Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Becoming a barrister.
-
19-05-2008 6:11pm#1Join Date:Posts: 29920
For a while I have entertained the idea of returning to college to change careers and study law in order to work as a barrister.
I have a rudimentary but realistic understanding of the legal system in this country (from being dragged into the wrong end of it
) but I have some questions about the practicalities of training to work in it.
1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?
2. How long will it take?
3. Can I do it at night?
4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?
DeV.0
Comments
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Sorry, explain this to me like I'ma 5 year old...
Lets suppose I want to do this full time. Are you saying that first I need a law degree and then 2 more years at kings inn? (I have a primary degree in Maths but I presume thats no use in this situation... )
Also, how much of the whole thing is reliant on a big memory? I dont have a good memory for rote book-learning.
DeV.0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 13692
Lets suppose I want to do this full time. Are you saying that first I need a law degree and then 2 more years at kings inn? (I have a primary degree in Maths but I presume thats no use in this situation... )
You can do the Kings Inns Diploma (which takes 2 years) or a conversion course in law (which usually take 1 year) instead of a primary degree, but you need a basic law qualification before you do the professional qualification.Also, how much of the whole thing is reliant on a big memory? I dont have a good memory for rote book-learning.
At the end of the day, all you really need to know is your client's name and what exactly it is that he didn't do. A good head for faces and names is good, and being able to think quickly on the spot are all useful.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can't see that many cases turning on maths.I have a primary degree in Maths but I presume thats no use in this situation... Medicine or engineering graduates are probably more common converting to law as their experience puts them at an advantage over those who have only done law, although it probably puts them in a bracket "Oh, he did engineering, he'll know nothing about criminal law". You're more likely to be putting you IT and business skills to use.
When working, you need to remember the principals and the principles. Otherwise, you can check the details from books as you go.Also, how much of the whole thing is reliant on a big memory? I dont have a good memory for rote book-learning.0 -
-
-
Just wondering why exactly you want to be a barrister? Have you considered being a solicitor?For a while I have entertained the idea of returning to college to change careers and study law in order to work as a barrister.
I have a rudimentary but realistic understanding of the legal system in this country (from being dragged into the wrong end of it ) but I have some questions about the practicalities of training to work in it.
1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?
2. How long will it take?
3. Can I do it at night?
4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?
DeV.
Also you say you have been dragged into the wrong end of this country's legal system? Is your sole motivation a desire to put things right? I've encountered a couple of people who felt they had been badly treated by the legal system and decided to go do a law degree with the intention of changing things/clearing their names. I have never seen any of the succeeding in what they set out to achieve, although some of them did have decent careers out of it0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
I will admit that that has crossed my mind, but its not the sole reason.
I have the opportunity to return to full time education if I wish and its always been on my mind that I can speak well in public and can debate.
Also, its clear to me now that in reality even if you say its hard to change laws, its the legal profession who have the guns in this knife fight
I'm confused though, because I muddied things by asking about night courses.
How quickly can it be done doing a day course?
Why do barristers have to work through solicitors? Can they not tout for business directly? I was always of the opinion that barristers got to do all the cool stuff (:)) no?
DeV.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
I have said the same thing about computers to non-computer people (and come to think of it, about poker too hahah).
I have an opportunity to go back and retrain and I am thinking about careers etc. I like public speaking and I can argue well and people have been saying I would make a good barrister but to be honest I think I need to do a lot more investigation of the day to day job right now.
In the end though, lawyers basically have power in this society. Something I am learning first hand
DeV.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
dats_right wrote: »We see it time and time again on this forum, that for some reason when it comes to a career in law candidates refuse to listen to the warnings of others.
People want to be able to use the B word in front of their friends, plain an simple
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13692
Rhonda9000 wrote: »People want to be able to use the B word in front of their friends, plain an simple
Broke?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
For a while I have entertained the idea of returning to college to change careers and study law in order to work as a barrister.
