Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)
Options
Comments
-
There's another thing that's puzzling me. I get the bailii updates every few days by email - lists of the High Court and Supreme Court judgments published on bailii.org. For the past year or two, the volume of them has been staggering - you couldn't keep up with the reading, you'd have to be full-time at it. I'm wondering where are the law offices that are involved in all that action?
I find it can depend on your client and who the action is against. For example, on one case I worked on, we had a case in each of the Courts, even the Supreme Court all at the same time. Although it was against one person it had so many different aspects in different courts. So initially one case can two years later be numerous.I can only speak in the context of commercial litigation matters or involving debt collection as that where I found the experience of having a massive caseload as a legal secretary to deal with. Because of the huge amount of sums involved in those types of litigation, they would be put into High Court and Supreme Court. Then you have cases in Circuit Court which you would be putting an Entry of Appearance to have it moved to the Higher Courts. Also I notice that if you have a Bank for a client, your pretty much doing well. And Banks do not always go to one solicitor but would pass out many cases to a couple in an area to different firms.0 -
When I did an LLB in UL, we did a module on English Civil Liberties law, which we were told was a prerequisite to become a solicitor in England, anyone thinking of going over the water might need to check that out fully.
I'm not sure but to avoid having to do the GDL I think you need to have studied English Land Law too.0 -
I find it can depend on your client and who the action is against. For example, on one case I worked on, we had a case in each of the Courts, even the Supreme Court all at the same time. Although it was against one person it had so many different aspects in different courts. So initially one case can two years later be numerous.I can only speak in the context of commercial litigation matters or involving debt collection as that where I found the experience of having a massive caseload as a legal secretary to deal with. Because of the huge amount of sums involved in those types of litigation, they would be put into High Court and Supreme Court. Then you have cases in Circuit Court which you would be putting an Entry of Appearance to have it moved to the Higher Courts. Also I notice that if you have a Bank for a client, your pretty much doing well. And Banks do not always go to one solicitor but would pass out many cases to a couple in an area to different firms.
OK...but have they promised you a TC at the end of all this?0 -
OK...but have they promised you a TC at the end of all this?
No but I never applied for a TC contract in there. I worked there cause it was a nicely paid full time job. Before I started by BCL, I did a year legal secretary course so I have been able to work in some capacity in law firms. I have the possibility of two TC depending on if I get all the FE's by the summer. But I'm only half way there and my focus as not been fully on trying to find one as compared to what it will be after I have all 8 pass. Working as a legal secretary does not necessarily get you a TC. The fact is most firms when recruiting a legal secretary require you to have a legal secretary qualification. At this stage unemployed solicitors apply for legal secretary work and don't get it.I agree on your previous post that it is a very tough environment regardless of what your qualified in and especially for us trying to get a traineeship. And job bridge is not making it easier for those like ourselves. But I do think its getting into as many firms as you can get into for some work will help. As you said its about connections.0 -
I'm not sure but to avoid having to do the GDL I think you need to have studied English Land Law too.
We were told in UCC it was English Land and Admin Law. But even if you don't have them, having an Irish Law degree does exempt you from some of the GDL I thought and you would not to sit all of it. But its still an extra year on your training.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, going abroad isn't an option for me, I need a traineeship somewhere between Killarney and Nenagh, Ennis and Mallow. I didn't bust my ass on EU and Constitutional Law to take it to Australia and the kanga-shaggin'-roos. ;-) When I did an LLB in UL, we did a module on English Civil Liberties law, which we were told was a prerequisite to become a solicitor in England, anyone thinking of going over the water might need to check that out fully. It was an easy topic, I got an easy A in it.
There's another thing that's puzzling me. I get the bailii updates every few days by email - lists of the High Court and Supreme Court judgments published on bailii.org. For the past year or two, the volume of them has been staggering - you couldn't keep up with the reading, you'd have to be full-time at it. I'm wondering where are the law offices that are involved in all that action?
