How many PFOs have you got from solicitors firms?

Tom Young

I'd tend to agree with that in re. vocation, though not the part about salary preservation.

In effect, many of the larger firms have been run like business units in recent years and as such, again my view, overall strategic organisational myopia has take hold.

Why on earth would you fire or lay off solicitors en masse when there are developing areas of law given the market and economy? e.g., move them over to debt collection units, family etc. Developing areas.

In relation to qualification, coming to the law with some other discipline is relatively common and frankly a good thing.

Tom

partyguinness

johnfás wrote: »

Have to disagree with you on the non law graduates issue. Blackhall has always been open to non law graduates, it simply used to be the case that they had to sit the FE-1s whereas law graduates did not. There are many leading figures in the Irish legal world whose undergraduate degree is not law. At a reception at one of the firms I applied to I was speaking to the head of one of their departments who had a general arts degree as their primary degree. Equally one only need look to the Supreme Court and Justices such as Adrian Hardiman who studied History at university.

My degree is not in law and I see no reason why that should block me from a career as a solicitor. In fact I did quite a bit better in my FE-1s than several of my friends who did study law at university.

I do agree with you that the difficulty in getting a contract is unsurprising given the number of people looking for jobs. However, the correct way to improve standards is to make examinations more difficult and curricula more extensive - not by blocking people from pursuing a career in a given profession.

Yes you are correct I should have been more clearer...making law graduates sit the FE 1s was a mistake..of course the FE1s were originally for non law graduates..I am aware of the background (Bloomer and Abrahamson cases etc)

I wonder because a law graduate from any of the universities would have studied at least 15 law subjects as an undergrad as opposed to a non-law graduate who studied the bare 8 FE1 exams and perhaps is that a disadvantage..

At the end of the day its about the reality of everyday work as a solicitor and not about how many subjects as undergrad (about 5% of substantive law is relevant anyway)...while I might seem to be contradicting myself but its just law graduates would have a wider spectrum of knowledge which I defo saw in our Apprentice who had a BA who did not know as much about e.g. family case law or jurisprudence or general intrduction to the legal system...I think it is important for any lawyer to have studied jurisprudence..just for the general overview of legal theory..and for a more rounded understanding of law and where it comes from...just a thought

I am not advocating "blocking" anyone just I fear a drop in standards..is there a race to the bottom? Get as many in and out as possible..!

I am not surprised you did better in FE1s because you were prob more focused than law graduates ,amy of whom just did enough to pass and a lot underestimated them and repeated.

McCrack

Increasing the 'difficulty' of entrance and indeed the professional exams or closing the shop to only law grads. will not churn out better solicitors.

Academics and practice are two very different things.

Quite frankly I'm suspicious of people with 1.1 LLM PHD or whatever, and I read some posters who say I have a 1st and Masters and I cant get a TC as if by virtue of the fact they got 599 points in the LC, went to an NUI studied law, got a first and then went onto do a Masters they should be entitled to a TC and firms should be taking them on...Bull****.

If I were a Training Solicitor seeking a trainee I put such a persons CV in the bin. High acadamic achievement is only part of the picture and I personally wouldnt place too much weight on it. I'd look for a well-grounded person with interests (sport or otherwise) common sense, a person who is confident and can communicate without being ego and the "lawyer" sterotype, previous legal practice exp. with references (most important).

partyguinness

Absolutely academic and practice are too different things..I alluded to that in my post..IMO--only about 5% of what a student learns as an undergraduate is of any relevance in practice.

Its a bit like the medical profession...students getting 550 to 600 points..doesnt make them a good doctor...there are plans to maybe introduce an interview sysetm.

I just feel that, maybe, non-law graduates are at a slight disadvantage in not having studied more substantive law...and as I said that does not make one a less suitable solicitor by any means but personally I am glad I studied jurisprudence, revenue law, trusts etc which a non law graduate has never have touched..

johnfás

I think going straight into the FE1s as a non law graduate would be a bad thing. I did the Postgraduate Diploma at DIT last year which was a good grounding into the legal system. The Law Society should have a regulated legal practice course like they do in the UK.

