How many PFOs have you got from solicitors firms?

Sangre

partyguinness wrote: »

I am concerned about the amount of people applying to the 'Big 5' who do not seem to know how their recruitment program works.

Do you not realise they get 99.9% of their trainees directly from the Universities when they are still undergraduates?

Outside of that you have virtually no chance of getting in.

Ehh, no.

hada

partyguinness wrote: »

I am concerned about the amount of people applying to the 'Big 5' who do not seem to know how their recruitment program works.

Do you not realise they get 99.9% of their trainees directly from the Universities when they are still undergraduates?

Outside of that you have virtually no chance of getting in.

you need to check your sources son and come back here and make a post that resembles something half sensible.

hada

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I've said it here before, but it might bear repeating.

Ask yourself, honestly, how hard you want to work.

Be honest, do you want to work 70 hours a week?

I don't, hence I'm happier in a small firm.

I want to earn more money.

I want to work on bigger deals.

I want to work with some of Ireland's best solicitors in the hope I too will become a great specialised solicitor.

Hence, I'm happier in a larger firm.

partyguinness

hada wrote: »

you need to check your sources son and come back here and make a post that resembles something half sensible.

Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?

Duffman

I would say the posters on current intakes who are working with loads of people who weren't recruited from undergrad courses are probably in a better position to determine that. We can all claim to be speaking from personal experience. You're wrong.

You suggest that you trained 11 years ago. Things have clearly changed.

I think applicants are probably disheartened enough already without being told that they have a 0.1% chance of getting a TC if they're not in college. What an odd thing to claim.

maidhc

partyguinness wrote: »

Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?

I'm only recently trained and I do believe you are correct. The big firms like to have a tabula rasa rather than something which might have opinions. Understandable to be fair.

Sangre

partyguinness wrote: »

Really? Am I wrong? I am speaking from personal experience within the profession over an 11 year period. How about you?

I know countless people who got a TC in the big 5 and weren't recruited directly from undergrad. In fact the minority of my friends did, most had to wait until they had some postgrad, work experiences or a masters.

I only have to look at the people in my final year in UCD who got TC to know your 99.9% 'fact' is just scare-mongering. Of course it happens a fair bit but nowhere near the extent you say.

maidhc

Sangre wrote: »

I know countless people who got a TC in the big 5 and weren't recruited directly from undergrad. In fact the minority of my friends did, most had to wait until they had some postgrad, work experiences or a masters.

I only have to look at the people in my final year in UCD who got TC to know your 99.9% 'fact' is just scare-mongering. Of course it happens a fair bit but nowhere near the extent you say.

No, but the reality is if you are in final year, with good results from UCD/UCC/TCD/UCG you are probably in a better position than someone a few years older with a Masters and possibly coming from a different discipline.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with that, but that is the reality. However, I'm not sure if working in a "big 5" is quite what people make it out. If you are happy to be independent, take a few risks and make things up as you go along you will do fantastic in any firm.

TheDemiurge

This is such a difficult question. Ideally yes a mixed practice is better for training purposes, but does that translate into jobs? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............which means Big 5 or 10. Opportunities in general practice seem to be fewer.

Any trainees that I know of now who are in the commercial firms seem indeed to have been headhunted from college, and were working as apprentices before even having passed the FE1s.

maidhc

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............

And their jobs are now in a particularly precarious situation. I'm all for specialisation, I do my best to specialise in IT/IP law (to the extent of getting a job in the area but ultimately turning it down for various reasons), but, I think you need to be careful not to back yourself into a corner, and most importantly to work in area YOU like rather than where there is a demand.

Amazotheamazing

hada wrote: »

I want to earn more money.

I want to work on bigger deals.

I want to work with some of Ireland's best solicitors in the hope I too will become a great specialised solicitor.

Hence, I'm happier in a larger firm.

So why not go to a serious law centre like London? I few weeks back you were going on about how you wanted to be an academic, now you want to a big earner? Delicate balance.

Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.

EC1000

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.

+1!

hada

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

So why not go to a serious law centre like London? I few weeks back you were going on about how you wanted to be an academic, now you want to a big earner? Delicate balance.

Personally I'd rather sweep streets than live in Dublin full time, so that may have influenced my thinking too.

Delicate balance it is - hence why consultancy would be my preferred route. Practice a few days a week, lecture the remaining.

London would be ruin the balance entirely - a mininum of 9 billable hours per day (Dublin "top 5" is more in the region of 6 1/2 hours).

dats_right

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Every single job listed in Ireland over the last few years on legal recruitment websites in law seems to be banking banking banking banking banking banking et al..............which means Big 5 or 10. Opportunities in general practice seem to be fewer.

Whilst there has undoubtedly been, in the legal recruitment business, a plethora of banking jobs there had also been an enormous amount of property jobs, particularly commercial prop. I don't disagree that opportunities in general practice are now fewer but this has really only been the case since the property implosion. Okay, since PIAB most GP jobs were conveyancing rather than litigation, but jobs were still there up until the relatively recent past.

dats_right

hada wrote: »

Delicate balance it is - hence why consultancy would be my preferred route. Practice a few days a week, lecture the remaining.

London would be ruin the balance entirely - a mininum of 9 billable hours per day (Dublin "top 5" is more in the region of 6 1/2 hours).

Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive. Unless of course you are somebody with significant prior practice experience winding your practice down after years and years of hard slog or alternatively, are a genuine academic heavyweight who the firm can call on every once in a while for a second opinion (think someone like Prof. Wylie). Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world. You see that's what specialist barristers are for and, if you visit the Bar Council website you will see the amount of young and not so young barristers with more letters than the alphabet after their names, many of whom, no doubt harboured such naive plans as your good self at some stage.

I would imagine that the only way for you to juggle both academia and legal practice is to become a barrister and even that isn't perfect, but at least it is a little more realistic and doable than combining practice as a solicitor in a commercial firm with academia.

johnfás

There seems to be alot of selling of people's own sector going on here. I can only speak for myself but I would imagine the same applies to alot of people here. I do not know precisely which area I want to practise in because I have not been through Blackhall yet, nor I have not experienced the work enough first hand. Most of us apply to the big firms in the first instance because they are the easiest to apply to. You go onto their website and they have a section all about how one can apply to be a trainee there, you fill out your application form and you bang it in.

The smaller firms on the other hand are far more difficult to work out. From a personal point of view I wanted the results from my first FE1s before I sent out my CV to the smaller firms. This was particularly the case because my primary degree is not law. On that basis I can now send my CV in outlining the good result that I got in my Postgraduate Diploma in Law and that I passed half my FE1s at the last sitting. Being able to state this when I apply to a smaller firm, which has no express process of recruitment, is surely to my advantage.

The level of discussion here about the big firms is far more indicative of their applications procedure and their early deadlines for application than a hostility towards smaller firms, which I agree with you in many ways (but not all) will give you a better training. I spent last summer in a 4 partner firm and got fantastic hands on experience, far better than some of my friends got in the big firms.

Most of us starting out don't exactly get the impression we are going to have a huge choice on our menu of potential apprenticeship positions in any case.

hada

dats_right wrote: »

Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive. Unless of course you are somebody with significant prior practice experience winding your practice down after years and years of hard slog or alternatively, are a genuine academic heavyweight who the firm can call on every once in a while for a second opinion (think someone like Prof. Wylie). Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world. You see that's what specialist barristers are for and, if you visit the Bar Council website you will see the amount of young and not so young barristers with more letters than the alphabet after their names, many of whom, no doubt harboured such naive plans as your good self at some stage.

I would imagine that the only way for you to juggle both academia and legal practice is to become a barrister and even that isn't perfect, but at least it is a little more realistic and doable than combining practice as a solicitor in a commercial firm with academia.

First of all, I'm not going to turn this into a pissing competition which I think you are trying to do.

secondly

dats_right wrote: »

Bad news, there isn't a delicate balance at all because the two fields are generally mutually exclusive.

Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.

dats_right wrote: »

Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts as a consultant just because he/she happens to be armed with 1:1 BCL(NUI)/LL.B(Dub), LL.M(NUI/Dub) or even BCL(Oxon)/LLM(Cantab/Harvard, etc) and a Ph.D, that just doesn't happen in the real world.

Yes dats_right, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to get my LLM, PhD and then walk up to Cox, McCann, Clifford Chance, etc, and demand a position as a consultant. :rolleyes:

Did it ever enter your mind that I would like (realise I have) to spend a considerable time establishing myself in academic circles before I could even be considered and have absolutely no problem doing this??

Evidently not.

This thread is going off point.

ps. Firms will not be interested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts --> Oh come off it.

maidhc

hada wrote: »

Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.

I am in the position where I could go either way, e.g. into academia or practice. I asked an emminent professor from the UK at a conference I was at recent of his opinion on combining the two. He said "you can't have two masters".

Again, you will note in mainland europe it is not uncommon for lawyers to have PhDs engage in research, but still work for firms such as linklaters. We have a different tradition here, and I think you need to be very careful not to go too far down the academia route if you actually want to work for McCann Fitz etc (I don't know about Clifford Chance, in fairness they are in a different league to the Irish firms!)

hada

maidhc wrote: »

I am in the position where I could go either way, e.g. into academia or practice. I asked an emminent professor from the UK at a conference I was at recent of his opinion on combining the two. He said "you can't have two masters".

Again, you will note in mainland europe it is not uncommon for lawyers to have PhDs engage in research, but still work for firms such as linklaters. We have a different tradition here, and I think you need to be very careful not to go too far down the academia route if you actually want to work for McCann Fitz etc (I don't know about Clifford Chance, in fairness they are in a different league to the Irish firms!)

I completely understand you're point of view maidhc but I wouldn't totally agree with the whole "You can't have two masters" opinion.

When I was studying for my undergrad one of the best lecturers in the faculty was a full time barrister also. And for all intensive purposes, he was a full time lecuter also (if there ever is such a thing). Combining both isn't impossible.

Look at Tom Courtney at Cox (chair of Company Law Reform Group, author, FE1 examiner, etc) There are multiples of examples besides this.

What I'm trying to say is there isn't any hard or fast rules to combining both, but like many others I would suspect, I have a game plan, of course it is dynamic and of course there are variables depending, but show me a plan that doesn't have such elements.

Not quite sure why people are getting so caught up with my life plan either, but I'll take it as a complement!

Johnny Utah

/Back on topic........


Got 4 more PFO e-mails/letters this week.


Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?....... Very depressing:( Seems hopeless at this stage

pansoul

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?.......

Don't think so. Only got MOPs this week, letter was fairly standard, 'calibre of applicants very high and lots of them, sorry'. No mention of not taking on as many people or that.

What other ones did you get? And please do tell what "that" letter said.

TheDemiurge

Johnny Utah wrote: »

/Back on topic........


Got 4 more PFO e-mails/letters this week.


Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?....... Very depressing:( Seems hopeless at this stage

Yes do tell. I'm isolated out here!

Jev/N

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Anyone else get that letter from a D4 firm?.......

Which firm? I didn't apply to any in D4 afaik

Got one PFO from Maples this week but also nterviews with A&L and MOP which I'm delighted about!

paulanthony

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Yes do tell. I'm isolated out here!

Maybe its MH+C, they're in D4.

Sent out an e-mail saying they are not holding interviews in January as they made offers to some of their iterns from last summer.

Or maybe it's something else completely.

Johnny Utah

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Yes do tell. I'm isolated out here!

paulanthony wrote: »

Maybe its MH+C, they're in D4.

Sent out an e-mail saying they are not holding interviews in January as they made offers to some of their iterns from last summer.

Or maybe it's something else completely.

No, it's not mhc, nor any of the other firms mentioned. However, it is a very well established firm with an application process. The letter basically just outlines the current economic difficulties, and states that the application process is being put on hold until next year.

dats_right

hada wrote: »

First of all, I'm not going to turn this into a pissing competition which I think you are trying to do.

?

hada wrote: »

secondly
Generally? It either is mutually exclusive or it isn't. It can't be both.

That sort of pedanticism is best left to the academia, because in legal practice you will come to realise that there is very seldom black and white rather many, many different shades of grey.

hada wrote: »

Yes dats_right, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to get my LLM, PhD and then walk up to Cox, McCann, Clifford Chance, etc, and demand a position as a consultant. :rolleyes:

For somebody so learned as your good self, I would have thought you would be able to comprehend what was actually said rather than letting your emotions get the better of you. Where did I use such colourful language as this or talk of demanding anything?

hada wrote: »

Did it ever enter your mind that I would like (realise I have) to spend a considerable time establishing myself in academic circles before I could even be considered and have absolutely no problem doing this??

Evidently not.

Well if you have at least 10-15+ years to spend building up your academic reputation the very best of luck to you. The point is that there are countless very bright higher law graduates from very prestigous institutions out there with enviable qualifications who have not even succesfully managed to have a modest legal practice, let alone combine that with an academic career also. The people you talk of such as Tom Courtney qualified as a solicitor some 16-17 years ago and are very much the exception rather than the rule, it should also be remembered that he has only relatively recently left his role as Legal Officer to Bank of Ireland to work in private practice. I wonder will he still find the time to write textbooks when the pressures of fee earning are bearing heavily on his shoulders?

hada wrote: »

ps. Firms will not be intesested in employing a little nipper, barely out of shorts --> Oh come off it.

Well, like it or not that is the way firms view trainees and that is regardless of the letters after their name. But firms will tolerate having these inconveniences around the office because the firm is aware that these inconveniences are the future fee earning partners and associates and they all have to start somewhere i.e the bottom. But to think that these firms are going to be somehow bowled over by Mr LLM, PH.D (never met a client before) academic lawyer who hasn't put in the hard slog of practice and starting at the bottom is disingenuous.

One must accept that Consultants in these firms, almost without exception have practiced law from the bottom up for many, many years, most are also former partners (some may have higher degrees in law but that certainly wouldn't be a pre-requisite). To think that firms are going to turn to academics with no practical experience as consultants is nonsensical and you are fooling yourself to think otherwise. To think further about it for a second, when a partner of one of these firms requires specialist advices do you really think he's going to turn to somebody with no experience of the practice of law, just because they have a Ph.D and teach spotty teenagers in TCD or UCD? The answer of course is no. They will turn to the services of eminent specialist barrister(granted a very small proportion of whom may also juggle academia) or perhaps a consulatant, in the true sense, with significant specialist and practical experience.

The bottom line is that academia is not a short cut to starting at the bottom of legal practice. Nonetheless, I would concede one thing, that is I suppose the academics might come in very handy if you want to be a PSL, but then again I don't suppose that compiling and updating firms precedent banks constitutes consultancy!

hada

dats_right wrote: »

?



That sort of pedanticism is best left to the academia, because in legal practice you will come to realise that there is very seldom black and white rather many, many different shades of grey.



For somebody so learned as your good self, I would have thought you would be able to comprehend what was actually said rather than letting your emotions get the better of you. Where did I use such colourful language as this or talk of demanding anything?



Well if you have at least 10-15+ years to spend building up your academic reputation the very best of luck to you. The point is that there are countless very bright higher law graduates from very prestigous institutions out there with enviable qualifications who have not even succesfully managed to have a modest legal practice, let alone combine that with an academic career also. The people you talk of such as Tom Courtney qualified as a solicitor some 16-17 years ago and are very much the exception rather than the rule, it should also be remembered that he has only relatively recently left his role as Legal Officer to Bank of Ireland to work in private practice. I wonder will he still find the time to write textbooks when the pressures of fee earning are bearing heavily on his shoulders?



Well, like it or not that is the way firms view trainees and that is regardless of the letters after their name. But firms will tolerate having these inconveniences around the office because the firm is aware that these inconveniences are the future fee earning partners and associates and they all have to start somewhere i.e the bottom. But to think that these firms are going to be somehow bowled over by Mr LLM, PH.D (never met a client before) academic lawyer who hasn't put in the hard slog of practice and starting at the bottom is disingenuous.

One must accept that Consultants in these firms, almost without exception have practiced law from the bottom up for many, many years, most are also former partners (some may have higher degrees in law but that certainly wouldn't be a pre-requisite). To think that firms are going to turn to academics with no practical experience as consultants is nonsensical and you are fooling yourself to think otherwise. To think further about it for a second, when a partner of one of these firms requires specialist advices do you really think he's going to turn to somebody with no experience of the practice of law, just because they have a Ph.D and teach spotty teenagers in TCD or UCD? The answer of course is no. They will turn to the services of eminent specialist barrister(granted a very small proportion of whom may also juggle academia) or perhaps a consulatant, in the true sense, with significant specialist and practical experience.

The bottom line is that academia is not a short cut to starting at the bottom of legal practice. Nonetheless, I would concede one thing, that is I suppose the academics might come in very handy if you want to be a PSL, but then again I don't suppose that compiling and updating firms precedent banks constitutes consultancy!

last post on this particular sub topic of the thread from me.

dats_right, you do make good valid points, I will most certainly concede that. Although I do think, at times, you might be a little short sighted, but that probably has more to do with my understatement of the exact type of manner in which I hope to achieve my overall career plan.

I don't think we're going to agree on this, and that's perfectly fine by me.

guerito

Getting back on-topic, just got an email pfo from William Fry. Only Dillon Eustace left.

johnfás

Got the Fry one there too. Just one interview for me so... better not seem like I'm begging

Johnny Utah

guerito wrote: »

Getting back on-topic, just got an email pfo from William Fry. Only Dillon Eustace left.

Got that e-mail too

johnfás wrote: »

Got the Fry one there too. Just one interview for me so... better not seem like I'm begging

Best of luck with the interview John.

(Any idea how you secured that interview? - not having any luck myself)