition Authority are very much those from outside looking in. For example, the suggestion that Solicitors should be allowed to become Senior Counsel is insane, and if anything it must be insulting to Solicitors.

In any case, I never suggested that the law shouldn't change, but rather that the traditions of the Bar are very important to it. They are independent, not just from each other and the court, but they are independent from their instructing solicitors and their clients. At the same time, they have a duty to their colleagues, the court, solicitors and clients. It is hard to remain independent when you are part of a partnership, and even harder when that partnership deals exclusively with one firm of solicitors.

morbo wrote:

As far as the pharmaceutical plant idea goes, even if that plant doesn’t hire a single graduate and only hires in established professionals from another company, guess what, those companies will have to replace the people they have lost. There’s some indirect opportunity at least.

I'm not going to pursue this line of argument anymore; I don't understand you, and I'm not sure you are understanding me either.

morbo wrote:

Why go to DCU when you can go to Trinity? Well, people still go to DCU. Last I heard DCU were doing quite well.

True, but given the choice of going to DCU or Trinity, all other things being equal, I think people would choose Trinity for the prestige. Even if the degree in DCU is better run than Trinity, the prestige of Trinity will still, in my view, draw more people.

As such, unless there is a quota in the Kings Inns (which there isn’t), I don't think people will go to another course, except for geographical reasons (e.g. a course in Cork). In this case, I think it would make more sense for KI to set up a course in Cork (or another city) than it would for a new body to do it.

morbo wrote:

If you have a firm with 5 solicitors, limited as that may be in your eyes, it can still generally practice in more areas than a single barrister can.

Exactly, barristers tend to specialise. A solicitor worth his salt will, in my view, know enough of every area of law to advise clients generally, but will also know enough specialist barristers (they might brief up to 20 different barristers on 20 different areas) that they can call on them at need.

Don't forget that in some situations, a client will have a solicitor, 2 juniors and 2 seniors (e.g. a big commercial litigation case), with maybe another barrister advising on a more subtle tangential points.

Jo King

morbo wrote:

Try looking at it from a ratio type point of view. If you have a firm with 5 solicitors, limited as that may be in your eyes, it can still generally practice in more areas than a single barrister can.

And who the hell cares about where the firm is!? Any firm, anywhere in the country that has more than one person working there as a solicitor, is a bigger grouping of legal professionals than 1 lone barrister. 1 = 1. 2 >1. 3 >1. and so on!

You originally said there were large firms of solicitors all over the country. So if there are why can you not identify even one in a major urban area like Galway? Quite simply you are wrong. Five is a small number. They will not be rigidly specialist as some of the large Dublin based practices are. You seem to be drawing on your imagination say how the legal profession works. Barristers have less contact with the clients and are not involved in a lot of the routine work associated with a solicitors practice so they can and many do operate in a number of areas of law. Also barristers take instructions from solicitors based anywhere and are not dependent on local conditions for they type of work they ger involved in.

morbo

Right, Jo. In a previous post you wrote, “There are very few firms with more than ten partners. In Galway how many have more than five?” from this I can deduce, using my amazing powers of observation, that you yourself are the one that introduced the idea of there being firms in Galway that have 5 partners. I stress again, “In Galway how many have more than five?” This could be taken that you believe that the majority of firms in Galway have five partners, but not many have more. Therefore, we can see that you are an idiot. You are getting caught up in the idea of just arguing for the sake of being a prick, rather than contributing to the discussion.

The fact that there are only ‘big’ firms in Dublin is because the Government has never really made an attempt to promote other areas of the country as financial, industrial, commercial, etc. centres. Cork is the second city of Ireland. That basically makes Cork the New York of Ireland. But it will never be on the same level, as the Government only ever put an effort into promoting Dublin. Now we are stuck in a rut where all the action goes on in Dublin, because that’s the place it has always been going on. Towns like Galway, Cork, Waterford, etc, are basically resigned to being tourist towns.

I’m all for decentralisation. Why bother having the capital city as the capital of Government? It works perfectly well in Norway, Turkey, etc. And don’t even get me started about the Dublin… eh… I mean, National Development Plan. The motorway from Cork to Dublin should have been finished years ago, but it won’t be done until God knows when. The 1/3 of the road that is built is already in need of serious maintenance. Decentralisation is happening, but not fast enough. Civil servants are refusing to move anywhere but Cork if their department is to leave Dublin.

But my real point is this. A solicitors firm in Galway with 5 partners is a big firm for Galway. A firm in Cork with 10 partners is a big firm for Cork. A firm in Ennis with 3 partners is a big firm for Ennis. These might pale in comparison when compared to the firms in Dublin, but that is because 1/3 of the countries population lives or works in the greater Dublin area. There are less than 400,000 people in the whole of Cork County, less than half that amount in Limerick County. There are more people living in Dublin (City and County) than in the whole of Munster. Cork does not need 100 firms with 20 partners each. That would just be ridiculous given the state of legal profession in Ireland. If a company from the US or Canada or Australia wants to engage a firm in this jurisdiction on their behalf, they look in the Dublin section of the law directory.

Tom Young

So Morbo, any closer to the answer you were searching for at the beginning of this thread?

morbo

Well Tom, I have a very bad taste in my mouth as regards the entire legal profession as it stands in this country. I know just want to get the hell out of here at any cost. Then I’ll come back to Ireland in a few years time just to open three firms in Galway, all with 30 partners each, just to spite Jo. :rolleyes:

Also, barristers are banned under statute from forming partnerships. I asked one of my lecturers who was a practicing barrister, and another that writes books about the Irish legal system. Both mentioned the same Act, but I can’t remember it, and I can’t find it online either. But I’ll keep looking. Therefore, they had to incorporate the rule into their code of conduct.

Also, I’m surprised nobody argued the point of a conflict of interests where a judge may be presiding over a case where one or both of the barristers before him all worked in the same firm. That would really ‘fudge’ the whole system. (Well, somebody may have mentioned it, but there is just way too much to look back over at this point!)