FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

doing

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

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.

Within the legal profession, if the economy doesn't improve, the number of people working for pennies is going to increase massively every 6 months every time the FE1's finish up if something isn't done. I don't think that makes economic sense for the reasons I gave. Obviously you do and you're entitled to your opinion.

LegallyAbroad

JCJCJC wrote: »

.
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.

Are all the large firms not paying for PPC1, even where the trainees go directly into PPC1, without working in the firm before hand?

brumbram6

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

So you think 90% of people get TCs on the back of their parents?

oh no its a combination of factors - knowing the law, being smart, good looking, interesting but also having a little bit extra so you can stand out from the crowd (be it parents, recommendations or scholarships). When I said that I also had in mind big law firms that pay for everything.

LegallyAbroad

brumbram6 wrote: »

oh no its a combination of factors - knowing the law, being smart, good looking, interesting but also having a little bit extra so you can stand out from the crowd (be it parents, recommendations or scholarships). When I said that I also had in mind big law firms that pay for everything.

Bar parents, I would see those as legitimate criteria for deciding on a trainee.

colonel1

I am thinking of going to the seminar JCJCJC. Might see you there.

JCJCJC

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Are all the large firms not paying for PPC1, even where the trainees go directly into PPC1, without working in the firm before hand?

They are not obliged to, per the society's rules. They are only obliged to pay wages if you've worked before going. As far as I know, the BHP fee is discretionary, they aren't obliged to pay it. I'd be amazed if any did, why should they?

JC

colonel1

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Bar parents, I would see those as legitimate criteria for deciding on a trainee.

Even the part about being good looking????

JCJCJC

brumbram6 wrote: »

oh no its a combination of factors - knowing the law, being smart, good looking, interesting but also having a little bit extra so you can stand out from the crowd (be it parents, recommendations or scholarships). When I said that I also had in mind big law firms that pay for everything.

Unless you've been adopted from Latvia your parents are very important if good looks are coming into this... ;-)

JCJCJC

colonel1 wrote: »

I am thinking of going to the seminar JCJCJC. Might see you there.

Yeah, we had a chat in the lift one day in GCD if I recall correctly, do say hello!!

JC

LegallyAbroad

colonel1 wrote: »

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Bar parents, I would see those as legitimate criteria for deciding on a trainee.

Even the part about being good looking????

Along with other criteria, absolutely. If one is to deal with clients it obviously benefits one to be, at least, decent looking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

LegallyAbroad

JCJCJC wrote: »

They are not obliged to, per the society's rules. They are only obliged to pay wages if you've worked before going. As far as I know, the BHP fee is discretionary, they aren't obliged to pay it. I'd be amazed if any did, why should they?

JC

I know for a fact some of them, at least, are paying them (as well as reimbursing trainees for the FE1s). As for the reason, I'd imagine because some candidates (I don't think it is too far of a stretch to say the best candidates) get multiple offers and firms are competing for talent.

JCJCJC

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

I'm not going to second guess their motives, but I know for a fact some of them, at least, are paying them.

C'est la vie. A friend of mine who qualified about three years ago said some of the classmates in BHP were unbelievable - everything paid for, natty 2012 BMWs, designer outfits every day, blackberrys and what-not else - fine if you can do it, but they're the lucky few, and most were kids of partners in the sponsoring firms. I know nothing about the Dublin scene, but from the Red Cow to Healy-Rae's pub in Kilgarvan I can't imagine any solicitors' firm that has enough loose cash sloshing around to spend it on a trainee like that. I'll take a TC if I only get the start in BHP out of it, I think it's that tough right now.

LegallyAbroad

JCJCJC wrote: »

C'est la vie. A friend of mine who qualified about three years ago said some of the classmates in BHP were unbelievable - everything paid for, natty 2012 BMWs, designer outfits every day, blackberrys and what-not else - fine if you can do it, but they're the lucky few, and most were kids of partners in the sponsoring firms. I know nothing about the Dublin scene, but from the Red Cow to Healy-Rae's pub in Kilgarvan I can't imagine any solicitors' firm that has enough loose cash sloshing around to spend it on a trainee like that. I'll take a TC if I only get the start in BHP out of it, I think it's that tough right now.