Yeah but if you can't get a training contract now it's only going to get harder. Every 6 months more people are passing the FE1's and the competition gets tougher.
I'm thinking of Britain really, it might be a quicker route to becoming an irish solicitor by getting an apprenticeship there and then moving back rather than sitting around in limbo waiting for a training contract that will never come because you don't have the connections?
And Ryanair fligts back home on weekends would be cheap and quick too, it isn't the 1970's, the world is a far smaller place now.0 -
anyone able & willing to give a breakdown of the topics asked in the constitutional paper from october 2012?0
-
most definitely brendan foley for eu and constitutional!!
not so sure about company, what college are you going for?
Brendan Foley for Constitutional deffo, but he wasn't as good for EU to be honest. Mark Cockerill in City is excellent (though he was in Independent Colleges when I sat company).0 -
Well, it's nice to be missed, XXXXX!!! I do drop in to see how y'all are doing, thrilled to see Hogzy cantering over the line, I had lunch with him recently and we had a celebratory ham sandwich, even. Guys, the training contract situation is appalling. Small law practises are really on the rocks. I'm getting the same answer everywhere, there's no work that needs to be done, and if there is, they can take an unemployed fully-qualified solicitor off the dole for fifty a week, why should they take a trainee then at the national minimum wage, when a solicitor is going to be more productive? There's a debate on that on the Law Society group on linkedin, and they have no answers there either - and there are a few hundred Irish solicitors on that group. Stories I've heard include an 8-man practise down to one-man now, practises on 3-day weeks, wage reductions, moves to smaller offices, even one or two who can't afford the practising certificate, ie insurance/compensation fund. It's a horrible time for us to be looking for TC's. I can't honestly see how or why a small practise could afford to keep paying a trainee's wages for the duration of the Blackhall Place courses, and I'm wondering if it's reasonable to expect them to do that. I think we're back to the days when only solicitors' kids and favourite nephews and nieces will get TCs.
Sorry to sound a note of gloom, but you'll run into it when you have those FE1s passed...
Lol, am already running up against a brick wall JCJCJC:eek: So far I have focused on the big firms because they pay etc etc (and I really did like company law at college). I paid a lot of money on a CV etc, and only got 1 interview (first round at AC), that is it (after 3 attempts at the milk rounds). Essentially it is an employer's market out there, and the goal posts keep changing because they can pick whom they regard as the "best" from 100s of candidates. Even getting unpaid experience can be tough, What kills me is that people are getting TCs without even having sat the FE1s. Go figure!! Like you, I can't move abroad either, nor do I want to. They have enough of their own graduates. Anyway, I like living in Ireland tbh:D
I have deliberately staggered out the FE1s in the hope that the market will pick up, so since I passed my first 4 in March 2011, I have the remaining exams one at a time. Only 1 more left to go and the clock starts ticking:eek:
Interestingly the fees to sit the exams in 2013 are only 105, so perhaps the numbers are going down at long last. Certainly the amount of people doing grinds seems to have dropped, while the number of ACCA etc students has exploded!
Good luck with the TC hunt, and thanks for all the great advice you have given on here over the years (and Hogzy too of course-glad you guys could have a celebratory ham sandwich!!). One day it will be champers and Bentleys a la Gerard Keen;)0 -
I have deliberately staggered out the FE1s in the hope that the market will pick up, so since I passed my first 4 in March 2011, I have the remaining exams one at a time. Only 1 more left to go and the clock starts ticking:eek:
Interesting point. I got my first 4 there in October and I was going to go full whack for the final 4 now in March but maybe it might not be so bad to do the final four two at a time.
Still I think I'll give the 4 a lash and if I come out with only two then I won't get upset.0 -
Advertisement
-
Interesting point. I got my first 4 there in October and I was going to go full whack for the final 4 now in March but maybe it might not be so bad to do the final four two at a time.