Re medicine - they have already brought that in, this is the first year. Anyone who gets above 450 points is eligible to study medicine and then there are various other medicine specific assessments.

TheVan

McCrack wrote: »

Quite frankly I'm suspicious of people with 1.1 LLM PHD or whatever, and I read some posters who say I have a 1st and Masters and I cant get a TC as if by virtue of the fact they got 599 points in the LC, went to an NUI studied law, got a first and then went onto do a Masters they should be entitled to a TC and firms should be taking them on...Bull****.

If I were a Training Solicitor seeking a trainee I put such a persons CV in the bin. High acadamic achievement is only part of the picture and I personally wouldnt place too much weight on it.

Well actually, I would regard someone with excellent grades in undergraduate and a LLM as someone with a proven willingness to work hard and achieve. So on that front, its not bullshit. In fact, if I was an interviewing partner and someone came to me with a 2:2 degree in law, I'd be looking at them skeptically. No offence, but law degrees are not overly difficult and failure to get a 2:1 is likely down to lack of a decent work ethic.

You are right that academic achievement is only part of the picture, but I think its more important than you give it credit for.

Anyway, the top corporate firms are looking for academic achievement and common sense and ability to work with other and all those other "soft" skills. Its not a case of one or the other.

BehindTheScenes

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I agree, there's so much oversupply of law graduates/trainees/newly qualifieds that it's farcical at this stage.

Johnny I have to say that I disagree with you. It's the free market principle. Most people are happy to see it applied to sectors that they're not involved in, but once it encraoches on their patch all is not well. The fact that there are people who can't secure training contracts is in a way a good thing. It should in principle show that the cream of the crop is being secured for the profession. Simply those who grades or skills that are simply not good enough can't progress within the profession.

As is argued by others here and correctly imo law is a practical yet also an academic vocation. I understand that there are people who hold law degree x with result y. The fact that the are not able to secure a TC based on academic results suggests to me that they have some practical skills which needs to be improved upon (possibly verbal communication skills etc.).

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes you are correct I should have been more clearer...making law graduates sit the FE 1s was a mistake..of course the FE1s were originally for non law graduates..I am aware of the background (Bloomer and Abrahamson cases etc)

I wonder because a law graduate from any of the universities would have studied at least 15 law subjects as an undergrad as opposed to a non-law graduate who studied the bare 8 FE1 exams and perhaps is that a disadvantage..

Can I just make a counter point for the sake of being argumentative, it could be argued that the student who has 15 subjects should pass easily. Based on the assumption that they possess more legal knowledge that the average arts students they should easily outscore them. They have had three or four years of university to digest and pontificate on the information taught to them, whereas the average arts student is coming in gnerally for 12 weeks of grind lectures to pass the FE-1s. I notice that you mention later on in your post about motivation, although this is a considerable factor I would say that if one cannot motivate themselves for professional examinations then long term goals have to addressed (i.e. possiblly for financial reward rather than job satisfaction)

partyguinness wrote: »

At the end of the day its about the reality of everyday work as a solicitor and not about how many subjects as undergrad (about 5% of substantive law is relevant anyway)...while I might seem to be contradicting myself but its just law graduates would have a wider spectrum of knowledge which I defo saw in our Apprentice who had a BA who did not know as much about e.g. family case law or jurisprudence or general intrduction to the legal system...I think it is important for any lawyer to have studied jurisprudence..just for the general overview of legal theory..and for a more rounded understanding of law and where it comes from...just a thought

johnfás wrote: »

I think going straight into the FE1s as a non law graduate would be a bad thing. I did the Postgraduate Diploma at DIT last year which was a good grounding into the legal system. The Law Society should have a regulated legal practice course like they do in the UK.

