Going to Kings Inn

lemonpie

I am considering becoming a barrister but I really need to know that this is the right thing to do. Is there anyone that can give me some advice based on experience whether good or bad??

Basically, I want to know will it break me money-wise even if i qualify for a grant? I'm paying back a loan for a masters i did so i'm not exactly flush with cash! Is it possible to do the full time degree and have a part time job or is this a ridiculous notion?

Also, how difficult are the entrance exams in comparison to the FE 1's?

And, how difficult is the year overall? I would have always averaged out with 60% in exams at uni....

Lastly, is it difficult to find a barrister to devil and work once qualified??

I really don't want to make a rash decision about this and would like to get into it fully informed so if anyone has some constructive advice for me I'd greatly appreciate it.

NoQuarter

hi there, this thread gave me lots of advice and a lot more! >
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055135886

Tom Young

lemonpie wrote: »

I am considering becoming a barrister but I really need to know that this is the right thing to do. Is there anyone that can give me some advice based on experience whether good or bad??

Excellent experience. Course was overhauled a year or two ago and is now mainly split into academic and skills based assessments - New Course is called the vocational programme and information can be found here: www.kingsinns.ie

Basically, I want to know will it break me money-wise even if i qualify for a grant? I'm paying back a loan for a masters i did so i'm not exactly flush with cash! Is it possible to do the full time degree and have a part time job or is this a ridiculous notion?

The fees are on the website. It shouldn't break you. Grant qualification data can be gotten from your local vocational committee or county council. Part time jobs can be done, but its worth checking to make sure you don't conflict in relation to the Inns attendance policy, which is notoriously strict.

Also, how difficult are the entrance exams in comparison to the FE 1's?

As hard as the FE1's with some differences. Entrance exams are all in one week - Monday to Friday, three hours in length and the syllabi are all variable and generally up to speed in respect of the law. The pass rate is lower than the FE1's [40%] and there maybe compensation on one subject, but that can change from time to time. **Don't rely on this**

And, how difficult is the year overall? I would have always averaged out with 60% in exams at uni....

It depends on your ability in a number of very diverse areas. It's worth getting a prospectus. It's a vastly different course to a regular college course.

Lastly, is it difficult to find a barrister to devil and work once qualified??

Most do this during or before the BL degree year. This is as it's important to come into contact with those in the profession to glean and gain some insights to working as a sole trader and within the rules/traditions of the bar etc.

I really don't want to make a rash decision about this and would like to get into it fully informed so if anyone has some constructive advice for me I'd greatly appreciate it.

Yeah, I'd advise going to the website and getting in touch with the Inns, try also get up to see the place etc.

My experience has been first class to date.

You should note that there are dependent modules in your degree which you'll need to have passed in order to sit the Inns entrance exam - Evidence, Jurisprudence and Administrative Law.

Tom

lemonpie

Thanks a mil for the advice, i'm gonna research it as much as possible before I commit to it but it sounds like if you are genuinely interested and eager to get on, it will serve you well. And I suppose getting work out of it is a worry in every career!

Johnny Utah

lemonpie wrote: »

Also, how difficult are the entrance exams in comparison to the FE 1's?

The King's Inns Entrance Exams are far easier than the FE-1 exams.

hullaballoo

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The King's Inns Entrance Exams are far easier than the FE-1 exams.

That's rubbish and you know it. Please don't troll this site.

There are five entrance exams from Monday to Friday in late August. When I sat them, they were from 10-1 at different exam centres near the King's Inns. Any of the exams taken on its own is not particularly difficult (about the same standard as college). What makes them tough is the fact that they're so close together. I can safely say that after doing exams at least twice a year for the past 11 years, they were the toughest exams I've ever sat. That includes any exams I've sat my year in the King's Inns also.

Aside from the entrance exams, the year is very enjoyable. The experience is excellent irrespective of whether you want to practise or not. Getting a master for your year's pupillage is not as difficult as you might think. Getting work thereafter is difficult and it's not getting any easier as more and more barristers qualify every year without any substantial increase in the work available. However, if you're competent, you'll get by. Funding is your own matter and it's a good idea to have someone who can bail you out if you're back's against the wall.

Overall, the course is worth every penny for what it gives you. There may not be a great deal of work in the courts as a practising member of the bar, but there is plenty of work in industry if you're struggling. You can also ply your trade in other jurisdictions with comparative ease having a professional qualification here.

I hope this is in some way helpful.

Johnny Utah

hullaballú wrote: »

That's rubbish and you know it. Please don't troll this site.

There are five entrance exams from Monday to Friday in late August. When I sat them, they were from 10-1 at different exam centres near the King's Inns. Any of the exams taken on its own is not particularly difficult (about the same standard as college). What makes them tough is the fact that they're so close together. I can safely say that after doing exams at least twice a year for the past 11 years, they were the toughest exams I've ever sat. That includes any exams I've sat my year in the King's Inns also.

The truth is the FE1 exams are a lot tougher, and this is widely accepted.

If you don't believe me, then check the percentage of people who pass the King's Inns exams , and then compare this figure to the percentage who pass the FE1 exams.;)

The FE1 exams also has a higher pass-mark threshold of 50%, compared with 40% of King's Inns. 5 questions compared to 4, the FE1s cover more material than King's Inns exams, etc.

And probably most importantly, the King's Inns entrance exams can be passed during one summer of study- courses usually run from June up until the exams in August I think- less than 3 months. The FE1s, on the other hand, for most people usually take at least two sittings, and the way the courses/exams are structured this will effectively take up a full year of study. Often this period can take longer, if people fail some subjects along the way.






(Btw, I'm not trolling; just giving an honest opinion).

hullaballoo

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The truth is the FE1 exams are a lot tougher, and this is widely accepted.

If you don't believe me, then check the percentage of people who pass the King's Inns exams , and then compare this figure to the percentage who pass the FE1 exams.;)

The FE1 exams also has a higher pass-mark threshold of 50%, compared with 40% of King's Inns. 5 questions compared to 4, the FE1s cover more material than King's Inns exams, etc.

And probably most importantly, the King's Inns entrance exams can be passed during one summer of study- courses usually run from June up until the exams in August I think- less than 3 months. The FE1s, on the other hand, for most people usually take at least two sittings, and the way the courses/exams are structured this will effectively take up a full year of study. Often this period can take longer, if people fail some subjects along the way.






(Btw, I'm not trolling; just giving an honest opinion).

What you are doing is stating what is undeniably a qualitative assessor as if it were fact-based. You can use statistics to back up your points, but you're avoiding the requisite qualitative factors in looking at percentage points to measure how difficult people find things. If you take another view of the percentages that pass FE1s first time around against those who pass KI entrance exams first time around, you have to look at the percentages of those who sit the exams who have a legal qualification in advance of whatever preparatory courses they may have taken.

You also need to take into account the psychological impact of sitting five exams in a row as against the spread of exams that you get with the FE1s. I'm not saying the KI entrance exams are tougher, but that there's some manner of equivalence in the matter - rather than just blindly stating that the FE1s are 'widely accepted' as being 'a lot tougher'.

Until you can introduce me to someone who has the experience of having sat both sets of exams in their entirety, then I do not think you can state something as being 'the truth' when, quite clearly, there's no real way of knowing one way or the other.

stringy

I'm looking for advice or thoughts.

I'm 26, and have good marketing job (€55k),, my own place, nice car, good hours, nice place to work. I have an honours degree and member of MMII. I'm very well regarded in the organisation and so career is going well. However do I want it?!! I'm in the process of deciding to do a Masters, maybe MBA.

Now the problem is, I've always thought about becoming a barriser. My uncle is SC and I've always liked the idea of it. I enjoyed the law modules in college and thought about doing law after school, after college and now again 5 years later.

I'm seriously thinking about the 2 yr diploma in Kings Inns to hopefully lead to the Bar qualification. I know I would get good work as a devil through my uncles friends and colleagues. However am I crazy to give up a good career?

I think the diploma is 4 evenings per week, how much of a strain is this? Are the modules difficult?

Since leaving uni I've learned that my written skills have vastly improved and I'm an excellent presenter, I also have a great ability to remember details and facts. I think these would be good abilities to have as barrister - am I correct?

I'm aware of the large numbers qualifying at the moment so the market for work is becoming quite flooded, so this is a little off putting.

Any advice would be great. Should I go for it?

Johnny Utah

hullaballú wrote: »

What you are doing is stating what is undeniably a qualitative assessor as if it were fact-based. You can use statistics to back up your points, but you're avoiding the requisite qualitative factors in looking at percentage points to measure how difficult people find things. If you take another view of the percentages that pass FE1s first time around against those who pass KI entrance exams first time around, you have to look at the percentages of those who sit the exams who have a legal qualification in advance of whatever preparatory courses they may have taken.


I knew you'd respond with this- the King's Inns students usually take this line.



You also need to take into account the psychological impact of sitting five exams in a row as against the spread of exams that you get with the FE1s. I'm not saying the KI entrance exams are tougher, but that there's some manner of equivalence in the matter - rather than just blindly stating that the FE1s are 'widely accepted' as being 'a lot tougher'.

:pac::pac: This just gets better - this is the other line they take.

This is a weak argument. So, for example, if the leaving cert is held everyday over two weeks, would the "psychological impact" make the leaving cert equivalent in terms of difficulty as the FE1s?

I agree with you in that sitting 5 exams over 5 days has to be taken into account, but tbh I think this actually weakens the standard of the exams. From what I've heard, from different people, invariably after the third day, there is a drop in performance as people begin to become tired. Some people even drop out. In other words, the average standard for day 5 is understandably less than the average standard for day 1. If it is, then are the examiners applying a lower passing standard to the subject taken on the 5th day when compared to the pass mark of the subject on the first day?




I'm not blindly stating that the FE1s are harder; this is backed up by my first hand experience, statistics, the fact that there is more material to cover, etc.





Until you can introduce me to someone who has the experience of having sat both sets of exams in their entirety, then I do not think you can state something as being 'the truth' when, quite clearly, there's no real way of knowing one way or the other.

I've researched both exams, and imho there is a clear difference in standard between them.


I know people who have sat and passed the King's Inns exams who wouldn't have a hope of passing the Fe1s. I'm not saying that everyone in King's Inns is a poor student. Far from it, the top students are up there with the best. My point is that the lowest pass threshold is lower for the King's Inns than the FE1s. I guess there is a much wider spread of ability in King's Inns than Blackhall Place.

hullaballoo

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I've researched both exams, and imho there is a clear difference in standard between them.


I know people who have sat and passed the King's Inns exams who wouldn't have a hope of passing the Fe1s. I'm not saying that everyone in King's Inns is a poor student. Far from it, the top students are up there with the best. My point is that the lowest pass threshold is lower for the King's Inns than the FE1s. I guess there is a much wider spread of ability in King's Inns than Blackhall Place.

Now that is rubbish. I can't see how anyone else is going to take that post seriously, so I won't either.

dats_right

The statistics don't lie (unlike some of the posters on this thread!). The King's Inns entrance exam has a pass rate (for all 5 exams of 90% plus), whereas the FE-1's have a pass rate of about 55% per subject and there are 8 of them!. I think one can draw their own conclusions from those stats.

And leaving stats aside and going by my own personal experience, I know of several people who couldn't pass three fe-1's in one sitting having tried several times (even one guy who tried for 4 years and 8 attempts), but all having suddenly realised that they wanted to be barristers and somewhat miracoulsly passed the King's on their first attempt! How can that be?

I think lots of BL's on here not accepting the reality of the situation and have obviously learnt the most valuable lesson thought at KI, viz. "Lesson 1: Superiority to all others, especially lowly, scummy solicitors", excellently well. It doesn't matter that the facts don't bear out your argument, you are superior beings and must be right notwithstanding the so-called facts.

Don't want to bash the BL's too much though, as in fairness to them whilst there entrance exam is a walk in the park compared to their lowly solicitor colleagues, I think to advance post-qualification in their profession is infinitely harder than it is for young solicitors.

Johnny Utah

dats_right wrote: »

The statistics don't lie (unlike some of the posters on this thread!). The King's Inns entrance exam has a pass rate (for all 5 exams of 90% plus), whereas the FE-1's have a pass rate of about 55% per subject and there are 8 of them!. I think one can draw their own conclusions from those stats.

Quite correct. I've even seen some FE-1 examiner reports (one year in equity for example) where the pass rate had dropped to 49%.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

The statistics don't lie (unlike some of the posters on this thread!). The King's Inns entrance exam has a pass rate (for all 5 exams of 90% plus), whereas the FE-1's have a pass rate of about 55% per subject and there are 8 of them!. I think one can draw their own conclusions from those stats.

Yeah, Barristers are smarter and therefore can pass exams easier.

Seriously though, neither exam is harder than the other. The syllabii are more or less the same. But whereas the Kings Inns exams are based on whether someone reaches a certain standard of legal knowledge (i.e. anyone good enough can pass be it 10 or 200 in any given year), the FE1s are more competitively marked because there are usually 4 people vying for each place in blackhall.

There are other minor adjustments, i.e. 8 exams vs 5, 5 in a row vs 8 over a couple of attempts, 40%/50% pass rates, compensation, the requirement of a law degree to sit KI exams which alter the statistics somewhat, but the main reason why the pass rate for the FE1s is much lower is because it is marked on a scale because there are less places than people capable of filing them in Blackhall.

impr0v

stringy wrote: »

I think the diploma is 4 evenings per week, how much of a strain is this? Are the modules difficult?

5 evenings a week and yes, it's a strain, especially when the twice a week tutorials start and you're there for three and a half hours after work. The modules aren't overly difficult, especially if you're interested in the subject matter, but you will have to put work in to pass the exams. Some of the lecturers are outstanding, and some are inevitably poor.

As for whether you're mad to give up a good career, that's for you to answer. Never hurts to put oneself outside ones comfort zone every so often, even if this is an expensive way of doing so.

sh_o

Do you still only have two attempts at the Inns entrance exam? What is the time limit for sitting all of the fe1s?

As for changing career at 26 - some real world experience will stand to you if you qualify as a barrister but you will find the initial drop in salary very painful (if you go into practice)! Worth it though, from a job satisfaction point and also from a financial point after a few years!

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Esteem

The below is an article worth reading if you are considering becoming an barrister:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/tribunal-babies-dreams-of-big-earnings-end-in-penury-1339607.html

fliptzer

dats_right wrote: »

The King's Inns entrance exam has a pass rate (for all 5 exams of 90% plus), whereas the FE-1's have a pass rate of about 55% per subject and there are 8 of them!

Just want to clarify something, might sound like a stupid question but I’m in the same both as the other poster, leaving a real good job and becoming a poor student again so I want to be 100% sure.

The pass rate of 90% is that basically 90% of applicants pass the exam or that one would need to achieve a grade of 90% (effectively an A) to gain entrance to Kings Inns?

May be a dumb question but I need to know this now as opposed to 2yrs later and then realise that its not what I thought it was.

Thanks.

impr0v

The pass mark is 40% and I'm pretty sure that you can compensate one if the other four are sufficiently above the pass mark, though I stand to be corrected on that. All the necessary informaiton will be in a pack you'll get from the Inns prior to the exams.

dats_right

The pass rate of 90% means that 90% of applicants sitting the exam pass.

Esteem

Once you pass the entrance exams you are guaranteed a place on the degree course. If there are more students than places, then places will be allocated on the basis of results. Those with the highest marks will be offered the places and everyone else will be offered a place on the following years Degree course. However, as far as I am aware there has always been enough places to offer to students that have passed the exams.

johnnyskeleton

Esteem wrote: »

The below is an article worth reading if you are considering becoming an barrister:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/tribunal-babies-dreams-of-big-earnings-end-in-penury-1339607.html

But back when there were only 600 barristers 20 years ago, they said "My God, there are 50 new barristers this year, that's completely unsustainable" and while the numbers have increased, this attitude has stayed the same. In fact, things are better for barristers in their first few years now than they were before:
1) there are a lot less dominant barristers who take all the good work leaving the rubbish for everyone else, and a lot more good barristers with a reasonable supply of work;
2) younger barristers are getting work in highly technical areas that the older barristers are less familiar with;
3) the bar has become much more professional and the days when solicitors would wait 6 months for a busy barrister to draft particulars are gone;
4) the country is much more litigious;
5) trials and legal points are much more complicated;
6) high court cases are decentralised, and while it was possible to have two or three cases in Dublin in the one day, it is not possible to have one in Dublin, one in Drogheda, and one in Tralee;
7) there is more non-traditional barrister work, and while it is less well paid, it is available for younger members.

It's strange that these unnamed senior counsel have such a dim view of the young barristers coming in; I would imagine very few people enter the bar expecting to make a lot of money for little work. For many, it's the romantic ideal of being the advocate and your own boss, and I suppose this is just as unlikely to work out as becoming a tribunal millionaire - but the important thing is that they are becoming barristers for the right reasons.

Finally, what that article doesn't take into account is the small but significant amount of people who come to the bar later in life who are independently wealthy and are doing it because it is something they always wanted to do, nor does it take into account that those who "fail" as barristers often go on to be highly successful as in house counsel, civil servants, lecturers, journalists, solicitors or other related jobs.

dats_right

JohnnyS, I think we have been here already a few weeks ago and wherein I expressed some of the more widely held views regarding the future of the professions. Whilst I don't necessarily think you are delusional about prospects at the Bar, there is no doubting that you are perhaps the most optimistic person in the profession!

For sure some of the things you say may well positively impact the profession, but I can't help thinking that it's a bit like pouring a bucket of water on a house fire, it isn't going to do any harm and may even help a little bit but it sure isn't going to put the fire out. Similarly, the points you raise in your last post arguably may well benefit the profession, but not sufficiently to ameliorate the difficulties of all or even the majority of junior barristers and to suggest otherwise is in my view somewhat disingenuous.

I would urge all those who are considering entering either branch of the profession, but particularly the ranks of m'learned friends to think long and hard about your decision. It is a massive risk and commitment in terms of time, emotional, financial and academic resources with absolutely no guarantee of success (by this I don't mean €100k pa, more likely 20-40 after 5 or 6 years PQE). Some of you may snigger at this, but I can't think of anyone of the very junior barristers (1-3 years post devilling) that I know who don't live at home with mammy and daddy still.

Furthermore, in two very recent cases(hearings/settlements not motions or applications) that I've been involved, counsel on the other side informed my counsel that they weren't being paid a penny for the work they were doing . These barristers weren't devils they were 3-5 years PQE working for nothing, presumambly hoping to cosy up to their instructing solicitor and get some juicy maybe even paying work in the future. I think somepeople might call that slave labour.

Tom Young

To be honest Johnnys point on technical aspects of law is spot on and indeed technology law.

The Bar Council has reformed the rules somewhat, so there should not be a massive poverty trap.

I for one believe that many go to this profession for the wrong reasons and either end up bored, not working or leaving to adopt the easy life.

Tom

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

Whilst I don't necessarily think you are delusional about prospects at the Bar,

Go on, say it, you think I'm delusional. It's kinda like saying "I'm not calling you a liar, but, you know..."

dats_right wrote: »

there is no doubting that you are perhaps the most optimistic person in the profession!

I never said I was in the profession (or the bar for that matter).

dats_right wrote: »

For sure some of the things you say may well positively impact the profession, but I can't help thinking that it's a bit like pouring a bucket of water on a house fire, it isn't going to do any harm and may even help a little bit but it sure isn't going to put the fire out.

The things I have said are simply the counterbalance to what is said in the article, which focuses on all the negative aspects but none of the positives. Entering the bar is a big risk and there is no guarantee that even being very suitable for the job is a guarantee of success. But it has always been difficult, in fact it was significantly worse 20 years ago by all accounts, and in any event, even if it is a zero sum situation where only a fixed number of barristers make it per year, this just means that the competition will be fiercer, it does not mean that it is inherently a bad idea to enter the profession.

dats_right wrote: »

Similarly, the points you raise in your last post arguably may well benefit the profession, but not sufficiently to ameliorate the difficulties of all or even the majority of junior barristers and to suggest otherwise is in my view somewhat disingenuous.

Oh I never said that, nor did I intend by inference to suggest so. Rather, I wished to highlight that the current difficulties are the same difficulties faced 20 years ago. But it is equally disingenuous to suggest that there is no hope of becoming a barrister at the moment, the suggestion almost being that there be no more barristers taken in over the next few years to give the ones there a better chance. Such is wishful thinking by those in their first few years in the hope of better prospects. You make your own luck at the end of the day, and as I said before, the bar is probably the only profession where if you fail you get a promotion and a massive pay rise.

dats_right wrote: »

I would urge all those who are considering entering either branch of the profession, but particularly the ranks of m'learned friends to think long and hard about your decision. It is a massive risk and commitment in terms of time, emotional, financial and academic resources with absolutely no guarantee of success (by this I don't mean €100k pa, more likely 20-40 after 5 or 6 years PQE).

I agree, but I'll just say that it always has been, and while there is a lot less easy work going around, there is more nasty brutish work available. Don't be put off by the financial risks, but do be put off if you think there's easy money or megabucks.

dats_right wrote: »

Some of you may snigger at this, but I can't think of anyone of the very junior barristers (1-3 years post devilling) that I know who don't live at home with mammy and daddy still.

That certainly explains your negative view of the profession, but it is not to say that all or even most very junior barristers live at home with mammy and daddy. Apart from anything else, most of those who are from the country who come up to Dublin don't live with their parents, what lengths they have to go to to achieve this is a different matter.

dats_right wrote: »

Furthermore, in two very recent cases(hearings/settlements not motions or applications) that I've been involved, counsel on the other side informed my counsel that they weren't being paid a penny for the work they were doing . These barristers weren't devils they were 3-5 years PQE working for nothing, presumambly hoping to cosy up to their instructing solicitor and get some juicy maybe even paying work in the future. I think somepeople might call that slave labour.

Foolish to not be paid in a hearing that is successful or a settlement that includes costs, but people can run their business in any way they choose. In any case, don't you know not to take lawyers at their word? They were probably raking in the fees and secretly laughing at you through their poor mouth.

dats_right

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Foolish to not be paid in a hearing that is successful or a settlement that includes costs, but people can run their business in any way they choose. In any case, don't you know not to take lawyers at their word? They were probably raking in the fees and secretly laughing at you through their poor mouth.

One was an employment and the other a family matter and as in either case each party was responsible for their own costs only so it makes absolutely no difference to me or my clients whether the other barrister was paid or not, and to be fair, it's not exactly something to brag about now is it? I for one enjoy my job but I certainly wouldn't do it for free, to be honest I felt sorry for these guys.

Just one other thing, I don't have a "negative view" of the profession, quite the contrary actually, but I do however have major (legitimate) concerns about the prospects of those entering the profession.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

One was an employment and the other a family matter and as in either case each party was responsible for their own costs only so it makes absolutely no difference to me or my clients whether the other barrister was paid or not, and to be fair, it's not exactly something to brag about now is it? I for one enjoy my job but I certainly wouldn't do it for free, to be honest I felt sorry for these guys.

Why not throw em the odd brief or three (then don't pay them for years)?

dats_right wrote: »

Just one other thing, I don't have a "negative view" of the profession, quite the contrary actually, but I do however have major (legitimate) concerns about the prospects of those entering the profession.

Well this (from the other thread) does sound very bleak about the prospects of the entire profession:

dats_right wrote:

There is a lot Less work for the pool of barristers i.e. PIAB in particular but also bodies such as the PRTB and the like have dramatically impacted on the amount of work available. There is no sign of these developments abating, if anything we can probably expect more of these types of bodies and further inroads into available work.

4. High paying corporate/commercial work is really dominated by solicitors and whilst the barristers who do this type of work are extremely well paid, in reality, they are very, very few in number and it is all but impossible to break into.

5. Whilst criminal remains at least constant (despite ever increasing number of offences on the statute book) and family is undoubtedly a growth area. It is only a matter of time before the Irish Goverment copy the example of their UK counterparts, in essentially 'breaking the back' of the legal aid system by reducing fees to unsustainable levels, where it becomes impossible for practitioners to continue with this type of work.

In time we will probably see a Public Defender system similar to that in the USA. And in relation to family law, I think it is inevitable that mediation/concilliation will have a much greater role in the future with a direct knock-on effect to the work of courts and of course practitioners.

6. The fact that the competition authority and even the government seem to have it in for lawyers. In such a climate I would not be risking my career/future/financial well-being on a career that is only a matter of time before yet another initiative is launched to tackle the so called 'fat cat' lawyers. I think many would see that that there has undoubtedly, over recent years been a conscious effort to attack the profession.

There was another thread many moons ago where some young trainee solicitor (or even a hopeful student) believed it was the end of the bar because of discovery applications (or some other ingenious idea), but you know, the bar has survived this long, and it will take a little bit more than words to defeat it.

Plus, what would the court be like without barristers? Efficient, professional and courteous, no doubt, but where would the wigs be, eh?

BTW, I'm a bit dissapointed you never replied to the last thread, I really do believe that PIAB is going to start cracking at the seams, a bit part of which will be the Insurance companies themselves (ironically enough) forgetting that it was set up for their own greedy ends, and starting to fight cases for the hell of it (one particular insurance company, which seems to have almost completely bypassed PIAB anyway, springs to mind). EDIT: Here's a link relating to the number of cases before the courts in 2006. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these numbers are slowly increasing.

Dliodoir

dats_right wrote: »

One was an employment and the other a family matter and as in either case each party was responsible for their own costs only so it makes absolutely no difference to me or my clients whether the other barrister was paid or not, and to be fair, it's not exactly something to brag about now is it? I for one enjoy my job but I certainly wouldn't do it for free, to be honest I felt sorry for these guys.

Just one other thing, I don't have a "negative view" of the profession, quite the contrary actually, but I do however have major (legitimate) concerns about the prospects of those entering the profession.

I completely agree with every word dats_right, I really don't know where johnnyskeleton is coming from at all. The Irish Bar is a complete disaster. It will continue to be as long as they keep letting every Sean, Eamonn and Ruairi in...

johnnyskeleton

Dliodoir wrote: »

I completely agree with every word dats_right, I really don't know where johnnyskeleton is coming from at all. The Irish Bar is a complete disaster.

I justified my position by reference to reasoned arguments. I don't think a bare assertion that you don't agree with me in any way contradicts that. So feel free to give your reasons why you think the Irish Bar is a complete disaster (and while you're at it, you might tell us what exactly you mean by complete disaster).

Dliodoir wrote: »

It will continue to be as long as they keep letting every Sean, Eamonn and Ruairi in...

Keep letting in what? Men? Gaeilgoers? Catholics?

Dliodoir

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I justified my position by reference to reasoned arguments. I don't think a bare assertion that you don't agree with me in any way contradicts that. So feel free to give your reasons why you think the Irish Bar is a complete disaster (and while you're at it, you might tell us what exactly you mean by complete disaster).



Keep letting in what? Men? Gaeilgoers? Catholics?

I refer you to the posts of my learned friend dats_right - I agree with all the points he makes. When I say complete disaster, I mean wholly oversubscribed and disorganised. And I'm referring to the fact that they let in everyone who thinks it might be nice to be a barrister.

johnnyskeleton

Dliodoir wrote: »

I refer you to the posts of my learned friend dats_right - I agree with all the points he makes.

How very judicial of you - always agreeing with the prosecution.

Dliodoir wrote: »

When I say complete disaster, I mean wholly oversubscribed and disorganised.

I'm sure they'll muddle through somehow, working from home if there is insufficient room in the law library for them, and using a diary or palm pilot to keep track of those pesky court appearances and avoid the worst excesses of disorganisation.

Dliodoir wrote: »

And I'm referring to the fact that they let in everyone who thinks it might be nice to be a barrister.

So you think entry to the bar should be confined to those who think it's nasty, brutish and short eh?

Dliodoir

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So you think entry to the bar should be confined to those who think it's nasty, brutish and short eh?

No, I think it should be confined to those who possess the requisite skill and intelligence to succeed.

Johnny Utah

Dliodoir wrote: »

No, I think it should be confined to those who possess the requisite skill and intelligence to succeed.

+ 1

Rhonda9000

Dliodoir wrote: »

No, I think it should be confined to those who possess the requisite skill and intelligence to succeed.

As I see it, the barriers to entry (law degree or KI Dip + BL degree + deviling) are sufficient to vet those with requisite intelligence. Skill comes with time and practice.

Is there another system which works to 'confine' the pool of wannabe barristers more efficiently?

There are plenty of e.g. school leavers with notions about becoming doctors because of the perceived glamour, respect etc. Whether they will be successful at it or not after all the expensive education is up to themselves. Just leave the "I wanna be a barrister" brigade be - if they're not good enough they won't succeed and that should be enough retribution for you.

Johnny Utah

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

As I see it, the barriers to entry (law degree or KI Dip + BL degree + deviling) are sufficient to vet those with requisite intelligence. Skill comes with time and practice.

Is there another system which works to 'confine' the pool of wannabe barristers more efficiently?

There are plenty of e.g. school leavers with notions about becoming doctors because of the perceived glamour, respect etc. Whether they will be successful at it or not after all the expensive education is up to themselves. Just leave the "I wanna be a barrister" brigade be - if they're not good enough they won't succeed and that should be enough retribution for you.

The problem is that prospective barristers have to compete with those who decide on a whim they'd like to be a barrister and are living off mammy & daddy, have family connections in law, etc. It can take years at the Bar to make enough to even live on, and I would guess many potentially good barristers leave because of genuine financial difficulty. This creates a conflict of interest whereby a person with greater financial backing has a better chance of succeeding at the bar.

Barristers fulfill a very important role in society, and accordingly it is only appropriate that success at the bar should be based on intelligence and ability, not merely because of privileged social status.

Also, the KI entrance exams/BL degree aren't difficult enough to weed out the weak/delusional students.

Rhonda9000

I feel perceptions of people being supported by money / nepotism are overplayed.

I feel that as the entrance exams and BL degree are aimed at fresh law graduates, here is not exactly some added "super perspective barrister" quality that can be looked for / examined in the pool of candidates to vet them further.

Dliodoir

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

As I see it, the barriers to entry (law degree or KI Dip + BL degree + deviling) are sufficient to vet those with requisite intelligence. Skill comes with time and practice.

I completely disagree. An amoeba could get through the KI Dip and/or some law degrees, and/or devilling. I know this for a fact as I am acquainted with an amoeba who is currently devilling, having had to repeat a load of exams in both the KI Dip and the BL, several times...she still made it...luckily she has a big fat trust fund...

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Is there another system which works to 'confine' the pool of wannabe barristers more efficiently?

The English system? Alternatively a system requiring a certain level of achievement to get into the BL? Alternatively a system requiring a certain level of achievement to become a devil?

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

There are plenty of e.g. school leavers with notions about becoming doctors because of the perceived glamour, respect etc. Whether they will be successful at it or not after all the expensive education is up to themselves.

Quite, but you don't see every single one of those with "notions" about being doctors getting into Medicine, then becoming junior doctors, despite the fact that there is only really need for say 25% of them, with everyone working in ludicrously overcrowded staff quarters in the hospitals and waiting, while earning a pittance, for some five years until it becomes clear which of them actually deserve to be there...

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Just leave the "I wanna be a barrister" brigade be - if they're not good enough they won't succeed and that should be enough retribution for you.

Well no, it's not, because in order for them to pursue their pipe dream, those who have the skill and intelligence to be there are dropping out because they can't afford to live. The "open door" policy is great for rich people without two brain cells to rub together but awful for everyone else. And I don't agree that the rich thing is overstated - how else can somebody live without earning properly for several years?

Rhonda9000

Dliodoir wrote: »

...

I read these and I notice 1) the twisted knickers and 2) that fault is thrown at e.g. the economy, other peoples blend of inferior intelligence but wealthy parents, the lowly barriers to the professional system, lack of briefs and on and on and on.

Where is the ambition - "I know the path to becoming a barrister is difficult but I can weather the storm and be a success because I know I will be a great lawyer" or the taking of responsbility for creating ones own happiness with their career? Wouldn't doing it without all the bells and whistles of a wealthier background make it all the more worthwhile anyway?

Why is the common view derived from a preoccupation with 'everybody else' out there is doing and angry perceptions of 'everybody elses' advantages in life I ask you?

Bottom line - If you want to be a barrister, just go for it and do the best that you possibly can. If you want to continue wasting time labouring over / begrudging the problems with the economy, the system, the other junior barristers and every other variable outside your control and being the victim (not a paying profession), away with you.

Dliodoir

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Wouldn't doing it without all the bells and whistles of a wealthier background make it all the more worthwhile anyway?

Why yes, when I can't pay my electricity bill I shall muse over how very worthwhile it all is.

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Why is the common view derived from a preoccupation with 'everybody else' out there is doing and angry perceptions of 'everybody elses' advantages in life I ask you? ?

Because "everybody else" is clogging up the Law Library and taking their share of the few briefs that there are, while those who are good enough to be there hang around waiting years, with no income and many outgoings, for the "weeding out" process to work its magic. "Everybody else" has a direct impact on others, it's not a question of jealousy, it's a question of not getting paid enough to live just so a load of thick rich people can swan around the place in a wig.

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Bottom line - If you want to be a barrister, just go for it and do the best that you possibly can. If you want to continue wasting time labouring over / begrudging the problems with the economy, the system, the other junior barristers and every other variable outside your control and being the victim (not a paying profession), away with you.

Away with me is right. I fully intend to emigrate to England as soon as I can.

Rhonda9000

Poor you!

Dliodoir

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

Poor you!

That's a really intelligent and well-reasoned argument. Have you ever thought of joining the Irish Bar?

johnnyskeleton

1) Why not work for a few years first and save up your pennies to become a barrister, or work evenings & weekends? It's possible, although it is hard work.

2) The people who are most likely to succeed are not from rich families, but those who have built up connections (the classic example being working for or as a solicitor/legal exec prior to becoming a barrister) and/or who have talent.

3) I don't think that exam success = ability to be a lawyer. Far from it, being a good lawyer has little to do with being able to memorise cases, and a lot to do with those skills that you can't teach in college (professionalism, logic, common sense, public speaking). I also think that law as taught in college is too academic - for example, a student who knows what the difference in approach to nervous shock is between the Canadian Supreme Court and the High Court of Australia will do very well in their exams, but if you ask any solicitor, junoir counsel or senior counsel what the difference is I don't think they will be able to tell you. They will, however, tell you whether you are likely to win your case, and how much it is worth, and those things only come with experience and talent.

4) I find it odd that people make such big assumptions about barristers, that they must be rich to even try to become barristers. It assumes that no-one would make sacrifices to do what they want to do, no one would take any risks in the hope it would pay off.

5) If barristers have to hang around earning no money for a few years, how is that different to hanging around earning no money in college for other professions. It seems to me that it's not essentially any different, it's just a matter of degree.

6) It seems implicit in what Dliodoir (by the way, it's dlíodór) says that anyone who is successful as a barrister is stupid and is not as talented as those who fail. Is it not possible to be rich, well connected, and incredibly talented to boot? If someone is really not good at barristerring, then they won't get briefs, no matter who their parents are.

Dliodoir wrote:

Because "everybody else" is clogging up the Law Library and taking their share of the few briefs that there are, while those who are good enough to be there hang around waiting years, with no income and many outgoings, for the "weeding out" process to work its magic. "Everybody else" has a direct impact on others, it's not a question of jealousy, it's a question of not getting paid enough to live just so a load of thick rich people can swan around the place in a wig.

God damn people of the future - "they took our jobs".

Rhonda9000

Dliodoir wrote: »

That's a really intelligent and well-reasoned argument. Have you ever thought of joining the Irish Bar?

Frankly, what else do you expect me to do for you? I've listened to your victim syndrome-based whining and added my perspective already.

On foot of hearing yet more droning / blaming everybody and everything under the sun there was little else left to do but sympathise with the victim.

dats_right

This thread has become terribly petty.

Apparently, some of us are unable to look at the facts objectively and come up with logical and probable conclusions. Rather some of us are straying into the realms of the improbable and conclusions that, to most in the professions, are incredible and either show one's enduring (dare I say baseless) optimism regarding the prospects of many of those being called to the Bar, or perhaps considerable naivety maybe clouded by one's emotions and by having a vested interest?

The points Dliodoir has raised are well made. With the plethora of new BL's arriving at the law library with their shiny new wigs and gowns, it inevitably makes it harder for those without significant resources to succeed. Talent in itself will help, but is perhaps not as important in the early years as having the financial resources to maintain oneself. Resulting in many talented and potentially very good advocates leaving the Bar to take up an in-house roles, work in the civil service or leave the legal world altogether. Our system couldn't be less meritocratic as contacts and money are far too important factors in succeeding.

M'learned friends may well go by the motto viz. Nolumus Mutari, but notwithstanding same, I think change is inevitable. And will probably be sooner rather than later, especially with the likes of the competition authority sniffing around. An independent Bar could still be maintained by a Chambers system as used in other common law countries most notably England and Wales. Such a system whilst not perfect would go along way to ameliorate some of the difficulties facing the most talented of those seeking to practise at the Bar and would definitely make the system more meritocratic.

If I could stray off point for a moment, I am sorry to have disappointed you JohnnyS in not addressing your PIAB arguments sooner, but I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all and believe me I wish I did, as I would love nothing more then to see PIAB come crashing down. Unfortunately, if anything I think that it is highly likely that even less PI cases will enter the Courts system and thereby further worsen the situation. My reasons are as follows:

1. The significance of the newly inserted section 51A of the PIAB (Amendemen) Act 2007, which commenced on the 11th July 2007. Which means that if any PIAB award is rejected by a claimant and accepted by a respondent, if that award is not exceeded in subsequent proceedings (either court or settlement) then: a) no award of costs may be made to the claimant, and; b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs against a claimant.

This has massive implications for claimants as it means that if they reject an award and opt to go to court instead they are taking a huge gamble. So unless the award is wholly and totally inappropriate then it will be impossible for lawyers to advise their clients to reject an award.

2. Even if an award is rejected by either claimant or respondent, the respondent/defendant has a second bite of the cherry by virtue of the still relatively new section 17 of the Courts and Civil Liabilities Act 2004, which means that even if a case enters the court system that a 'formal offer' must be made by both parties to each other i.e. the plaintiff must state how much they will accept and the defendant how much they will pay. After the hearing the judge must then consider these offers and may take this into account when making a costs order. In other words yet another hurdle or more accurately risk that a claimant faces in bringing an action to court. So if a plaintiff fails to beat the offer they will in all likelihood be treated the same as not beating a tender regarding costs.

I've only provided statutory backing to my contention that if anything things are likely to get worse (particularly for barristers) regarding PI. But, anecdotally it's even worse again. Sure, I've even heard of barristers trying to get on board with solicitors at the PIAB stage now, which isn't a good sign for BL's, next you'll be offering to to do our dicataphone typing! Okay that may be a bit facetious but you get my point.

Rhonda9000

dats_right wrote: »

This thread has become terribly petty.

Apparently, some of us are unable to look at the facts objectively and come up with logical and probable conclusions. Rather some of us are straying into the realms of the improbable and conclusions that, to most in the professions, are incredible and either show one's enduring (dare I say baseless) optimism regarding the prospects of many of those being called to the Bar, or perhaps considerable naivety maybe clouded by one's emotions and by having a vested interest?

With respect dats - how sanctimonious to simply dismiss dissent and plaster it with cliched labels like "naivety" and so on.

So, life is difficult at the Bar.. we get it. My main point is that creating a whiny miserable reality fixated on "rich kids with money and connections" does nothing to help somebody succeed at the Bar.

I believe all this lashing out at every possible perceived difficulty (real or imagined) is just a tactic to have a face-saving excuse saved up to explain failure down the line. Of the practitioners I know, none of them had these so-called privileged backgrounds that are causing this acrimonious difficulty for my fellow posters here. They simply believed in themselves, rolled up their sleeves and got on with it instead of moaning about everybody elses lot in life. Come to think of it, I've certainly never heard bitter comments from them about unworthy rich kids clogging up the law library.

I genuinely feel it's just a case of loving / wishing they could have the title of BL for themselves but the other more pronounced practicalities of a slow-starting career and low initial pay putting paid to their dreamy desires.

Rhonda9000

I have nothing to add on the PIAB point

dats_right

Rhonda, in relation to your assertion regarding naivety: "So, life is difficult at the Bar.. we get it.", all I can say is quod erat demonstrandum.

I think you have entirely missed the point. This isn't an argument about rich kids and connections, that is only one small part of the bigger picture. I have in my previous posts (I think on this and another thread) referred to many of the very real problems facing newly qualified and prospective BL's and I can assure you that, in my case at least, it isn't merely "just a tactic to have a face-saving excuse saved up to explain failure down the line", as I am doing rather well in the other branch of the profession thank you very much, rather it is an effort to warn or at least alert those considering a career at the law library of the potential problems that they will face.

Too many people want to be lawyers without knowing anything about the very real hurdles that they will face. I'm not saying that the professions are doomed, of course they're not, but somebody needs to be giving newbies a reality check here , a health warning if you will, and that is all that I am attempting to do. If after giving all the pro's and con's of being a barrister careful consideration and you still want to do it (other than being completely barking mad) I say the very best of luck to you!

Johnny Utah

Methinks Rhonda is one of the Tribunal trust fund babies

Rhonda9000

Utah - FYI I have worked extremely hard all of my life for all of my accomplishments and have always been self-funded. You are free to make your derisory remarks but the fact is you will not find me laying blame at other peoples door for my failures or refusal to try something difficult.

dats - I accept on principle that the environment for newly qual BL's is difficult. Again I reiterate how impressed I am by those I know at the Bar who prevailed -by themselves- through the difficult beginning (learning the art of tenacious hard work along the way). The system lends itself to gaining these impressive lawyers while bluntly weeding out those too busy moaning about e.g. lazy rich children which ironically amount to the same mediocre professionals.

johnnyskeleton

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Methinks Rhonda is one of the Tribunal trust fund babies

Reported for personal abuse. Look at previous threads by Rhonda in this and other forums before making such audacious and baseless comments.

Johnny Utah

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Reported for personal abuse. Look at previous threads by Rhonda in this and other forums before making such audacious and baseless comments.

It was only a joke- that's why I put the smiley faces after it. Didn't intend any personal abuse whatsoever.

"Tribunal babies"- simply a reference to a recent article here about how many new, young barristers entering the profession.


Genuinely sorry if I caused offence.