I have a rudimentary but realistic understanding of the legal system in this country (from being dragged into the wrong end of it ) but I have some questions about the practicalities of training to work in it.
1. Am I bonkers trying to be a barrister at 38?
2. How long will it take?
3. Can I do it at night?
4. Once I've done the exams etc, can I just set up my own practise or do I have to "devil" for a while?
DeV.
There are two written exams and oral examination in Irish to be completed in the start for your examination at the Kings Inn. the exams in Irish are at higher level Irish at LC0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
I have given this idea a long hard think but I'm not sure I'm ready to commit to 5 years plus a few years devilling. I think Ellechim might be right to stick to what I am good at!
I think a lot of good info was discovered here though so its been a good thread! i'm not saying I'm not but I'm still very much thinking about what to do for the next 5 years
DeV.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13692
dats_right wrote:firstly, there has been no increase or meaningful one in the number of personal injuries claims being initiated in this country, as this has for several years remained constant at the 30,000 mark per annum.
I don't dispute this in general terms. However, going into a recession this number could well increase.dats_right wrote:The reported 700% increase is very misleading because there was a huge spike or more accurately a frenzy in the number of claims initiated in the Courts before PIAB came into effect, so essentially every single case or potential case that solicitors had on their books, including the most hopeless of hopeless, whether it was ready or not was launched in the Courts pre-PIAB. In an obvious attempt by the legal profession to stick with the divil they know, etc. This in turn lead to the situation where for the first six to twelve months of its existence PIAB & its staff were essentially sitting on their backsides with very little to do as every case for the previous three years had been lobbed into the courts, I'm sure the staff of PIAB enjoyed playing solitaire or whatever else they were doing because they sure as hell weren't assessing injury claims!
Again I agree, but that was my point: it only seemed like there was a significant drop, but it was just a case of adjusting to the new regime. So, for the last few years it has been said that all the PI work has dried up, but that's not the case, it was simply delayed a few years to go through PIAB. I would also say that it wasn't touted as a 700% increase that I could see (that surely would be sensationalist). But the point is that the cases are returning, to the tune of perhaps 50-60% of what they were pre-PIAB.dats_right wrote:Gradually of course solicitors were left with no choice as they could no longer go to the Courts first because of the legislation, so all new PI cases had to first go to PIAB, so PIAB slowly began to assess more cases. Obviously because of the above situation the numbers of cases going to PIAB 3-4 years ago was very low, so in turn, because they were dealing with so few cases it follows that there would be a lower than normal number of PIAB cases going before the courts. As time moves on i.e. last couple of years we see that PIAB is dealing with the 30,000 or so cases per annum, which obviously in turn we see a much higher amount going before the courts. This is how the statistics have been manipulated to create a false impression of what is really happening in practice.
Are you accusing me of manipulating the statistics? Because that's simply not true. My point was always that the numbers, though down, were steadily increasing. It is unlikely that they will return to the peak days of 1996-2003, but it is certainly wrong to say that there is little PI work left when there is a lot of it (albeit not as much).dats_right wrote:Importantly, the Courts Service statistics relate to 2007. The Courts are on vacation from the end of July until the beginning of October. Have you ever tried contacting a barrister during long vacation? Suffice to say that Michael Lynn, Shergar and Lord Lucan would be easier to track down. Why is this important? Because very little if any cases would be initiated in this period and even when term begins in October it’s hectic as everybody is trying to catch up on a couple of months work!
I don't quite see your point here. By the way, 1300 plenary cases were issued in august and september, 2007 which is slightly lower than the average monthly rate of approx 807 in 2007.dats_right wrote:With this in mind let me refer you back to a piece of legislation that I keep harping on about which is and will increasingly continue to have an impact (negatively) on the number of cases going before the Courts. Personal Injuries Assessment Boars (Amendment) Act 2007, section 51A, which provides:
That in respect of any ward of damages made by PIAB which is rejected by a claimant and accepted by a respondent, if that award of damages is not exceeded in subsequent proceedings (ie. Court order or settlement) then: a) No award of costs may be made to the claimant. b) the court may exercise its discretion to award costs against the claimant.