I agree with both of you on this. It could possibly be structured so that non law grads had to complete (a)jurisprudence (b)legal writing and research and (c)legal systems and methods, maybe as a pre ppc-1. I would imagine something such as this could be completed in one to two months. When you have the important skills such as interpreting, researching and wrinting you can learn anything else independently (i.e. family law). I am a big believer in independent learning.

partyguinness

I sat and passed my FE1s in 2001. I saw a good few of my friends (now colleagues) who had to repeat the exams. Simple because they didnt prepare. They thought..."Great I have my BCL or LLB. Am sorted". They underestimated the exams and failed. Probably arrogance on their par t which they would admit to. Whereas,say a BA graduate, was studying their asses off for months before hand, going to grinds etc and put in some serious work in order to pass.

Bit like the the tortoise and hare...:)

To be honest, during my Constitutional exam about half way through I realised that I had my 50% without having to do much more and took the foot off the pedal so to speak. I didnt feel the need to kill myself for, say 60%, I got 51% which was all I needed..sounds arrogant in hindsight but I guess I knew what I was doing...:)

johnfás

The interview is now available on the RTE website:

http://www.rte.ie/radio/liveplayer_av.html?1,null,200,http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/live/radio/radio1.smil

TheDemiurge

Jo King wrote: »

That interview was about the position of newly qualifieds not being kept on. Mc Dermott claimed that partners were firing NQs in order to preserve their own salaries. He also seemed to claim that there was plenty of work for the NQs. It further seems that he thinks law is a vocation and senior partners have a moral obligation to keep on employees.

+1 on this. There is no moral obligation on partners to keep on employees. Whilst I'm very happy that the problems solicitors and trainees face is finally coming out into the air, much of the real truth remains to be told. There is one major, substantial factor that everyone - including PM McDermott - seems to be missing, and that's a little minor issue called cashflow.

Litigation, debt collection, employment, insolvency - yes you'll be busy, but the firm won't get paid for years. Conveyancing is virtually dead and it's the area that brings in fees the quickest. Firms, of which the large ones are no exception, have to dip into any warchest that they have to keep the ship afloat until the current economic downturn ends or fees start filtering through. It's just ludicrous to assume that there's an endless pot of money available to keep on trainees and hire new ones in the current climate. It's a belief again that stems from the myth that there's oodles of money in law for doing bu**er all. Yet the same peeps who populate that myth are the first ones to try to dodge paying a solicitor's bill.

This whole country will soon be populated by solicitors and taxi men.

Johnny Utah

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Johnny I have to say that I disagree with you. It's the free market principle. Most people are happy to see it applied to sectors that they're not involved in, but once it encraoches on their patch all is not well. The fact that there are people who can't secure training contracts is in a way a good thing. It should in principle show that the cream of the crop is being secured for the profession. Simply those who grades or skills that are simply not good enough can't progress within the profession.

As is argued by others here and correctly imo law is a practical yet also an academic vocation. I understand that there are people who hold law degree x with result y. The fact that the are not able to secure a TC based on academic results suggests to me that they have some practical skills which needs to be improved upon (possibly verbal communication skills etc.).

Unbelievable!

McCrack wrote: »

Increasing the 'difficulty' of entrance and indeed the professional exams or closing the shop to only law grads. will not churn out better solicitors.

Academics and practice are two very different things.

Quite frankly I'm suspicious of people with 1.1 LLM PHD or whatever, and I read some posters who say I have a 1st and Masters and I cant get a TC as if by virtue of the fact they got 599 points in the LC, went to an NUI studied law, got a first and then went onto do a Masters they should be entitled to a TC and firms should be taking them on...Bull****.

If I were a Training Solicitor seeking a trainee I put such a persons CV in the bin. High acadamic achievement is only part of the picture and I personally wouldnt place too much weight on it. I'd look for a well-grounded person with interests (sport or otherwise) common sense, a person who is confident and can communicate without being ego and the "lawyer" sterotype, previous legal practice exp. with references (most important).

Where can I get this legal practice experience?
Firms aren't taking on paralegals at the moment. If there are any vacancies for legal execs/secretaries, they certainly aren't interested in taking on a law grad or someone who's passed the FE1s as they know they won't stay in the long-term. Opportunites for law grads/fe1 students are non-existent at present.

Jo King wrote: »

That interview was about the position of newly qualifieds not being kept on. Mc Dermott claimed that partners were firing NQs in order to preserve their own salaries. He also seemed to claim that there was plenty of work for the NQs. It further seems that he thinks law is a vocation and senior partners have a moral obligation to keep on employees.

I thought he stated the exact opposite- that there was not enough work for newly qualified solicitors. Furthermore, he stated the true extent of redundancies is not known because many young solicitors may be too proud to sign on the dole.

Jo King

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Unbelievable!


I thought he stated the exact opposite- that there was not enough work for newly qualified solicitors. Furthermore, he stated the true extent of redundancies is not known because many young solicitors may be too proud to sign on the dole.

He said that many were being fired and many were too proud to sign on the dole but he also said thatb there was no reduction in litigation and that there were areas developing as an alternative to conveyancing and the implication of this was that firms should keep on their nqs and turn them over to this new work. He does not seem to appreciate the cashflow difficulties of many firms and that there is a drop off in work in a lot of firms. The suggestion that senior partners are continuing to draw massive salaries at the expense of NQs is risible. Senior Partners only make a lot of money when there are as many people as possible working as hard as possible under them generating money. Reducing staff numbers means less money being made. At the present time there are many firms haemorrhaging money. Long standing clients are not paying their bills and the kind of work coming in will only pay up in years to come. Mc Dermott has spent far too much of his life in academia and most likely not a day in a solicitors office.This bleating about a lost generation of legal talent is hogwash. The cream will always rise to the top.

Sangre

johnfás wrote: »

My degree is not in law and I see no reason why that should block me from a career as a solicitor. In fact I did quite a bit better in the FE-1s which I have sat so far in comparison to several of my friends who did study law at university.

I really wouldn't put much weight into that. Most law graduates only want to pass, non-law graduates want to do well to show how they can apply themselves to law exams. I don't know how many application forms I've seen where you can't even put down what you got in the FE1s.

If I got over 60 in one of my FE1s I'd be annoyed because it meant I spent too much time studying!

That being said, the same people always do well in exams. Be they law or non-law. Only time will tell if they'll make good solicitors.

Johnny Utah

Jo King wrote: »

He said that many were being fired and many were too proud to sign on the dole but he also said thatb there was no reduction in litigation and that there were areas developing as an alternative to conveyancing and the implication of this was that firms should keep on their nqs and turn them over to this new work. He does not seem to appreciate the cashflow difficulties of many firms and that there is a drop off in work in a lot of firms. The suggestion that senior partners are continuing to draw massive salaries at the expense of NQs is risible. Senior Partners only make a lot of money when there are as many people as possible working as hard as possible under them generating money. Reducing staff numbers means less money being made. At the present time there are many firms haemorrhaging money. Long standing clients are not paying their bills and the kind of work coming in will only pay up in years to come. Mc Dermott has spent far too much of his life in academia and most likely not a day in a solicitors office.This bleating about a lost generation of legal talent is hogwash. The cream will always rise to the top.

To be fair, I think he was moreso having a go at firms who have a habit of hiring trainees as a means of cheap labour, letting them go when their training contract is up, and then taking in another bunch of trainees to fill their place straight away. There are some firms who have done this recently and it is a very cynical way of doing business. The Law Society should really intervene and take action against firms who have a reputation for doing this.

I understand that there is less work now and firms have cash flow difficulties, but at the same time I think that trainees should have a reasonable chance of neing kept on, provided they've worked well during their training contract.

What would happen if every legal office in the country hired trainees for next to nothing at the expense of secretaries/legal execs/researchers etc, then let the trainees go when finished their contract?

Jo King

Johnny Utah wrote: »

To be fair, I think he was moreso having a go at firms who have a habit of hiring trainees as a means of cheap labour, letting them go when their training contract is up, and then taking in another bunch of trainees to fill their place straight away. There are some firms who have done this recently and it is a very cynical way of doing business. The Law Society should really intervene and take action against firms who have a reputation for doing this.

I understand that there is less work now and firms have cash flow difficulties, but at the same time I think that trainees should have a reasonable chance of neing kept on, provided they've worked well during their training contract.

What would happen if every legal office in the country hired trainees for next to nothing at the expense of secretaries/legal execs/researchers etc, then let the trainees go when finished their contract?