Still I think I'll give the 4 a lash and if I come out with only two then I won't get upset.
That could backfire though. If the economy doesn't pick up, then the number of training contracts will stay the same or lessen. That would mean as more people pass the FE1's and fail to get training contracts but keep applying there will be more and more competition when you apply for training contracts.
And realistically it will just keep on getting worse. It's harder to land a contract now than it was last year, and it will be harder next year than it is now. And so on. Ever increasing supply, ever lessening demand.0 -
That could backfire though. If the economy doesn't pick up, then the number of training contracts will stay the same or lessen. That would mean as more people pass the FE1's and fail to get training contracts but keep applying there will be more and more competition when you apply for training contracts.
And realistically it will just keep on getting worse. It's harder to land a contract now than it was last year, and it will be harder next year than it is now. And so on. Ever increasing supply, ever lessening demand.
Another interesting point. I suppose keep giving them the full whack and hope to get them as quick as possible then.0 -
Another interesting point. I suppose keep giving them the full whack and hope to get them as quick as possible then.
Well the other reason I decided to stagger them out was I work full time and am not in a position to leave full time employment just yet. I have encountered people who have all 8 (got them back in 2009 in some cases) and they still don't have a TC. Hard to know what firms want, but certainly this recession isn't helping (and not just in law either!!).0 -
Well the other reason I decided to stagger them out was I work full time and am not in a position to leave full time employment just yet. I have encountered people who have all 8 (got them back in 2009 in some cases) and they still don't have a TC. Hard no know what firms want, but certainly this recession isn't helping (and not just in law either!!).
Got a TC with one of the top 5 this year. Have no FE1s done (hence why I'm here, have to go and do the things now). Now, I did graduate in 2011 (although I finished my first undergrad in 2009 so would have been eligible since then), and have passed the NY Bar and worked abroad since then, so perhaps experience does compensate, but certainly none of the firms I interviewed with raised the fact that I had no FE1s, didn't seem to be an issue for them - as long as you've an obvious reason for not doing them I suppose (living abroad, completing masters etc.)0 -
That could backfire though. If the economy doesn't pick up, then the number of training contracts will stay the same or lessen. That would mean as more people pass the FE1's and fail to get training contracts but keep applying there will be more and more competition when you apply for training contracts.
And realistically it will just keep on getting worse. It's harder to land a contract now than it was last year, and it will be harder next year than it is now. And so on. Ever increasing supply, ever lessening demand.
The other factor, however, is that this is precisely what should happen and we shouldn't expect it to change really in any significant sense. Aside from the usual "dere are 2 many lawyers in dis country" line of comment, it is probably fair to say that a jurisdiction this size won't support as many "mega-firms" as there are here for too much longer with amazing innovation in service provision and looking internationally for clients in fields like energy etc. There are too many lawyers, and the economy will correct that, but it seems to take a very long time for that to trickle into decision-making regarding getting into the profession.0 -
The other factor, however, is that this is precisely what should happen and we shouldn't expect it to change really in any significant sense. Aside from the usual "dere are 2 many lawyers in dis country" line of comment, it is probably fair to say that a jurisdiction this size won't support as many "mega-firms" as there are here for too much longer with amazing innovation in service provision and looking internationally for clients in fields like energy etc. There are too many lawyers, and the economy will correct that, but it seems to take a very long time for that to trickle into decision-making regarding getting into the profession.
So what would the solution be? Only hold the FE1's every two years? Reduce the number (already happening in my opinion) that are allowed to pass every 6 months?0 -
So what would the solution be? Only hold the FE1's every two years? Reduce the number (already happening in my opinion) that are allowed to pass every 6 months?
There is 'no solution'. There's too many law students, not enough demand for law students. Those not able to get TCs need to find alternative careers/jurisdictions, I would submit.