I'd say that's about right. Pretty sure all of them top firms in Dublin are paying PPC1, regardless of start date. There's an awful lot of competition among the firms for candidates. No sign of a 2012 BMW in my contract, though...perhaps I should have driven a harder bargin.:)

colonel1

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yeah, we had a chat in the lift one day in GCD if I recall correctly, do say hello!!

JC

Did we? I don't recall. What was the event? I am female btw!!

colonel1

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

colonel1 wrote: »

Along with other criteria, absolutely. If one is to deal with clients it obviously benefits one to be, at least, decent looking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

I'll just wear my Darth Vader mask and the clients won't know the difference;-)

JCJCJC

colonel1 wrote: »

Did we? I don't recall. What was the event? I am female btw!!

Well, I chatted to a female, and I'm not - said female said she was the Colonel! The event was one of the GCD one-days, maybe Constitutional or Criminal?

JCJCJC

colonel1 wrote: »

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

I'll just wear my Darth Vader mask and the clients won't know the difference;-)

There's actually some basis to this. A task often given to a trainee is to go to court to 'attend on a barrister' - ie be there to represent the instructing firm. Barristers and clients don't like it if the rep of the firm doesn't at least look the part. There's sfa for the trainee to do, the barrister will do the legal heavy lifting, they just like to have someone there. Firms down here in the swamps of Munster find it convenient to send a trainee to the Four Courts if there's only a procedural stage going on, eg a discovery application, a motion etc. From the trainee's perspective you might get a look at top-class advocacy in action and you learn a lot. I've been in the Supreme Court as a trainee (informal) and it is exciting sitting in under the bench facing the Senior Counsel as he addresses the judges - you say to yourself this is what law school was all about.

colonel1

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, I chatted to a female, and I'm not - said female said she was the Colonel! The event was one of the GCD one-days, maybe Constitutional or Criminal?

Hmmm there must be another Colonel out there.... I did the 1 day contract class in GCD in march 2011 but not criminal or constitutional ( I haven't sat constitutional yet). The plot thickens;-)

JCJCJC

colonel1 wrote: »

Hmmm there must be another Colonel out there.... I did the 1 day contract class in GCD in march 2011 but not criminal or constitutional ( I haven't sat constitutional yet). The plot thickens;-)

about 5'4", longish dark hair, smart-casual dress sense? ;-) Say hello in BHP anyway, I'm old - years beyond my time, thanks to the world and the white port wine...Hogzy might be with me, he's a big handsome chap.

colonel1

JCJCJC wrote: »

about 5'4", longish dark hair, smart-casual dress sense? ;-) Say hello in BHP anyway, I'm old - years beyond my time, thanks to the world and the white port wine...Hogzy might be with me, he's a big handsome chap.

I will indeed (and to Hogzy too). Should be an interesting event and not too expensive either:-) It would be great if they had someone like Gerard Kean at it;-)

I doubt you are that old JCJCJC- or should I be watching out for a Gandalf type personage;-).

JCJCJC

colonel1 wrote: »

I will indeed (and to Hogzy too). Should be an interesting event and not too expensive either:-) It would be great if they had someone like Gerard Kean at it;-)

I doubt you are that old JCJCJC- or should I be watching out for a Gandalf type personage;-).

Well, wizardry I can do, on occasion ;-) Yeah, I'm definitely a matoor stoodent - beats being the antithesis all day. I've got my own knees, hips, boat and mercedes, I sleep with a married woman every night so how bad, huh?

Avatargh

doing wrote: »

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?