A firm is unlikely to be capable of being run entirely with trainees. Firms have to survive in the marketplace. that means keeping costs low. Hotels and Restaurants have been employing trainee managers for years and letting them go when the contract is up, replacing them with new trainees immediately. That's just business. Why pay 50K p.a. for something you can get done for 15K p.a.?

dazza21ie

I think McDermott made some worthwhile points and at least he highlighted the issue but it would have been better if it was someone with a more closer connection with the solicitors profession had been giving the interview.

I don't think he fully appreciated all the problems that legal offices are facing. It is not just a matter of less work (although that is a major problem). There is serious cashflow problems happening. Even if you have work coming in there is no guarantee you will get paid at the end of it because your client is stuck for cash. On top of that the costs of running an office have gone up. P I Insurance has doubled for most firms and other costs are going up as well. With less money coming in and more money going out those running solicitors practices had difficult decisions to make. For most of them the decision was not how many people should i let go to keep my salary high it was what do i need to do to help my business survive.

TheDemiurge

dazza21ie wrote: »

I think McDermott made some worthwhile points and at least he highlighted the issue but it would have been better if it was someone with a more closer connection with the solicitors profession had been giving the interview.

I don't think he fully appreciated all the problems that legal offices are facing. It is not just a matter of less work (although that is a major problem). There is serious cashflow problems happening. Even if you have work coming in there is no guarantee you will get paid at the end of it because your client is stuck for cash. On top of that the costs of running an office have gone up. P I Insurance has doubled for most firms and other costs are going up as well. With less money coming in and more money going out those running solicitors practices had difficult decisions to make. For most of them the decision was not how many people should i let go to keep my salary high it was what do i need to do to help my business survive.

+1 You've said it all here; couldn't have been put better.

Johnny Utah

dazza21ie wrote: »

I think McDermott made some worthwhile points and at least he highlighted the issue but it would have been better if it was someone with a more closer connection with the solicitors profession had been giving the interview.

I don't think he fully appreciated all the problems that legal offices are facing. It is not just a matter of less work (although that is a major problem). There is serious cashflow problems happening. Even if you have work coming in there is no guarantee you will get paid at the end of it because your client is stuck for cash. On top of that the costs of running an office have gone up. P I Insurance has doubled for most firms and other costs are going up as well. With less money coming in and more money going out those running solicitors practices had difficult decisions to make. For most of them the decision was not how many people should i let go to keep my salary high it was what do i need to do to help my business survive.

I agree dazza, but as he said himself, trainees/NQs will not voice their concerns publicly. They would get savaged by the public if they did; for example look at the solicitor who went on the Joe Duffy show recently. The public doesn't care about the legal profession.

TheDemiurge

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I agree dazza, but as he said himself, trainees/NQs will not voice their concerns publicly. They would get savaged by the public if they did; for example look at the solicitor who went on the Joe Duffy show recently. The public doesn't care about the legal profession.

What was good about yesterday's interview (that wasn't highlighted on Joe Duffy) was that at least the Law Society got somewhat of a roasting. People are too scared to take them on and criticise them but that might actually be changing. The public doesn't care about the legal profession, those working in it in small firms would certainly say that the LS doesn't care about it either. Everyone on the ground is saying that at the moment, and also professions that support solicitors (accountants, brokers, etc.).

A sole practitioner in Tallaght signed on the dole this week. Solicitors are being squeezed on all sides - an overbias in favour of client's interests and a costs free complaints system all the way to the Supreme Court (even for vexatious claims), spiralling insurance costs, a public that won't pay bills and that has been conditioned into hating you, working for banks for free who can sue you if you cock up, a Law Society that says it is powerless to help and represent - I feel like Princess Leia stuck in the trash compactor in Star Wars.

Interesting times for the profession, for sure.

johnfás

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Everyone on the ground is saying that at the moment, and also professions that support solicitors (accountants, brokers, etc.).

Hehe, there is a controversial statement. The accountants would say it is the Solicitors who support them :P.