If you keep harping on about that then I reserve the right to keep harping on about somethings that are not found in the oireachtas website:
1) when people take personal injury claims there is always a costs risk. Yet they proceed anyway. Every person who takes a claim is advised by their solicitor that they bear this costs risk if unsuccessful, and every solicitor will advise their client that if they reject a PIAB award and don't meet the award in court, they will have to pay their solicitor's costs. Solicitors will often take this on the chin, so this risk is usually far from a client's mind
2) the vast majority of cases that go to court settle with costs. The PIAB lady on primetime made this point and essentially it is true. Therefore, the risk for costs only arises if the case is to run, not if it is to settle.
3) a lot of insurance companies simply don't bother seeking to enforce orders for costs. A lot of the people who make PI claims are not very well off, and on a cost benefit analysis it is more economical to simply leave them be.
4) the courts usually do grant a higher award than PIAB (more on this later).dats_right wrote:Meaning claimants and there lawyers must take enormous finacial risks if they decline a PIAB Award and proceed through the Courts instead. There is absolutely no doubt in the world that the numbers of PI cases coming before the Courts will dramatically decrease as a result of section 51A, save of course somebody successfully challenges this particularly nasty and draconian piece of legislation. And when was this piece of legislation enacted? Let me see, oh yes, it was 11 July 2007!! So we we have not(at least statistically) seen the full effects of it. So JohnnyS, rest assured in twelve or twenty four months I will resurrect and link up this post with statistics from PIAB or the Courts Service and say I told you so.
As staed above, I don't accept that the new act will have as significant an effect on claims as it is intended to do. That said, it's very unfair (as is all of PIAB) and a constitutional challenge would be very interesting (if unlikely to succeed). What is noteworthy about the new act is that they slipped in it at the end of the oireachtas term, at a time of low numbers. One of the only people to speak against it was Deputy Creighton, but she was heavily (and unfairly) criticised as being looking after the interests of the legal profession only.
I would be absolutely delighted to hear from you in 12 or 24 months time on this point as it will be interesting to see how things pan out. I don't have a crystal ball, so I will refrain from saying that you will be wrong. But for now, what I will say is this:
A) There are a lot of cases that PIAB can't or wont deal with - med neg, mental injury, high value cases, contested liability, cases involving approtionment of liability or contributory negligence, etc which will always go to the courts.
The PIAB book of quantum was published in 2004 and has not been updated for inflation. This was perhaps deliberate to allow them to slowly reduce the awards in real terms, but it means that PIAB will be assessing a claim at approximately 10-15% lower in real terms, and with an inflation rate of 5% or higher (which we have at the moment) in 2 years time PIAB awards will be too low.
C) PIAB will usually overvalue the small and dodgy claims (i.e. minor whiplash, sprained ankle etc) and they usually undervalue the major claims. Thus, the cases that PIAB are giving generous awards in are the ones that traditionally never went to court (or went to the District Court) and the ones in which they are giving unsatisfactory awards are the major High Court cases.
D) This is not the first media report critical of PIAB - there have been several and I think word of mouth is spreading that they give lesser awards. Although people will express a general dislike for lawyers, in particular they trust their solicitors and barristers far more than a creature of the insurance lobby, and so I don't think there is much trust in the PIAB system
E) The insurance companies themselves are going to become sceptical of PIAB. On a macro level PIAB is good for insurance (they have made bumper profits since its inception, which curiously haven't been passed onto consumers), but on a case specific level, the insurance companies don't want to simply give money away, so other than in obvious cases, they will often be unhappy with the fact that in PIAB they cannot contest liability or question whether the injuries are genuine or not. Thus, the insurance companies IMO will ultimately contribute to the demise of PIAB.
