FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

page1

Just studying for equity at the moment and covering the following topics, just wondering am i covering enough?

Injunctions - interlocutary,Quia Timet, Mareva and Anton Pillar orders
Specific Performance
Undue Influence - presumed and actual
Estoppel - promissory and proprietary
Strong v Bird and Donatio Martis Causa
Secret and half secret trusts
Charitable trusts and Cy Pres Doctrine
Tracing
Trustees and duties

Thanks.

NickDrake

Anyone think that the exams will be marked way harder than usual because there are too many solicitors out there. Also since the Law Society will be spending revenue on courses/advice to help unemployed solicitors do you think they will mark the exams harder to save themselves money in the long run?

dats_right

NickDrake wrote: »

Anyone think that the exams will be marked way harder than usual because there are too many solicitors out there. Also since the Law Society will be spending revenue on courses/advice to help unemployed solicitors do you think they will mark the exams harder to save themselves money in the long run?

Surely the question you should be asking is why people are bothering to do the FE-1's? When there are no jobs and a glut of unemployed qualified solicitors out there with many, many more likely to join them The mind baffles. Why pursue a career where there is at least a sporting chance of employment at the end of it.

McCrack

dats_right wrote: »

Surely the question you should be asking is why people are bothering to do the FE-1's? When there are no jobs and a glut of unemployed qualified solicitors out there with many, many more likely to join them The mind baffles. Why pursue a career where there is at least a sporting chance of employment at the end of it.

My understanding is that you are a Trainee, have you or are you throwing in the towel yourself?

sid4lev

NickDrake wrote: »

Anyone think that the exams will be marked way harder than usual because there are too many solicitors out there. Also since the Law Society will be spending revenue on courses/advice to help unemployed solicitors do you think they will mark the exams harder to save themselves money in the long run?

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the exams are marked harder, more people will fail, some of whom would have secured traineeships, and if they cannot commence their training because of failing the exams, who the hell else is going to be paying the law society the 13k fees for PPC1 and PPC2?
I agree with the poster above, in that it makes no sense to sit these exams unless you've a traineeship already secured. I know i certainly wouldnt be doing them otherwise.

NickDrake

What you are saying makes no sense because everyone knows its impossible to get an trainee contract without having your FE1s. So a good idea would be to get them out of the way and go traveling and see if things pick up!

sid4lev

NickDrake wrote: »

What you are saying makes no sense because everyone knows its impossible to get an trainee contract without having your FE1s. So a good idea would be to get them out of the way and go traveling and see if things pick up!

I got a TC (and i know several others who did) without them.
All Im saying is that i would not put myself through the unnecessary stress and pressure of doing them, without the guarantee of an apprenticeship. Its not worth it in my eyes, especially in the current climate.
People have been saying for ages that having them done helps in getting a TC. I find that difficult to believe. The only difference it makes is that in theory you can say that you can "start tomorrow". It might have helped with getting an apprenticeship in some small/rural firms during the boom years. As far as i can see, things wont turn around over night, which is necessary to enable any firm to make a candidate a "start tomorrow" offer. Wake up for gods sake! The profession is arguably the worst hit by the economy, there are so many unemployed solicitors out there. People (including myself) are lucky to get TCs 1,2 or 3 years in advance! There are far better things you could do with your time in order to make yourself a more attractive candidate....thats just my opinion.

DryBlanket

I am lucky enough to be currently serving my Apprenticeship. Having said that I really feel for those who have their FE1's completed and cannot now secure an Apprenticeship. I think that the limitation compelling one to attend the PPC1 course within a five year period of completing the FE1's is going to cause unfair problems. I suspect there are some, albeit at this moment in time very few, who passed their FE1's, say, three plus years ago and are now willing but unable to uptake. Given the volume of people sitting it is not unlikely that someone who passed the exams in 2005 or 2006 subsequently took time off for family/travel/whatever reasons and are now facing the possibility of time running out on them despite their best efforts.

While the number in this category now is probably small it is guaranteed to grow with the passing of each PPC1 course. I think someone close to being affected by this should consider doing something to flag it to the LawSoc that the economy is preventing the best of intentions. Perhaps an online petition? Perhaps a separate thread to get ideas flowing? It is going to affect a significant proportion of students so I supect any positive action will be vociferously backed by the masses.

Would it be unreasonable of the LawSoc to insist on adhering to the 5 year rule in bad economic times as well as good? Conversely would it be unreasonable of the student to insist that his/her knowledge as proven in the FE1's is still valid more than five years after successfully negotating the system?

This is going to be a problem. It needs somebody affected to draw the LawSoc's attention to it now rather than when it is too late. The sooner the decision makers know the more informed the decision they make will be and the better chance of an equitable outcome prevailing.

DB.

dats_right

McCrack wrote: »

My understanding is that you are a Trainee, have you or are you throwing in the towel yourself?

You are correct, I am a trainee. As to whether I'm 'throwing in the towel' myself? Well, I don't intend on doing so but then I, like everyother trainee and newly qualified, may well have no say in the matter as NQ jobs are about as common as a Dodo! Meaning many will be left with no alternative but to leave the profession.

Returning to me for a moment, obviously I'm a lot further advanced down the road to qualification than someone who is sitting the fe-1's, in fact, I'm only a few months away from qualification, so it would be nonsensical for me not to qualify. But thereafter the prospects aren't good, and nor will they be unless the brakes are put on the unsustainable amount of people qualifying into the profession. The fact remains that the profession was growing at about 10% per annum for the past decade. Virtually no other profession, trade or occupation has had such numbers swell its ranks. There is no escaping the fact, that as it stands there are far too many qualified solicitors and this will certainly continue going forward.

Much of this growth was property lead and not just in smaller traditional practices but particularly effected were many of the large and medium practices. Then we have the general commercial and business enviroment which is also suffering which also has serious consequences for law firms. Whilst the economy will probably pick up in the medium term, I don't think even the most optimistic of commentators foresee a return to the madness that prevailed in the property market. A better commercial environment or upturn in the economy will help, but it will be a bit like throwing a bucket of water at a house fire! It won't be enough as there still won't be enough jobs. Frankly, without that madness in the property market the profession will unavoidably decline.

If I were considering becoming a solicitor now, well, quite simply I wouldn't be as I'd have the sense and foresight to abandonsuch an insane plan, preferring instead to seek out another career path which won't be subject to a slow and painful decline. Anybody considering the FE-1's at the moment needs their head examined!! I'm sure I'll be accused by those who are unwilling to accept the realities that I'm only saying this in order to protect the interests of those already in the profession but that wouldn't be true. It is nobodies interests if things continue they way they are going and I don't blame the Law Society for creating the problems, rather it is up to the firms to create a sustainable attitude towards recruiting trainees. I think it is despicable that on the one hand many larger firms are laying-off in some cases virtually all of their NQ's and at the same time marching a whole host of new willing suckers who are deluding themselves into thinking it's going to be any different for them in a couple of years time..

orangecake

page1 wrote: »

Just studying for equity at the moment and covering the following topics, just wondering am i covering enough?

Injunctions - interlocutary,Quia Timet, Mareva and Anton Pillar orders
Specific Performance
Undue Influence - presumed and actual
Estoppel - promissory and proprietary
Strong v Bird and Donatio Martis Causa
Secret and half secret trusts
Charitable trusts and Cy Pres Doctrine
Tracing
Trustees and duties

Thanks.

You should maybe think about doing trusts of the family home as well. It was tipped to maybe come up last time and it didn't. For the same reason you could also prepare a half question on the maxims of equity.

dats_right

orangecake wrote: »

You should maybe think about doing trusts of the family home as well. It was tipped to maybe come up last time and it didn't. For the same reason you could also prepare a half question on the maxims of equity.

I would have thought that a thorough knowledge of the M'Naghten rules is of greater use for those sitting, not only the criminal paper but indeed all of the papers, as well of course as the ability to apply those rules, perhaps aided by a good mirror!!

Aprilsunshine

dats_right wrote: »

I would have thought that a thorough knowledge of the M'Naghten rules is of greater use for those sitting, not only the criminal paper but indeed all of the papers, as well of course as the ability to apply those rules, perhaps aided by a good mirror!!

Funny.

You sound very bitter. There is no point trying to put people off FE1s to preserve your own position as NQ.

Firms have said that they do not want to be in a position where they lack good solicitors and trainees once things pick up.

Trainees going in now benefit from lower numbers and a broader education not solely focused on conveyancing.

I can see how annoying it must be to have trained and be looking now at possible unemployment but your position won't change by scaring other people, about to sit some of the most intimidating exams of their lives.

Amazotheamazing

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

I can see how annoying it must be to have trained and be looking now at possible unemployment but your position won't change by scaring other people, about to sit some of the most intimidating exams of their lives.

The FE's are fine, don't stress about them.

sid4lev

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The FE's are fine, don't stress about them.

wow! you must be really amazing!
i sincerely hope you're right

dats_right

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

Funny.

You sound very bitter. There is no point trying to put people off FE1s to preserve your own position as NQ.

The scary thing is that you actually believe that I'm saying this to preserve my position. Do you realise how proposterous that sounds? Maybe you should look a little closer at the elements of the M'Naghten rules, especially the bit about "defect of reason".

I'm also not bitter in the slightest as I've by and large greatly enjoyed training to be a solicitor, despite all of the hurdles along the way. But I am also blessed to be both an objective and realistic person and whilst it, I can assure you, doesn't give me any great satisfaction to be the bearer of such depressing news at least I'm not in a state of denial about the realities facing me and the profession as a whole. Ultimately, however, wannabes, trainees and qualified solicitors are free to delude themselves all they want but there is no escaping the fact that at some stage along they way they will all have to face the stark reality that there has never been a worse time to become or to be a solicitor and things are only going to get worse. But then again, I suppose, when I set out on FE-1's things weren't as bad as they are now, so I'm thankful that I''m in sight of the finishing line because those hurdles are looking more and more like insurmountable brick walls!!

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

Firms have said that they do not want to be in a position where they lack good solicitors and trainees once things pick up.

There may be a lot of uncertainties out there at the moment but one thing is for absolute certain and that is that there is chance in hell that there will be a lack of solicitors and trainees going forward. Sounds like sales spiel for the FE-1 exam factories..

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

Trainees going in now benefit from lower numbers and a broader education not solely focused on conveyancing.

The structures of teaching, i.e. large lectures and small tutorials, in Blackhall mean that the reduction in numbers won't have any effect whatsoever on your training. It is unfair to suggest that recent trainees' education has been solely focussed on conveyancing, because that's just not the case. To be honest that also sounds more like desperate sales spiel from one of the FE-1 exam factories! In my opinion there are advantages and disadvantages for training at a time when there is very little work to do, the main advantage as I'd see it is that you have more time to ask questions which is advantageous, but on the other hand the major disadvantage is that you won't have anywhere near the same volume of files or work to deal with and as the quality of a traineeship is almost entirely dependant upon the level of experience gained so it is highly likely that there will be a deterioation in quality in this regard.

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

I can see how annoying it must be to have trained and be looking now at possible unemployment but your position won't change by scaring other people, about to sit some of the most intimidating exams of their lives.

Funnily enough, I'm not particularly annoyed as I think my job is reasonably secure and even if it isn't I would be pragmatic about it and make the necessary decisions at that stage. But, I'd say on the balance of probabilities I'll still be in my current firm upon qualification. To be fair, I think it is more a case of me finding it totally incredulous that people are still willingly lining up in their droves to join the ranks of the profession when they know or ought to know better. It reminds me a bit like of what it must have been like being a soldier in the trenches during the Battle of the Somme getting ready to go over in maybe the fifth or sixth wave, you know because you have seen virtually everybody else get slaughtered, that in all likelihood that is the faith that awaits you also as you march like lambs to the slaughter directly into the line of fire, but you try convince yourself that against all the odds you'll somehow make it; but then again there is a very big difference, those soldiers had no choice as they would have got shot either way, whereas those sitting the FE-1's can make the logical decison to surrender and try their hat at something else.


Also I am genuinely not trying to scare people, although I understand that the harsh realities are exactly that. I'm merely informing and warning the wannabees what they are facing into. I know that I'd rather know the realities, however scary they happen to be rather than burying my head in the sand and deluding myself that my 2:1 BCL or LL.B, determination and my uniqueness are going to set me apart from the thousands in an identical situation and for those reasons I will succeed.

Ultimately it is for everybody to decide what path they want to follow, but personally I know that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that I'd consider starting out on the road to becoming a solicitor and doing the FE-1's at the moment or indeed the foreseeabke future. I don't understand why so many are now embarking on this career when they know that prospects are virtually non-existent, it's completely irrational really but there you go.

NickDrake

We are entering a career in this profession because we love law. Simple as that!!

Not all of us are motivated by money like you!

Amazotheamazing

I'm at the same stage of my training as Dat's Right, and he's only being honest with you.

Last December (before most of 2006's trainees) finished up there was 749 solicitors on the dole. Think about that long and hard about that number before you commit two years of your life to this path.

If you love law then go for it, but I would point out that working as a solicitor is virtually unrecognisable to the law you studied in college.

Any how, good luck in the exams, keep calm and they'll go fine.

dazza21ie

NickDrake wrote: »

We are entering a career in this profession because we love law. Simple as that!!

Not all of us are motivated by money like you!

I wouldn't say that to your bank manager when your looking for a loan to pay the law society fees!!

dats_right

NickDrake wrote: »

We are entering a career in this profession because we love law. Simple as that!!

Not all of us are motivated by money like you!

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this! I'm 27 and I've never earned a serious wage in my life, whilst all my friends who aren't lawyers have long since started earning serious money. But I think you prove my point about the M'Naghten rules and some, if not all, FE-1 candidates. Anyway, how on earth did you conclude that I was motivated by money? Sincerely my advice to you, if you are doing the FE-1's, is to stick to the actual content and whatever you do don't go imagining things that were never said.

In any event, I can assure you of that if I were motivated by money I certainly wouldn't become a solicitor, as it's far from being as financially lucrative as the average punter thinks it is.

Unfortunately, it would seem that no amount of logic, common sense or factual information can impress upon a large portion of the current lot of wannabee soliciors that their plight should they choose to continue is doomed for failure, in most cases through no fault of their own. The ability of a lawyer to view and interpret a situation objectively based on the facts, known information and probable outcome, free from emotion or free from viewing it as they might like them to be is perhaps the lawyers greatest skill. The bottom line is that the last person in the world people should be trying to fool is themselves!

sid4lev

Dats Right, I get what you're saying.
Im sitting four FE1s in five weeks and am currently doing one year LLB (did corp law), but I can assure you, that there is no way I would be doing the FE1s, had I not secured an apprenticeship (Big 5).
I do however, hope that you're not suggesting that people like myself(i know several others who managed to get traineeships over the last few months), who are lucky enough to have a secured a TC, should give up on their dreams just yet. I worked damn hard to get into college, worked even harder to get good grades whilst there (while working a full time job for the duration of my degree), and harder still, to get an apprenticeship with a top firm.....surely there must be some light at the end of the tunnel??
If not, well all i can do is give it my best shot, do my apprenticeship to the best of my ability, and hope for the best...if it doesnt work out and i dont get "kept on", at least i wont have any regrets about not trying my best...whats meant to be is meant to be.

Nightowl84

Hey everyone,

I'm sitting my last 2 exams this March/ April (and I don't have a TC:().

I haven't opened a book yet:eek:. Im sitting EU and Company, if anyone can recommend topics to cover i'd really appreciate it.

Thanks

dats_right

A survey for young members of the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, which speaks for itself really..

Amazotheamazing

dats_right wrote: »

A survey for young members of the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, which speaks for itself really..

Nah, it's all peachy.

seagull85

Any tips for the above. I've gone through both and want to focus on areas that might actually be of some use in the exam.

saleofgoods_boo

On the equity question, in the fe1 google group this was discussed recently-

http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group/browse_thread/thread/5dab84ed29ac2bae?hl=en

The view of the posters in the group seems to be that equity (which sounds good!) should the least of our worries and that its not the most taxing of the subjects.

Edited: Damn, sorry, I thought you were talking about equity...didn't read your topic header...

Dan133269

NickDrake wrote: »

We are entering a career in this profession because we love law. Simple as that!!

Not all of us are motivated by money like you!

speak for yourself

vote4pedro

My god the size of Constitutional course is just incredible, twice the size of some other subjects, and I'm still slogging through it. I plan on covering

Personal Rights (express and unemurated)
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Association

Right to Jury Trial
Person Liberty
Due Process
Right to Silence

Equality
Abortion
Dwelling
Religious Rights

and then have a quick read over a few things from the institution part of the course, Sep of Powers, Dáil Elections, Effect of unconstittuionality and maybe the Attorney General too.

Anyone see any glaring ommissions?

TheVan

Try not slogging through the Griffith Manual on Constitutional (I'm making the assumption this is what you're doing!). Seriously...half of it can be skim read.

I am absolutely shocked at the quality of this manual. Instead of explaining things he just copy and pastes pages of judgments. There are glaring omissions and mistakes. His overuse of "opined" "inter alia" etc is just irritating. As for his "this learned author submits" opinions, they're shaky at best.

I've abandoned it for most learning. Maybe the independent colleges one is more concise?

Aprilsunshine

yep Indo one is very good - passed Constitutional with it alone from a poor base!

r14

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

yep Indo one is very good - passed Constitutional with it alone from a poor base!

+ 1. It's 400 pages long and still fairly waffly but I believe it's better than the Griffith one. Ah Constit... what a horrible exam.