Gangu

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Paul Anthony McDermott is discussing the issue of apprentices/newly qualified solicitors on the Pat Kenny show right now!

Ask a barrister about NQ solicitors, for sure they will now all about it.... FFS. He went to the bar straight out of college and has never held down a normal employment position. It pisses me off that he feels he is in a position to comment.

TheDemiurge

johnfás wrote: »

Hehe, there is a controversial statement. The accountants would say it is the Solicitors who support them :P.

What I meant to say is professions who earn a tidy living from the regulations with which solicitors have to comply.... there's not much money to be made in law itself these days - but plenty to be made feeding off lawyers themselves.

TheDemiurge

Gangu wrote: »

Ask a barrister about NQ solicitors, for sure they will now all about it.... FFS. He went to the bar straight out of college and has never held down a normal employment position. It pisses me off that he feels he is in a position to comment.

I think his intentions were good but the interview was handled badly. There is no obligation on big firms to keep on trainees. It pissed me off that yet another opportunity to talk about difficulties in cashflow and regulation, the root of the problem, was missed.

Gangu

TheDemiurge wrote: »

I think his intentions were good but the interview was handled badly. There is no obligation on big firms to keep on trainees. It pissed me off that yet another opportunity to talk about difficulties in cashflow and regulation, the root of the problem, was missed.

Perhaps he had good intentions but he should have declined to do the interview and suggested a solicitor in his stead. He has plenty of contacts. His responses simply added to the general fug of misinformed commentary that is out there.

Jo King

Gangu wrote: »

Perhaps he had good intentions but he should have declined to do the interview and suggested a solicitor in his stead. He has plenty of contacts. His responses simply added to the general fug of misinformed commentary that is out there.

he is always appearing in court for thr DPP and thr Law Society itself. How many solicitors from firms instruct him?

drkpower

In fairness to him, he does get instructed by a number of solicitors firms (the Law society, for most substantial cases, act through their a firm of solicitors).

The problem with him being interviewed on the "solicitors/R word" issue is twofold:
1. Although he does have some insight, he wouldnt have a whole lot more knowledge than any other barrister on the current plight of solicitors firms
2. PA McD, more and more, seems to be moving towards a media career (regular RTE appearances, Sunday Times column etc..) and i think he would take an interview on almost any topic to further that career without him necessarily being an expert on that topic - again, I wouldnt criticise him hugely as there is no doubt he is a very good communicator (both in and out of court) and im sure that, if RTE tried to get a solicitor/partner form a bg firm, there is not a chance in hell that any would have agree to particpiate.

Gangu

Jo King wrote: »

he is always appearing in court for thr DPP and thr Law Society itself. How many solicitors from firms instruct him?

I act for IT companies all the time, it does not qualify me to go on the radio and speak for them.

Jo King

Gangu wrote: »

I act for IT companies all the time, it does not qualify me to go on the radio and speak for them.

He was not speaking for the firms. He was supposedly speaking on behalf of NQs. He lectured me at one time and I found that there were a lot of things he did not know. He was very fond of making comments like "why on earth would anybody want to do that?" in relation to business transactions. There would often be a very good business reason for what had happened but he was simply unaware of it.

Gangu

Jo King wrote: »

He was not speaking for the firms. He was supposedly speaking on behalf of NQs. He lectured me at one time and I found that there were a lot of things he did not know. He was very fond of making comments like "why on earth would anybody want to do that?" in relation to business transactions. There would often be a very good business reason for what had happened but he was simply unaware of it.

My point clearly is that he has never been a NQ solicior nor has he had any first-hand experience of working in a solicitor's office. In fact, as he went straight to the bar, his only experience of employment is as a part time lecturer.

On your other point, barristers deal with contentious matters, and so non-contentious business transactions are not matters with which they have much familiarity. Cases that come before them are about very specific aspects of a business transaction. When I tutored in the Law Society I was both amused and irritated about the Q&A that barristers tutoring on the business course engaged the solicitors in, in order to cram in before the tutorials in respect of matters of which they had neither legal or practical experience it seemed.

kronsington

interview with mccanns on thursday. any advice would be most appreciated!