Your 'solution' simply limits the number of people taking/passing FE1s arbitrarly, rather than the current system where law firms choose the best candidates.0 -
So what would the solution be? Only hold the FE1's every two years? Reduce the number (already happening in my opinion) that are allowed to pass every 6 months?
I suppose competition is always good but there does seem to be way too much at the moment, you just need to go up to an FE1 sitting and see the amount sitting them. I also suppose the downturn in the economy had a lot to do with it too.
I might get criticised for this but maybe only allow law graduates from accredited courses take the exams like the way KI's do?0 -
I suppose competition is always good but there does seem to be way too much at the moment, you just need to go up to an FE1 sitting and see the amount sitting them. I also suppose the downturn in the economy had a lot to do with it too.
I might get criticised for this but maybe only allow law graduates from accredited courses take the exams like the way KI's do?
I would actually agree with that - one should have an undergraduate degree in law to sit fe1s. We can't go into medicine after doing 8 exams can we??0 -
LegallyAbroad wrote: »There is 'no solution'. There's too many law students, not enough demand for law students. Those not able to get TCs need to find alternative careers/jurisdictions, I would submit.
Your 'solution' simply limits the number of people taking/passing FE1s arbitrarly, rather than the current system where law firms choose the best candidates.
You don't think there's a problem with the Law Society deliberately churning out more solicitors than there are jobs and profiting handsomely from it?
As far as your "best candidates" argument, firstly we all know it is the most well connected candidates who are getting training contracts, but let's imagine for a moment that isn't the case and training contracts are being awarded purely on merit: If you get through all the examinations the law society demands and still aren't good enough for the law firms then again that's the law society's fault for devaluing their own accreditation.
I would submit the ultimate responsibility lies with them. And I'd imagine they're aware of all this and will do something to improve matters if the economy doesn't improve long term.0 -
Advertisement
-
You don't think there's a problem with the Law Society deliberately churning out more soliciters than there are jobs and profiting handsomely from it?
As far as your "best candidates" argument, firstly we all know it is the most well connected candidates who are getting training contracts, but let's imagine for a moment that isn't the case and training contracts are being awarded purely on merit: If you get through all the examinations the law society demands and still aren't good enough for the law firms then again that's the law society's fault.
I would submit the ultimate responsibility lies with them.
Listen, if you pass the FE1s, all the Law Society is certifying is that you've attained the minimum criteria to enter a training contract with a firm. Stopping people taking FE1s on an arbitray basis serves no purpose, other than to even the playing field for worse candidates.
Do we all know that it is the most connected candidates getting TCs?
Nobody in my family is involved in law, and I ended up getting a TC in a firm where I knew absolutely nobody - so my experience certainly isn't in line with what you know.
Often, I think that's a cop out used by people who can't get training contracts. I'm not saying it's not difficult, it is phenomenally so, the figures I've heard from people inside firms (I know people in other firms, through college & work) is approx. 700 applying for 10-12 positions. That means you have to be in the top 2/3% of applicants - which is obviously very difficult. It's much easier to say "It's who you know etc." rather than to admit that you're not in the top few percent of applicants who are successful, on merit*.
I don't see why you think the Law Society will do anything about it, their remit isn't to get law students jobs.
*For example, in your opening line you talk of 'soliciters'.0 -
LegallyAbroad wrote: »Listen, if you pass the FE1s, all the Law Society is certifying is that you've attained the minimum criteria to enter a training contract with a firm. Stopping people taking FE1s on an arbitray basis serves no purpose, other than to even the playing field for worse candidates.
Do we all know that it is the most connected candidates getting TCs?
Nobody in my family is involved in law, and I ended up getting a TC in a firm where I knew absolutely nobody - so my experience certainly isn't in line with what you know.
Often, I think that's a cop out used by people who can't get training contracts. I'm not saying it's not difficult, it is phenomenally so, the figures I've heard from people inside firms (I know people in other firms, through college & work) is approx. 700 applying for 10-12 positions. That means you have to be in the top 2/3% of applicants - which is obviously very difficult. It's much easier to say "It's who you know etc." rather than to admit that you're not in the top few percent of applicants who are successful*.