F) A lot of cases are simply not ready to be assessed after 2.5 years. If you think of the long term effects of a serious injury, the outcome is not yet known, and PIAB awards do not adequately account for likely future complications in the way the courts do (i.e. increased liklihood of arthritis).
G) The PDs are no longer in power. PIAB was a concession to them by the government in exchange for their support. However, with the party reduced to 2 farily unpopular TDs, there is no longer the political will behind PIAB.
H) Ultimately there is a reason why personal injuries cases came before the courts and required legal advisers - because they involve complicated issues of liability, a subjective assessement of the injuries, awards appropriate to circumstance and because a lot of the time people want their day in court. The courts were a public system and could be seen to be working / not working as appropriate. I just don't think that PIAB can simply whitewash the area of personal injury litigation and survive.
I) It's curious that other jurisdictions haven't followed suit. I would suggest that is because the outcome is uncertain, possibly highly doubtful, and they want to see if PIAB survives before considering a similar system. That, or they actually believe in Justice and access to the courts.0 -
Advertisement
-
Agreed, in so far as PI cases generally being brought as distinct from those reaching Court.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I don't dispute this in general terms. However, going into a recession this number could well increase.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Are you accusing me of manipulating the statistics? Because that's simply not true. My point was always that the numbers, though down, were steadily increasing. It is unlikely that they will return to the peak days of 1996-2003, but it is certainly wrong to say that there is little PI work left when there is a lot of it (albeit not as much).
No not you, I'm accusing the media. The 700% was a figure I heard being thrown around in the media yesterday, I think it refers from 3-4 years ago until this report.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I don't quite see your point here.
Point was that as there is not that much activity between July-October that new legislative provision wouldn't have had much impact on these figures.johnnyskeleton wrote: »If you keep harping on about that then I reserve the right to keep harping on about somethings that are not found in the oireachtas website:
I was quoting from materials provided to me by the Law Society, I was unaware that the information was sourced from the Oireachtas website.johnnyskeleton wrote: »1) when people take personal injury claims there is always a costs risk. Yet they proceed anyway. Every person who takes a claim is advised by their solicitor that they bear this costs risk if unsuccessful, and every solicitor will advise their client that if they reject a PIAB award and don't meet the award in court, they will have to pay their solicitor's costs. Solicitors will often take this on the chin, so this risk is usually far from a client's mind
2) the vast majority of cases that go to court settle with costs. The PIAB lady on primetime made this point and essentially it is true. Therefore, the risk for costs only arises if the case is to run, not if it is to settle.
3) a lot of insurance companies simply don't bother seeking to enforce orders for costs. A lot of the people who make PI claims are not very well off, and on a cost benefit analysis it is more economical to simply leave them be.
Don't be fooled- the goalposts have moved! Yes, there has always been risks but only when you lost or have brought a case in the wrong Court (eg. minor whip-lash worth€10k in the High Court), solicitors have traditionally been happy enough to proceed on the basis that once they received some amount of compensation that they would be also awarded costs. Whereas now even if a claimant wins their case in court, unless they beat the PIAB award they will at the very least have to pay their own legal costs and potentially the respondents too. There is no escaping that the risks are much greater now whatever way you look at it.
So a solicitor will be faced with a dilemma; their client is awarded say €20k by PIAB, but the solicitor feels that in his experience, on a good day, the case is worth say €25K-€30k, but equally knows that if his client fails to perform in the box or you get the wrong judge or any one of million other things that commonly occur in litigation happen then an award below €20k is a possibility. How can a solicitor advise his client to reject and proceed to the courts?
I can see it now, Solicitor: "Congratulations Mr. Plaintiff you've won your case and the judge has awarded you €19,500, I'm sorry but the judge really preferred Dr X's report over that of Dr. Y's. Now the good news is that the Judge hasn't awarded costs against you as he is entitled, but unfortunately, in the circumstances he cannot under law award costs in your favour, which means you are responsible for your own legal costs (incl. Medical Reports, Engineer's Reports, Etc.). And whilst your legal costs are in excess of the award, I'm glad to say I won't be pursuing you for the difference".