Nope. No solution needed, in my view. Its just market forces. There is not enough work for the amount of people who are seeking it. Why *should* anyone go about either (a) creating more work or (b) limiting the amount of people who can seek it? The latter is anti-competitive and I think we have to work on some assumption that people have to be held to their decisions. If they want to take this path, they take the risks; end of story. It sounds harsh, but anything else really smacks of the kind of control and closed-shop system that everyone seems to give out about. Simple really in that demand outstrips supply and so people should act accordingly. They are not acting accordingly and usually ignoring market forces doesn't really end up well for anyone.

Avatargh

doing wrote: »

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.

Maybe it should be enough. But its not enough because other people spend time and effort getting more qualifications etc. Its a bit rich to complain - which is what it seems like - about other people being more qualified.

And I think you're just creating a "point" to the exams which not self-evidently correct. It's an entrance exam regulating eligibility to sit the PPC courses. It is nothing more than that, and a firm is perfectly entitled to look of candidates with a bit more than the FE1s done.

Hogzy

Did anyone get the letter from the law society in regards to the "How to get a training contract" class they are doing this month?

I think its on the 16th or the 19th (ill confirm when I get home)

Is anyone going to it?

Fe1exams

Can someone offer some assistance as to the two limbed test, for the defence of provocation in Ireland.
I know the leading case is Dpp v Maceoin.... really appreciate any help thanks

chops018

Fe1exams wrote: »

Can someone offer some assistance as to the two limbed test is for the defence of provocation in Ireland.
I know the leading case is Dpp v Maceoin.... appreciate any help thanks

In, in The People (DPP) v. MacEoin¸ Kenny J, for the Court of Criminal Appeal, asserted that “The objective test is profoundly illogical and in cases of provocation should be declared to be no longer part of our law.” He proceeded to enunciate a two-limbed test for provocation, saying that, in order to defeat the defence of provocation, the prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt either:
(i) “The accused was not provoked to such an extent that, having regard to his temperament, character and circumstances, he lost control of himself at the time of the wrongful act,” or
(ii) “The force used by the accused was unreasonable and excessive having regard to the provocation. . .”

That's from my notes, hope that helps.

colonel1

Hogzy wrote: »

Did anyone get the letter from the law society in regards to the "How to get a training contract" class they are doing this month?

I think its on the 16th or the 19th (ill confirm when I get home)

Is anyone going to it?

Hey Hogzy,

I got a letter about it a few days ago. JCJCJC was talking about that on here last night. I am thinking of going. Hopefully they will have some hope for us TC seekers.

JCJCJC

Yeah, I booked it today. I have to cancel a 4-day freebie trip to Prague because of it. You need to book on-line on the lawsoc's website, have your reference number and password, plus your fantastic plastic, it's money up front. :rolleyes:

boomtown84

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yeah, I booked it today. I have to cancel a 4-day freebie trip to Prague because of it. You need to book on-line on the lawsoc's website, have your reference number and password, plus your fantastic plastic, it's money up front. :rolleyes:

You seriously going to miss a free trip to Prague so you can give the Law Soc more money for nothing?

Just get Hogzy to take notes for you!

Hogzy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yeah, I booked it today. I have to cancel a 4-day freebie trip to Prague because of it. You need to book on-line on the lawsoc's website, have your reference number and password, plus your fantastic plastic, it's money up front. :rolleyes:

:eek::eek::eek:
Balls!!!

Why is it the law society dates always clash with social events. Because of the FE1's I havnt been to a 6 nations match, havnt had a drink on Arthurs Day, St Patricks Day or been able to go to Electric Picnic in the last 2 years. First world problems eh :P

boomtown84 wrote: »

You seriously going to miss a free trip to Prague so you can give the Law Soc more money for nothing?

Just get Hogzy to take notes for you!

I have no Problem with this JC, Missing Prague because of the Law Soc will only make a grey January even duller. Ill take notes if you bring me back a bottle of Pilsner Urquell. Love that stuff.