*For example, in your opening line you talk of 'soliciters'.
Firstly, you landed a training contract after passing the New York bar in addition to getting your FE1's. Getting your FE1's should be enough. That's the whole point of doing FE1's. It would be enough if they didn't pass so many people that FE1's become devalued.
When times are hard people will give jobs to their son/nephew etc over a stranger for obvious reasons. I've only anecdotal evidence but everyone seems to have the same anecdotal evidence in every profession.
*And you misspelled "arbitrarly". And I'd noticed and corrected that spelling error you referred to before you made your reply.0 -
Firstly, you landed a training contract after passing the New York bar in addition to getting your FE1's. Getting your FE1's should be enough. That's the whole point of doing FE1's. It would be enough if they didn't pass so many people that FE1's become devalued.
When times are hard people will give jobs to their son/nephew etc over a stranger for obvious reasons. I've only anecdotal evidence but everyone seems to have the same anecdotal evidence in every profession.
The spelling thing was petty of me. I apologise.
I have not got my FE1s, I've never taken them. I have to take them before I begin my TC. Further, why do you think that getting FE1s 'should be enough?'
I'm not discounting contacts, the obviously play a part, but my experiences would not be in line with yours. A significant number of my peers are either in or have TCs with big firms (for some reason I don't really know anyone with small firms, I suspect because nepotism has a bigger impact in the smaller firms), and to my knowledge, they got there on merit.
I really don't understand why you think FE1s = getting a TC.0 -
LegallyAbroad wrote: »The spelling thing was petty of me. I apologise.
I have not got my FE1s, I've never taken them. I have to take them before I begin my TC. Further, why do you think that getting FE1s 'should be enough?'
I'm not discounting contacts, the obviously play a part, but my experiences would not be in line with yours. A significant number of my peers are either in or have TCs with big firms (for some reason I don't really know anyone with small firms, I suspect because nepotism has a bigger impact in the smaller firms), and to my knowledge, they got there on merit.
I really don't understand why you think FE1s = getting a TC.
Apology accepted.
I was speaking loosely but that was actually what I meant, you see by passing the New York bar you've already done the equivalent of FE1's, they're pretty closely linked so you're pretty much guaranteed to pass the FE1's and become super qualified.
The reason FE1's should = training contract is because the FE1's should mean something. The same smart people are going to rise to the top academically eventually, by devaluing the FE1's you force those people to waste years of their lives and huge sums of money in fees and lost earnings getting additional qualifications. If you pass someone who isn't good enough you're contributing heavily to unemployment, driving down wages for the entire profession due to insane competition, all so the Law Society can make more money from people paying to take the exams. And matching graduates to job levels would take nepotism out of the equation somewhat and at least give people a chance to prove their worth in the profession.
Grade inflation is never good. By your logic the law society would be ethically fine passing everyone who could spell their names?0 -
Apology accepted.
I was speaking loosely but that was actually what I meant, you see by passing the New York bar you've already done the equivalent of FE1's, they're pretty closely linked so you're pretty much guaranteed to pass the FE1's and become super qualified.
The reason FE1's should = training contract is because the FE1's should mean something. The same smart people are going to rise to the top academically eventually, by devaluing the FE1's you force those people to waste years of their lives and huge sums of money in fees and lost earnings getting additional qualifications. If you pass someone who isn't good enough you're contributing heavily to unemployment, driving down wages for the entire profession due to insane competition, all so the Law Society can make more money from people paying to take the exams.
Grade inflation is never good. By your logic the law society would be ethically fine passing everyone who could spell their names?
I do not see how you've come to that conclusion. The purpose of the FE1s, as I understand it, is to regulate the quality of future solicitors. That is to say, that they have sufficent legal knowledge and intelligence to act as solicitors. Once a candidate has met that standard, then I think he/she ought to pass the exam, regardless of how many others have also met that standard.