Mr Plaintiff: " Have you got the telephone number for the Law Society please? Oh and do you have Professional Indemnity Insurance?"johnnyskeleton wrote: »4) the courts usually do grant a higher award than PIAB (more on this later).
That's nice, and I tend to just about agree, but can I advise a client on this basis to run all the above risks?!johnnyskeleton wrote: »As staed above, I don't accept that the new act will have as significant an effect on claims as it is intended to do.
Time will tell.johnnyskeleton wrote: »That said, it's very unfair (as is all of PIAB) and a constitutional challenge would be very interesting (if unlikely to succeed).
Agreed. Although the fact that it is mandatory and no discretion is left to a judge in an individual case means that a challenge is inevitable and I wouldn't necessarily be as pessimistic as you.johnnyskeleton wrote: »A) There are a lot of cases that PIAB can't or wont deal with - med neg, mental injury, high value cases, contested liability, cases involving approtionment of liability or contributory negligence, etc which will always go to the courts. The PIAB book of quantum was published in 2004 and has not been updated for inflation. This was perhaps deliberate to allow them to slowly reduce the awards in real terms, but it means that PIAB will be assessing a claim at approximately 10-15% lower in real terms, and with an inflation rate of 5% or higher (which we have at the moment) in 2 years time PIAB awards will be too low.
C) PIAB will usually overvalue the small and dodgy claims (i.e. minor whiplash, sprained ankle etc) and they usually undervalue the major claims. Thus, the cases that PIAB are giving generous awards in are the ones that traditionally never went to court (or went to the District Court) and the ones in which they are giving unsatisfactory awards are the major High Court cases.
D) This is not the first media report critical of PIAB - there have been several and I think word of mouth is spreading that they give lesser awards. Although people will express a general dislike for lawyers, in particular they trust their solicitors and barristers far more than a creature of the insurance lobby, and so I don't think there is much trust in the PIAB system
E) The insurance companies themselves are going to become sceptical of PIAB. On a macro level PIAB is good for insurance (they have made bumper profits since its inception, which curiously haven't been passed onto consumers), but on a case specific level, the insurance companies don't want to simply give money away, so other than in obvious cases, they will often be unhappy with the fact that in PIAB they cannot contest liability or question whether the injuries are genuine or not. Thus, the insurance companies IMO will ultimately contribute to the demise of PIAB.
F) A lot of cases are simply not ready to be assessed after 2.5 years. If you think of the long term effects of a serious injury, the outcome is not yet known, and PIAB awards do not adequately account for likely future complications in the way the courts do (i.e. increased liklihood of arthritis).
G) The PDs are no longer in power. PIAB was a concession to them by the government in exchange for their support. However, with the party reduced to 2 farily unpopular TDs, there is no longer the political will behind PIAB.
H) Ultimately there is a reason why personal injuries cases came before the courts and required legal advisers - because they involve complicated issues of liability, a subjective assessement of the injuries, awards appropriate to circumstance and because a lot of the time people want their day in court. The courts were a public system and could be seen to be working / not working as appropriate. I just don't think that PIAB can simply whitewash the area of personal injury litigation and survive.
I) It's curious that other jurisdictions haven't followed suit. I would suggest that is because the outcome is uncertain, possibly highly doubtful, and they want to see if PIAB survives before considering a similar system. That, or they actually believe in Justice and access to the courts.
The majority of what you say makes sense and I agree with you, but just not enough to think that PI cases coming before the courts will increase, rather I think we will see a marked decline in cases were the award is rejected reaching the Courts. Of course, you are right when you outline the various types of cases that PIAB are ill-equipped and won't deal with such as disputed liability, medical negligence, etc. and these will continue to reach the Courts. But, it is the run of the mill PI case were an award is made (i think about 2/3rd's of them)that will not reach the Courts anymore as claimants won't want to run the risks of the new regime.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement