FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

sunnyside

This thread is frightening me. I have a mortgage, I can't work for free. Even if I could I wouldn't, it reeks of desperation and I don't want any job badly enough to have to beg for it. People who would allow you to work for free long term have absolutely no respect for you. 2 weeks work experience for free or voluntary work is fine but not 2 years.

The law society should make this practice illegal, it's clearly "brown envelope" culture.

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

Legal Exec......you've kept me awake all night with what you told us :rolleyes:
I've been thinking bout it but, I dunno something about this makes me feel a bit uneasy, i cant put my finger on what it is though!

Legal Exec

It's not illegal and you are owed nothing by a solicitor who can't afford to enroll you.

If you have the money and they have the time then its a contract that wouldn't ordinarily exist.

It's not mandatory for you to become a trainee solicitor nor is it obligatory for a solicitor to train you.

If it can't be done for free then some people (not me) have had little choice but to take this route.

When the law isn't broken then its a matter for the contracting parties alone, if you don't have the money to invest you can't force a training contract on a solicitor.

Trying to trip other lawyers up out of jealousy will not get anyone anywere...

Many solicitors are in a worse financial situation than you who has a mortgage- they can't pay there's or are in insolvency with re-possession looming!

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

It's not illegal and you are owed nothing by a solicitor who can't afford to enroll you.

If you have the money and they have the time then its a contract that wouldn't ordinarily exist.

Am I missing something here...?

Isnt an employer obliged to pay a trainee?

http://www.lawsociety.ie/documents/education/hbs/salaries.pdf

Legal Exec

They explain how a "tuition agreement" keeps things legal......

drkpower

Thanks, had a quick look.

But I have to say that such arrangements seem entirely dubious.

Have the LawSoc agreed to such arrangements? I doubt it. You cant just get around the Minimum Wage legislation by agreeing not to be paid (or vice versa...). If these are recognised trainee contracts, I dont see this being legal or acceptable to the LawSoc.

Legal Exec

These trainees are paid and paid the minimum wage or above.

Agreeing a "tuition contract" with their enroller is also perfectly legal.

Significantly common practice in big and small firms I'm afraid.....

sunnyside

Legal Exec wrote: »

Many solicitors are in a worse financial situation than you who has a mortgage- they can't pay there's or are in insolvency with re-possession looming!

True but if the situation is that bad they may not stay in business until the 2 year training contract is finished.

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

These trainees are paid and paid the minimum wage or above.

Agreeing a "tuition contract" with their enroller is also perfectly legal.

Common practice in big and small firms I'm afraid.....

But they pay a lump sum up front prior to entering into the contract....?

That is the same thing as not being paid; it is frustrating the legislation. It may be common practice but how is it considered to be legal and has the practice been sanctioned by the LawSoc? I doubt it. Solicitors who engage in this put themselves at significant risk if the LawSoc havent sanctioned these arrangements. Have they?

Legal Exec

sunnyside wrote: »

True but if the situation is that bad they may not stay in business until the 2 year training contract is finished.

The whole profession is really, really shaky right now.

The trainees can also be dispatched to another willing solicitor and work abroad depending on circumstances.

From what I've heard some of them have had to find new enrollers to finish with and some solicitors are barely surviving with the help of this deal.

legal eagle 1

I think the simpliest way to explain this issue.......is that you pay a solicitor a lump sum payment to be taken on as a trainee and they pay you your minimum wage but you never actually see this money because this too is taken back by the solicitor as 'Tuition fees'. (Well this is how legal eagle has explained it in her head)
So basically if this trend continues, it will only be the people with connections and money who are going make it. This is very wrong and the more commonplace this trend becomes the more arrogant and money grabbing these solicitors will become to our detriment.

Legal Exec

drkpower wrote: »

But they pay a lump sum up front prior to entering into the contract....?

That is the same thing as not being paid; it is frustrating the legislation. It may be common practice but how is it considered to be legal and has the practice been sanctioned by the LawSoc? I doubt it. Solicitors who engage in this put themselves at significant risk if the LawSoc havent sanctioned these arrangements. Have they?

The Law Society don't directly sanction us as individuals to study in a particular college- the approve the college to teach the course and our deal with the college is none of their concern.

They sanction training contracts between solrs and trainees, it matters not how the trainee and solr agree their private contract re tuition with up front, weekly or quarterly payments- its a privity issue between the solr and trainee, just like student and college.

You should know that it this happening- which is why I am notifying you all so you can plan from there...

Legal Exec

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I think the simpliest way to explain this issue.......is that you pay a solicitor a lump sum payment to be taken on as a trainee and they pay you your minimum wage but you never actually see this money because this too is taken back by the solicitor as 'Tuition fees'. (Well this is how legal eagle has explained it in her head)
So basically if this trend continues, it will only be the people with connections and money who are going make it. This is very wrong and the more commonplace this trend becomes the more arrogant and money grabbing these solicitors will become to our detriment.

But it presumes guilt and more it presumes exploitation.

The god's honest truth here people- from what I've heard its about solrs keeping the wolf from the door and FE 1 passers making progress they otherwise would not have made.

Everything in this feckin profession costs money- its €980 just to get your Indenture signed!! :mad:

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

The Law Society don't directly sanction us as individuals to study in a particular college- the approve the college to teach the course and our deal with the college is none of their concern.

They sanction training contracts between solrs and trainees, it matters not how the trainee and solr agree their private contract re tuition with up front, weekly or quarterly payments- its a privity issue between the solr and trainee, just like student and college.

You should know that it this happening- which is why I am notifying you all so you can plan from there...

Of course it matters how the trainee and solr agree their contract. The LawSoc regulates the entire relationship between the parties. You cannot simply frustrate the LawSoc minimum payment regulations and the minimum wage act by entering into a side agreement to pay a significant lump sum up front. Solicitors who enter into these agreements woithout sanction form the LawSoc are at serious risk of censure and/or prosecution. Unless there is some particular issue here I am missing; but I dont think so.

If employers could sidestep the legislation so easily, dont you think employers in all indistries would be entering into agreements such as this with employees like crazy at the moment.

legal eagle 1

I think the major dilemna i'm having with it is i want this soo much and i have tried literally everything to get a training contract so much so that i dont really have much left to try, in fact i have nothing. That said my gut feeling is that this is wrong and i shouldn't even be considering it but, if i don't try than I can't really say i've tried everything. Awh decisions decisions decisions

Legal Exec

drkpower wrote: »

Of course it matters how the trainee and solr agree their contract. The LawSoc regulates the entire relationship between the parties. You cannot simply frustrate the LawSoc minimum payment regulations and the minimum wage act by entering into a side agreement to pay a significant lump sum up front. Solicitors who enter into these agreements woithout sanction form the LawSoc are at serious risk of censure and/or prosecution. Unless there is some particular issue here I am missing; but I dont think so.

If employers could sidestep the legislation so easily, dont you think employers in all indistries would be entering into agreements such as this with employees like crazy at the moment.

Other employers don't have the Holy Grail at the end of the tunnell!

Of Course it doesn't matter how its agreed;- without a complaint, without proof and with all the statuory obligations complied with- where's your case?

Legal Exec

A point everyone should be aware of is that the potential trainees are the ones filling up Law Firms e-mail inboxs with these offers.

From my knowledge its not some underhand exploitation scheme by solrs...

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

Other employers don't have the Holy Grail at the end of the tunnell!

Of Course it doesn't matter how its agreed;- without a complaint, without proof and with all the statuory obligations complied with- where's your case?

Such arrangements are either acceptable/illegal or they are not; and it certainly appears that these are not.

All it takes is one of the people on one of these contracts to report it; and one surely will at some point.
As for proof; the cheque paying the solicitor the lump sum will do.....
And the statutory requirements have clearly been breached; you cant have a law saying 'pay someone €10/week' but he has to pay you €5200 at the beginning of the year. It is quite clearly against the leguslation.

Are you sure there is nothing you are missing here? Solicitors are usually very very wary of taking any chances like this. In a profession where reputation is king, a LawSoc censure (or worse) and/or a prosecution would be hugely damaging.

legal eagle 1

A point everyone should be aware of is that the potential trainees are the ones filling up Law Firms e-mail inboxs with these offers.

From my knowledge its not some underhand exploitation scheme by solrs...

Bloody hell some days i just want out of this whole stupid legal world:mad:

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

A point everyone should be aware of is that the potential trainees are the ones filling up Law Firms e-mail inboxs with these offers.

From my knowledge its not some underhand exploitation scheme by solrs...

The motivation is irrelevent. It is either permissable or it is not.

Legal Exec

drkpower wrote: »

Such arrangements are either acceptable/illegal or they are not; and it certainly appears that these are not.

All it takes is one of the people on one of these contracts to report it; and one surely will at some point.
As for proof; the cheque paying the solicitor the lump sum will do.....
And the statutory requirements have clearly been breached; you cant have a law saying 'pay someone €10/week' but he has to pay you €5200 at the beginning of the year. It is quite clearly against the leguslation.

Are you sure there is nothing you are missing here? Solicitors are usually very very wary of taking any chances like this. In a profession where reputation is king, a LawSoc censure (or worse) and/or a prosecution would be hugely damaging.

The parties freely enter into a contract for "tuition"- who can complain?
What is the complaint? - They freely enter into a contract for services!

There can be no proof of impropriety, once the tuition is outside the trainee's working hours everything is ligit....

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

The parties freely enter into a contract for "tuition"- who can complain?
What is the complaint? - They freely enter into a contract for services!

There can be no proof of impropriety, once the tuition is outside the trainee's working hours everything is ligit....

Im sorry Legal Exec, but you are simply wrong on this or you havent provided all the details of how this supposed arrangement works.

The trainee contract is a training contract. Of its nature, it includes an obligation on the solictior to train the trainee. That training should be provided within regular working hours. It is regulated by the LawSoc. The LawSoc has guidelines on how much a trainee should be paid. The arrangemnet is subject to the Minimum Wage Act.

To enter into a seperate contract whereby the trainee pays the solicitor for some service or for additional out-of-hours training that should already be provided on foot of the substantive contract is simply entering into a contract to frustrate the legislation and the regulator (the LawSoc).

Im afriad you must be missing something or the solicitors are lunatics taking a huge chance for relatively modest reward.

Legal Exec

That counts for a lot out there my friend.

Your theorys re frustration and illegality aren't worth a penny candle in the eyes of the fully quailified solicitors and willing trainees prevailing in this situation and who would demure....

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

That counts for a lot out there my friend.

You're theorys re frustration and illegality aren't worth a penny candle in the eyes of the fully quailified solicitors and willing trainees prevailing in this situation and who would demure....

Legal Exec, you are being a bit silly now...

I am taking your word that it is happening; but that does not make it any less permissable, acceptable or legal.

I have provided my analysis as to why it is illegal and against LawSoc regulations; you have merely replied to tell me it is happening. And they are not theories!! I have pointed to the relevant regulations and legislation. If you are a legal exec you should at least have some knowledge of how to interpret such instruments.

Legal Exec

Your opinions, theorys and invective carry no legal weight.

Sarah C. posted in recent previous posts & some others agreed also that this is in practice and not my foible....

If you think you can stop it please proceed & I will bow to your superior know-how...

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

Your opinions, theorys and invective carry no legal weight.

Sarah C. posted in recent previous posts & some others agreed also that this is in practice and not my foible....

If you think you can stop it please proceed & I will bow to your superior know-how...

What is only acceptable to qualifying and qualified solicitors?
And why do my opinions and theories carry no legal weight?

I have accepted a number of times your word that the practice occurs. That does not stop it from being illegal/impermissable. I have explained how it is illegal/impermissable. You havent really countered my analysis; you have just told me it happens, therefore it is....

And I wont be trying to stop it; it no longer affects me thankfully and my own firm are not engaging in the practice.

Legal Exec

drkpower wrote: »

What is only acceptable to qualifying and qualified solicitors?
And why do my opinions and theories carry no legal weight?

I have accepted a number of times your word that the practice occurs. That does not stop it from being illegal/impermissable. I have explained how it is illegal/impermissable. You havent really countered my analysis; you have just told me it happens, therefore it is....

And I wont be trying to stop it; it no longer affects me thankfully and my own firm are not engaging in the practice.

Then you're mere huff puff is just that

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

Then you're mere huff puff is just that

If it affected me or mine or if my firm was engaging in it I would consider making an issue of it. But I dont tend to get involved in every area of injustice/unfairness I see around me. Mind you, I will certainly mention it the next time I am talking to a LawSoc council member I work with or the next time I am down in the LawSoc.

Is the best you can do to tell me that I am all huff puff and that what I say is invective? Next time, try and address and counter the legal argument I make rather than attack the man. Consider it training for your legal career. If you address issues in your real-life career in the manner you do on this thread, you wont go far....

Legal Exec

Try to grasp the privity concept I have re-iterated....

drkpower

Legal Exec wrote: »

Try to grasp the privity concept I have re-iterated....

Haha! I love the sound of digging...

Ive explained earlier how you cannot enter into a contract to frustrate the legislation/Regulator.

Try and explain how the general concept of privity of contract assists you here!!

You are out of your depth...

Legal Exec

drkpower wrote: »

Haha! I love the sound of digging...

Ive explained earlier how you cannot enter into a contract to frustrate the legislation/Regulator.

Try and explain how the general concept of privity of contract assists you here!!

You are out of your depth...

Privity re: the tuition for out of hours education- as in separate from the Indenture....

I'm sure you're a fabulous solicitor but I feel I'm repeating myself a bit unnecessarily.