As for the driving down of wages. Where wages for trainess higher in 2007/2008 than they are now? I genuinely don't know the answer to that question, but would be interested if anybody has facts on that. Also, what eveidence is there that the LS are passing candidates who are 'not good enough'?
The time for academically inclined people to shine is during the undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. This is why firms won't consider candidates with less than a 2:1, and tend to choose their trainess from those who have high 2:1s, and firsts. Again, as I understand, the purpose of the FE1s is merely to regulate future solicitors, ensuring that they reach a certain minimum standard, rather than to choose the best law students.0 -
LegallyAbroad wrote: »I do not see how you've come to that conclusion. The purpose of the FE1s, as I understand it, is to regulate the quality of future solicitors. That is to say, that they have sufficent legal knowledge and intelligence to act as solicitors. Once a candidate has met that standard, then I think he/she ought to pass the exam, regardless of how many others have also met that standard.
As for the driving down of wages. Where wages for trainess higher in 2007/2008 than they are now? I genuinely don't know the answer to that question, but would be interested if anybody has facts on that.
The time for academically inclined people to shine is during the undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. This is why firms won't consider candidates with less than a 2:1, and tend to choose their trainess from those who have high 2:1s, and firsts. Again, as I understand, the purpose of the FE1s is merely to regulate future solicitors, ensuring that they reach a certain minimum standard, rather than to choose the best law students.
If you're not good enough to realistically get a job you shouldn't be allowed pass. That's what the FE1's have always been about. It's why you go in knowing 100% of the material, give legitimate advice and you still barely scrape a 50% pass. It's why 70% is considered an incredible mark. Because there's a bell curve, and that bell curve is meant to correlate to the level of jobs in the industry and it did until relatively recently.
But when the downturn happened a decision was obviously made not to squeeze it tighter because if they only passed say 10 candidates, people would stop paying for the exams. Only bad things have come from this decision. Massive unemployment in young soliciters, qualified soliciters working for pennies. That is always the result when there are more jobseekers than jobs.
JCJCJC in the previous page:
Well, it's nice to be missed, XXXXX!!! I do drop in to see how y'all are doing, thrilled to see Hogzy cantering over the line, I had lunch with him recently and we had a celebratory ham sandwich, even. Guys, the training contract situation is appalling. Small law practises are really on the rocks. I'm getting the same answer everywhere, there's no work that needs to be done, and if there is, they can take an unemployed fully-qualified solicitor off the dole for fifty a week, why should they take a trainee then at the national minimum wage, when a solicitor is going to be more productive? There's a debate on that on the Law Society group on linkedin, and they have no answers there either - and there are a few hundred Irish solicitors on that group. Stories I've heard include an 8-man practise down to one-man now, practises on 3-day weeks, wage reductions, moves to smaller offices, even one or two who can't afford the practising certificate, ie insurance/compensation fund. It's a horrible time for us to be looking for TC's. I can't honestly see how or why a small practise could afford to keep paying a trainee's wages for the duration of the Blackhall Place courses, and I'm wondering if it's reasonable to expect them to do that. I think we're back to the days when only solicitors' kids and favourite nephews and nieces will get TCs.
Sorry to sound a note of gloom, but you'll run into it when you have those FE1s passed...
How is this a good thing? How is this ethical?Also, what eveidence is there that the LS are passing candidates who are 'not good enough'?
The level of unemployment among solicitors looking for training contracts. Why qualify those who won't get jobs? Pass less people.0 -
The level of unemployment among solicitors looking for training contracts. Why qualify those who won't get jobs? Pass less people.
Becuase it should be down to the law firms who they wish to employ, considering they'll be paying the individuals and benefiting from their abilities.
They Law Society's job isn't to decide which candidates get jobs, but to ensure that those eligible for TCs are of a minimum standard.
Within every profession there are those who can't get jobs/work for pennies. That is why flexibility is more important than ever, the ability to speak a 2nd/3rd language, being qualified in more than one jurisdiction etc., there'll always be well paid work for the people at the top of any profession.0 -
LegallyAbroad wrote: »The spelling thing was petty of me. I apologise.
I have not got my FE1s, I've never taken them. I have to take them before I begin my TC. Further, why do you think that getting FE1s 'should be enough?'
I'm not discounting contacts, the obviously play a part, but my experiences would not be in line with yours. A significant number of my peers are either in or have TCs with big firms (for some reason I don't really know anyone with small firms, I suspect because nepotism has a bigger impact in the smaller firms), and to my knowledge, they got there on merit.
I really don't understand why you think FE1s = getting a TC.
Not having someone in a family in a legal profession, doesn't mean you have no connections. In fact a good few ppl i knew have parents as bank managers, school principals with plenty of contacts. Your parents may not say it to you/they may but I never heard of anyone actually admitting to their friends that they got a tc through a connection. It did happen in some obvious cases where everyone knew that one was dating a partner from one of the big law firms but that's about it. Competition is exceptional and I do believe that some ppl get in on the merit, but roughly about 10% of all the places go to them and the rest of it is parents' competiton. Having said that, it's not happening only in Ireland but all over the world.0 -
Not having someone in a family in a legal profession, doesn't mean you have no connections. In fact a good few ppl i knew have parents as bank managers, school principals with plenty of contacts. Your parents may not say it to you/they may but I never heard of anyone actually admitting to their friends that they got a tc through a connection. It did happen in some obvious cases where everyone knew that one was dating a partner from one of the big law firms but that's about it. Competition is exceptional and I do believe that some ppl get in on the merit, but roughly about 10% of all the places go to them and the rest of it is parents' competiton. Having said that, it's not happening only in Ireland but all over the world.
So you think 90% of people get TCs on the back of their parents?0 -
Advertisement
-
OH, I love this board when the skin and hair goes airborne!!! Woohoo, bring on the aviation law experts.
Trainee wages are set by the Lawsoc at the national minimum wage, so there's really no issue there. Under the terms of the training contract rules, up to four months pre-PPC1 in the law office is reckonable for the traineeship. It would seem reasonable to assume that they arrived at that figure by reference to the period between completing the Spring sittings of the FE1s and getting results - say approx 11th May, and commencing in Blackhall Place in September - there's your four months.
From here on, the thick seriously plottens. If you work in your training law office before you go to Blackhall, you must be paid while in Blackhall, all those weeks. On the other hand, if you get a TC but don't work, you go to BHP unpaid, and the training solr only has to pay you once you come back, and through PPC2. See it from the training solicitors' point of view - s'he takes on an almighty financial albatros if they give you the work before BHP, compared to just signing off and letting you off on your own. In the times we're living in, I can't see how they would go the costly route.
The reason I'm setting this out in the context of the running debate is to point out how the timing of your FE1 sittings affects your TC. If you pass your last at an Autumn sitting, results in late November, you'll only be able to count four months of the period December-September towards your TC. However, the 5-year clock starts ticking on 31st December whether you passed in Spring or Autumn, so theoretically at least Spring chickens have 5.5 years to begin the TC. For young and free folks at the moment, that might be an opportunity to do a post-grad or go working abroad etc. Some of you seem to have accounting quals - a buddy of mine is an accountant and he's in Qatar at the moment, six days work every week at USD500 a day - seriously good money even if the social life is a bit abstemious.
Three friends in my LLB class did the BL in KI, none got a devilling traineeship yet so none are actually working at the bar, and they were all very bright and sharp at law.
Anyone going to the Lawsoc's seminar on 18th January on getting a traineeship? I got a mailshot about it, it might be limited to people who have passed the FE1s.
JC0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement