Going to Kings Inn

ColinJennings

Getting back on topic, it is a rewarding profession for those who can establish a practice. For those who can't, there are plenty of opportunities for someone with a BL. I can't tell you whether it will break you financially, but if the €17k fee doesn't cause you worry, feeding and clothing yourself for about 3-5 years should. Not to mention loads, mortgages etc. I don't know how people in those sorts of situations survive as there is no such a thing as a cheap lunch in the law library.

I found the exams easy peasy lemon squeezy. If you can pass uni exams, you can pass the entrance exams. They are a horrible week of no sleep, stress and all night studying. I'm convinced that if your cheque doesn't bounce, KI will pass you. Although getting a high place is difficult.

There are more masters then devils, but getting a good master is not easy. Knowing what a good master is even more difficult and knowing who posesses those attributes is even harder. And sadly having a good master is very important in establishing your practice.

johnnyskeleton

dats_right wrote: »

This thread has become terribly petty.

Terribly nuanced.

dats_right wrote: »

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?

I take it you mean me? First off, I am not talking about the long term prospects of those entering the profession, my point is (and has always been in this thread) that the first few years at the bar have always been difficult, and if anything there is even more work available for younger members of the bar. Whereas 20 years ago a barrister in his or her first 3 years would be lucky to get any work at all, now a good proportion are getting some work, whether it is district court work, motions, or outside of court legal work (e.g. PRTB, employment, RAT). The point is that while the long term effects of having 200 new barristers a year is not know (and in fairness no one can predict the future), the short term effects are not completely bleak, and indeed they are IMO better than they were 20 years ago. That's not saying that they are in any way good or sustainable, they are just better.

Second, we have both pointed to factors which might indicate the prospects of a young barrister today. Unless you address each of the point I have made, I don't think it's far to dismiss them as baseless, improbable, naieve or emotionally-clouded.

Third, if I were a young barrister with a vested interest in that profession, surely it would be against my interests to encourage people to become barristers, and I would be out there telling people how bad it is and that they shouldn't even think about it, thus reducing the numbers that actually do it.

dats_right wrote: »

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.

What this argument fails to take into consideration is that for every contact made by being the son/daughter of a judge or whatever, there are many more made by:
1) working in a solicitors office
2) meeting solicitors through your master
3) writing articles/books or lecturing
4) being friends with other barristers/solicitors
5) knowing solicitors through friends/work/social events and through local/political connections that have nothing to do with social status
6) being in the right place at the right time.
So contacts, far from being the preserve of the rich, come in all sorts of varieties. The classic example would be the person who works in a solicitor's office for a few years or even is a solicitor, and then becomes a barrister

dats_right wrote: »

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.

Chambers in and of itself is not going to change things for the better - in fact it could make things worse for young barristers. What would be better would be:
1) requirements that devils be paid
2) no professional fees in the first few years
3) more small jobs handed over to younger barristers

dats_right wrote: »

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:

To be clear, I don't think there will be more cases than there were at the PI peak of 2000/2001 any time soon, but I do think that there will be increases from the 2005 levels, as supported by the 2006 courts report. With recession looming, we are going to see more and more people having accidents in their last days in work, tripping over potholes in the road and generally making more PI claims (and of those, a higher percentage will be contested as to liability).

dats_right wrote: »

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.

I think this has created a level of uncertainty among legal professionals, but I'm not sure whether it will have a massive impact on claimants - there was always the costs risk in running a personal injury claim but it never deterred people before. I don't think that the award has to be totally inappropriate for people to reject it - if the PIAB award was 50k and a senior counsel advised that it could get 60-70k, I think a lot of people would take that risk, especially since they can always settle later on at say, 55k plus costs.

dats_right wrote: »

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'm not sure how these work in practise, but it seems to me that only the defendant's letter could be used as to costs, and if a lot of these letters are for higher amounts than the PIAB awards, then that's a perfect reason to bring cases to litigation.

dats_right wrote: »

I've only provided statutory backing to my contention that if anything things are likely to get worse (particularly for barristers) regarding PI.

I think that the real effect of PIAB is that the easy settlement money has dried up, and it has left the difficult or unusual cases. I don't think things are going to get worse, on the basis that they were pretty bad in 2005 as a knee jerk reaction to PIAB, and are slowly increasing. The courts service report for 2006 supports this view, but it will be telling to see the courts service report for 2007 when that comes out.

dats_right wrote: »

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.

Would it not make sense from the solicitor's point of view to pay a few quid to get an opinion on quantum from counsel prior to advising their client to take it or not. From the client's point of view, they can get advice from the coalface so to speak, from the solicitor's point of view, they can pass the responsibility of advising the client to take a potentially lower amount, and obviously the barristers do well out of it too. And given that this would be a relatively small amount of money compared to other legal fees, it might make sense.

Milk & Honey

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 know two practising barristers and each of them has 5 passes in his Leaving Cert. Not one subject at Grade C Higher Level or above! They seem to do well at the bar with offices of their own after a few years. Neither have an family connections in law.

legalmillie

I'm a barrister - go for it if you want but you will struggle. It's very hard to get work no matter how well connected you are. Solicitors will give you a once off brief/motion on the back of your uncle but that could be it. There are no guarantees. I know a lot of people are leaving the library now due to lack of work. There are 270 devils coming down from the Kings Inns next year - if you have a lot of money behind you,a very nice bank manager or a good sideline job then give it serious consideration. It takes about 7 years to get to the stage where you are actually making a living. No joke!

dats_right

legalmillie wrote: »

I'm a barrister - go for it if you want but you will struggle. It's very hard to get work no matter how well connected you are. Solicitors will give you a once off brief/motion on the back of your uncle but that could be it. There are no guarantees. I know a lot of people are leaving the library now due to lack of work. There are 270 devils coming down from the Kings Inns next year - if you have a lot of money behind you,a very nice bank manager or a good sideline job then give it serious consideration. It takes about 7 years to get to the stage where you are actually making a living. No joke!

I concur.

dazza21ie

The Law Society is starting a new course in August for Barristers to change over to the other side of the profession. This can only be seen as a real vote of confidence in the future of the bar (or more accurately i should say).

Personally i would think that anyone who decides to go down the road of a barrister at this point in time is very brave and credit must be given to them for doing something that they really want to do.

johnnyskeleton

dazza21ie wrote: »

The Law Society is starting a new course in August for Barristers to change over to the other side of the profession. This can only be seen as a real vote of confidence in the future of the bar (or more accurately i should say).

Barristers & Solicitors have been able to change between the professions for some time now.

dazza21ie wrote: »

Personally i would think that anyone who decides to go down the road of a barrister at this point in time is very brave and credit must be given to them for doing something that they really want to do.

I think this has always been the case.