Legal careers and private school qouatas

steddyeddy

The legal profession in Ireland used to be a very contact driven. Things have got better but there is still an issue regarding the large amount of judges in the supreme court who attended private school.

People maybe respond that there shouldnt be a qouata and that the best man should be selected for the job but I think there is already an effective qouata taken from private school stock and the best men aren't being selected for the job.

I myself am state educated and a scientist as area most other scientists I work with. I cant believe that physicists, doctors and engineers can be state school educayed and suffer no statistical impairment but "the best man" for the role of supreme court judges is largely from a private school background.

Why is this the case and are things improving?

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

The legal profession in Ireland used to be a very contact driven. Things have got better but there is still an issue regarding the large amount of judges in the supreme court who attended private school.

People maybe respond that there shouldnt be a qouata and that the best man should be selected for the job but I think there is already an effective qouata taken from private school stock and the best men aren't being selected for the job.

I myself am state educated and a scientist as area most other scientists I work with. I cant believe that physicists, doctors and engineers can be state school educayed and suffer no statistical impairment but "the best man" for the role of supreme court judges is largely from a private school background.

Why is this the case and are things improving?

To the best of my knowledge all current members of the SC are Barristers. They would have all joined the Library in the 70's and 80's. the library was tiny back then numbering about 600. To go to kings inns and devil was a very expensive thing back then and would have been mostly children of wealthy parents, those who would by and large have sent their children to private schools.

Is it changing yes, but the change won't be seen on the SC for another 10 or more years.

LowKeyReturn

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why is this the case and are things improving?

What improvement do you think needs to happen? Who do you think should have been selected over the current Supreme Court Judges?

LowKeyReturn

Just out of interest - are/were CBS Schools private schools?

coylemj

steddyeddy wrote: »

People maybe respond that there shouldnt be a qouata and that the best man should be selected for the job but I think there is already an effective qouata taken from private school stock

There is no 'quota' of any kind, you are talking nonsense.

steddyeddy wrote: »

and the best men aren't being selected for the job.

So the Cabinet are deliberately overlooking the best candidates in favour of people who come from private schools?

Can I remind you that the Taoiseach of this country who presides over cabinet meetings was educated in a secondary school in Castlebar and then trained as a primary school teacher in St. Pats in Drumcondra. You can't seriously suggest that he is involved in perpetuating a system which discriminates in favour of men who were educated in fee-paying private schools.

steddyeddy wrote: »

and the best men aren't being selected for the job.

Come to think of it, you're probably closer to the mark than you think - the Govt. appointed two women to the Supreme Court last week.

steddyeddy

coylemj wrote: »

There is no 'quota' of any kind, you are talking nonsense.



So the Cabinet are deliberately overlooking the best candidates in favour of people who come from private schools?

Can I remind you that the Taoiseach of this country who presides over cabinet meetings was educated in a secondary school in Castlebar and then trained as a primary school teacher in St. Pats in Drumcondra. You can't seriously suggest that he is involved in perpetuating a system which discriminates in favour of men who were educated in fee-paying private schools.



Come to think of it, you're probably closer to the mark than you think - the Govt. appointed two women to the Supreme Court last week.

You dont think legal services in Ireland recruited largely from private schools and was contact driven?

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

You dont think legal services in Ireland recruited largely from private schools and was contact driven?

You're the one who made the assertion, lets see your proof/argument. As a scientist, surely you accept the need to put forward empirical data to support your claim. For example, you were asked if Christian brothers schools counted in your methodology. You were also asked to comment on the two most recent appointments.

Cody Pomeray

Be careful what you wish for OP.

My experience it is the people who have no family connection to legal practice who seem to be most protective of its standing and in the case of the Bar and the Inns, its ceremonies.

If you get into law believing that your Master, and seniors and judges belong to a species of deity, you may find it harder to maintain criticism than someone who although recognizing their enhanced responsibility and experiences, is mindful that they are occasionally subject to fits of error and even foolishness, just like anyone else.

One of the biggest critics of the legal system I've met is the daughter of a High Court judge. Some of the biggest advocates of the status quo are the children of builders and school teachers.

There has already been an extraordinarily expansive intake of new legal professionals. But the effects of that are not what might have been anticipated.

McCrack

steddyeddy wrote: »

The legal profession in Ireland used to be a very contact driven. Things have got better but there is still an issue regarding the large amount of judges in the supreme court who attended private school.

People maybe respond that there shouldnt be a qouata and that the best man should be selected for the job but I think there is already an effective qouata taken from private school stock and the best men aren't being selected for the job.

I myself am state educated and a scientist as area most other scientists I work with. I cant believe that physicists, doctors and engineers can be state school educayed and suffer no statistical impairment but "the best man" for the role of supreme court judges is largely from a private school background.

Why is this the case and are things improving?

The judiciary are not representative of the legal profession.

There are approx 120 Judges in Ireland and 15,000 legal professionals. That's .8 of 1 percent that are Judges.

LowKeyReturn

steddyeddy wrote: »

You dont think legal services in Ireland recruited largely from private schools and was contact driven?

This contacts thing is generally a misconception. The British public school stereotype is taken and some how applied to Ireland. Yes you need contacts, those contacts can be built, and are built in a number of ways. I can't comment on how it was ten, twenty or thirty years ago but today, now the legal profession is a remarkably open one.

Firstly there are active projects to encourage youngsters for 'deprived' areas into the legal profession. I know of work done in the Ballymun Law Centre where it never even occurred to some of the kids there they could peruse careers in law. This opinion seemed to come, to some extent, from the kind of stereotypical attitude you seem to have OP. Although the barrister route would be quite difficult (not impossible) for someone without funding from a family member there is absolutely no reason the solicitor route wouldn't be an option.

In my own personal experience, I could be generously described as of average intelligence, English and working-class, barristers in particular are nothing but generous in their advice and time. One particular barrister I am absolutely sure finds me to be an utter gob sh!te but nevertheless is still nothing short of helpful when asked for something. I'm not just referring to people I come in contact with during my degree either.

I'm happy to try and help inform you OP but you have to accept something that most people find hard to believe first of all though. Lawyers are generally, well informed, generous with a strong sense of justice and fairness who do the job for poor-average renumeration, and many of which have voluntary jobs they do on the side. There are people in it just for the money, the great thing is that if you're on the big bucks in the legal profession you probably deserve it.

L1011

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Just out of interest - are/were CBS Schools private schools?

In general, no and often far from it.

NoQuarter

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

One particular barrister I am absolutely sure finds me to be an utter gob sh!te but nevertheless is still nothing short of helpful when asked for something.

You're welcome! :pac:

LowKeyReturn

NoQuarter wrote: »

You're welcome! :pac:

Sorry several...

steddyeddy

infosys wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge all current members of the SC are Barristers. They would have all joined the Library in the 70's and 80's. the library was tiny back then numbering about 600. To go to kings inns and devil was a very expensive thing back then and would have been mostly children of wealthy parents, those who would by and large have sent their children to private schools.

Is it changing yes, but the change won't be seen on the SC for another 10 or more years.

I despise the link between educational opportunity and eduation. Hopefully things progress.

steddyeddy

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

What improvement do you think needs to happen? Who do you think should have been selected over the current Supreme Court Judges?

I think becoming a barrister should be less dependent on being born into a rich family.

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

I despise the link between educational opportunity and eduation. Hopefully things progress.

They have progressed, most barristers I know now are sons and daughters of non lawyers, in fact my own view having a close relative in law can be be a blessing and a pain. Most barristers I know from the last 20 years went to ordinary schools, same with the solicitor profession. It will be seen on the SC bench in next few years.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think becoming a barrister should be less dependent on being born into a rich family.

Again, as a scientist, can you give us the data you are using to establish:
a) what is a "rich" family?
b) the level of barristers dependent on being born into a rich family out of total barristers;
c) the desireable level of "rich" to "not rich" families from which barristers come?

Even if you don't have exact figures, that's fine. What, in your opinion is your answer to the above, based on your own personal experience and circumstances, anecdotal evidence and first princples?

johnnyskeleton

MYOB wrote: »

In general, no and often far from it.

They are private in the sense that they are owned by a private body as opposed to national schools which are set up by the government.

However, you can have a private CBS in a deprived area which has government funding and you can have a national school in a well to do area that has good funding.

I think what people usually mean by private is "fee paying".

As regards the Current Judges, since the OP isn't going to answer it, I understand that Mr. Justice O'Donnell and Mr. Justice Clarke did not go to fee paying schools, although I am not entirely certain as to each school. As to Ms. Justice Laffoy and Ms. Justice Dunne, their biographies do not appear on the supremecourt.ie website just yet.

hullaballoo

Mr Justice Finnegan went to Synge St CBS and St Mary's Dundalk.


JS

Cody Pomeray

I think it's a little unfair to name anybody here, but of course there are judges and also SCs who have come from very modest means.

My very first encounter with the Bar was via a now retired gentleman who went to the Inns in 1959, became an SC in 1971, and whose mother was a single mother rearing 5 children in rural Ireland. It is an insult to working men like that to dismiss the entire profession as mere rich kids.

I don't doubt that these people have been in the minority, like any profession in the mid-late 20th century, but I would be wary of dismissing the entire profession as having been heretofore over-run with the spray-tanned spawn of the Royal St George.

In any case, the whole thing is of very doubtful significance to the administration of justice, or the outlook of the people in question.

steddyeddy

I sit on a voluntary position of a project that aspires to instil belief in certain socio economic groups that they can aspire to college. While there has been certain students who have obtained a law degree a lot have found it a very contact driven profession. A student has lost hope of career law because of his experiences in the profession.

That is where I am coming from and I thinking it disingenuous that some posters are playing dumb as regards the role private school networks have played in the law profession.

I know people studying law and the majority have a strong sense of justice and I know lawyers who do great pro bono work for good causes. This is not an attack on people or students.

steddyeddy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They are private in the sense that they are owned by a private body as opposed to national schools which are set up by the government.

However, you can have a private CBS in a deprived area which has government funding and you can have a national school in a well to do area that has g
ood funding.

I think what people usually mean by private is "fee paying".

As regards the Current Judges, since the OP isn't going to answer it, I understand that Mr. Justice O'Donnell and Mr. Justice Clarke did not go to fee paying schools, although I am not entirely certain as to each school. As to Ms. Justice Laffoy and Ms. Justice Dunne, their biographies do not appear on the supremecourt.ie website just yet.

Johnny I am not referring exclusively to the supreme court Judges rather too the route to becoming a barrister and the resistance some students from disadvantaged backgrounds report to us.

It would also be fair to say that a lot of students hear that (unfairly prehaps) that a career in legal services requires contacts and are turned off The idea.

steddyeddy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think it's a little unfair to name anybody here, but of course there are judges and also SCs who have come from very modest means.

My very first encounter with the Bar was via a now retired gentleman who went to the Inns in 1959, became an SC in 1971, and whose mother was a single mother rearing 5 children in rural Ireland. It is an insult to working men like that to dismiss the entire profession as mere rich kids.

I don't doubt that these people have been in the minority, like any profession in the mid-late 20th century, but I would be wary of dismissing the entire profession as having been heretofore over-run with the spray-tanned spawn of the Royal St George.

In any case, the whole thing is of very doubtful significance to the administration of justice, or the outlook of the people in question.

I have respect for lawyers but I think that it would be disingenuous to say that
fee paying schools arent over represented in sending students to the legal profession.

As regards your last point I would think that drawing judges, barristers or anyone from a small section of society would be both unfair and reducing the potential qaulity of candiates.

steddyeddy

coylemj wrote: »

There is no 'quota' of any kind, you are talking nonsense.



So the Cabinet are deliberately overlooking the best candidates in favour of people who come from private schools?


Can I remind you that the Taoiseach of this country who presides over cabinet meetings was educated in a secondary school in Castlebar and then trained as a primary school teacher in St. Pats in Drumcondra. You can't seriously suggest that he is involved in perpetuating a system which discriminates in favour of men who were educated in fee-paying private schools.



Come to think of it, you're probably closer to the mark than you think - the Govt. appointed two women to the Supreme Court last week.

Im referring to the role private schools have had in the irish legal profession. More so than science for instance.

steddyeddy

coylemj wrote: »

There is no 'quota' of any kind, you are talking nonsense.



So the Cabinet are deliberately overlooking the best candidates in favour of people who come from private schools?


Can I remind you that the Taoiseach of this country who presides over cabinet meetings was educated in a secondary school in Castlebar and then trained as a primary school teacher in St. Pats in Drumcondra. You can't seriously suggest that he is involved in perpetuating a system which discriminates in favour of men who were educated in fee-paying private schools.



Come to think of it, you're probably closer to the mark than you think - the Govt. appointed two women to the Supreme Court last week.

Im referring to the role private schools have had in the irish legal profession. More so than science for instance.

NoQuarter

There is no role for private schools in the legal profession imo. It just a matter of coincidence. There is absolutely no bar on becoming a Barrister at any stage relation to the school you came from.

It just so happens that the road to becoming a successful Barrister is fraught with penuary and so to get over that hurdle, you either need parents to support you or you need to get off your ass and get a part-time job.

When we think of fee-paying schools, we think about youngsters coming out of secondary school and their parents paying their way right through for them, that happens and there is nothing we can do about that. But the legal profession is perhaps the most diverse profession I have ever seen and many professionals in other areas have worked for years in one area to pay their way through legal education and training.

If there is a question along the lines of "the privileged few have it handed to them on a plate so why cant the disadvantaged have the earth moved for them to help them along" well then, I'm sorry, but thats not right. I revert to my first paragraph and reiterate that there are absolutely no bars to anyone becoming a Barrister if they want it. I'm not saying it will be easy, it may involve getting a job and saving up quite a bit of money, but there are no bars.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

I sit on a voluntary position of a project that aspires to instil belief in certain socio economic groups that they can aspire to college. While there has been certain students who have obtained a law degree but have found it a very contact driven profession. A student has lost hope of career law because of his experiences in the profession.

It is simply not the case that people from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot get into the legal profession. But it's easy for someone who got a 2h2 or 3rd and didn't do any extra curricular, volunteering, internships or have strong interview skills to say "I was excluded because I didn't have the contacts". But even with none of the above and a poor degree, the bar and devilling is still open to them.

Nor are contacts the preserve of the rich - a friend from a football team is a contact. A member of the same political party is a contact. Someone you met in a pub one time is a contact. A solicitor who you meet devilling and takes a shine to you - thats a contact. A client who trusts you is a great contact. A friend who gets into trouble with the gardai a lot - even that's a contact and none of those things is connected to any particular class.

Besides, what is the difference between someone who went to a national school who has no contacts and someone who went to a private school and also has no contacts?

That is where I am coming from and I thinking it disingenuous that some posters are playing dumb as regards the role private school networks have played in the law profession.

Not to be harsh, but looking at only those people who did not succeed, for whatever reason, in getting into the legal profession, and moreover looking at only their stated reasons for that failure (which are not always the truth) does not mean that you can discount any view inconsistent with that as disingenuous.

To be honest, I think it is disingenuous to blame ones humble background for ones failure to get on in life. Thats not to say that there is anything your friends are doing wrong, its just a difficult profession. According to the bar council, in 2011/2012 there were 140 barristers who left the bar, with an annual entry of approximately 147. It is unlikely that this drop out rate reflects those from a disadvantaged background.

I know people studying law and the majority have a strong sense of justice and I know lawyers who do great pro bono work for good causes. This is not an attack on people or students.

At best, it is cognitive dissonance on your part. You know specific lawyers who are good honest people but you maintain an unfounded view that these people must be the exception rather than the rule, because you are so convinced that the legal profession must be elitist that your mind cannot process the more accurate representation of the legal profession based on your personal experiences.

You ten suffer confirmation bias when people contradict you, because in your mind they must be disingenuous to do so.

Cody Pomeray

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have respect for lawyers but I think that it would be disingenuous to say thatfee paying schools arent over represented in sending students to the legal profession.

Yes fee charging school alumni are disproportionately well represented. No argument there.

However, I don't believe that fee charging school alumni are more disproportionately well represented than in the other established professions.

Before I did my law undergrad I was occasionally a veterinary student. My memory is that there was as big a proportion of privately educated students on that course as in law. I think it might have been as high as 1 in 3 coming from private schools and the institute.

Are you suggesting that privately educated students in law is a unique or greater phenomenon? Why?

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im referring to the role private schools have had in the irish legal profession. More so than science for instance.

And you have been asked for evidence here is what I know about the current 8

Susan Denham, Alexandra College, Non Legal Family.

John Murray, Rockwell, non legal family.

Adrian Hardiman, Belvedere College, non legal family.

Nial Fennelly, Clongowes Wood College.

Donal O’Donnell, St Mary's C.B.S., Father was NI High Court Judge.

Liam McKechnie, PBS Cork.

Frank Clarke, Drimnagh Castle CBS, first of his family to attend third level.

John Mac Menamin, Terenure College.

steddyeddy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is simply not the case that people from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot get into the legal profession. But it's easy for someone who got a 2h2 or 3rd and didn't do any extra curricular, volunteering, internships or have strong interview skills to say "I was excluded because I didn't have the contacts". But even with none of the above and a poor degree, the bar and devilling is still open to them.

Nor are contacts the preserve of the rich - a friend from a football team is a contact. A member of the same political party is a contact. Someone you met in a pub one time is a contact. A solicitor who you meet devilling and takes a shine to you - thats a contact. A client who trusts you is a great contact. A friend who gets into trouble with the gardai a lot - even that's a contact and none of those things is connected to any particular class.

Besides, what is the difference between someone who went to a national school who has no contacts and someone who went to a private school and also has no contacts?



Not to be harsh, but looking at only those people who did not succeed, for whatever reason, in getting into the legal profession, and moreover looking at only their stated reasons for that failure (which are not always the truth) does not mean that you can discount any view inconsistent with that as disingenuous.

To be honest, I think it is disingenuous to blame ones humble background for ones failure to get on in life. Thats not to say that there is anything your friends are doing wrong, its just a difficult profession. According to the bar council, in 2011/2012 there were 140 barristers who left the bar, with an annual entry of approximately 147. It is unlikely that this drop out rate reflects those from a disadvantaged background.



At best, it is cognitive dissonance on your part. You know specific lawyers who are good honest people but you maintain an unfounded view that these people must be the exception rather than the rule, because you are so convinced that the legal profession must be elitist that your mind cannot process the more accurate representation of the legal profession based on your personal experiences.

You ten suffer confirmation bias when people contradict you, because in your mind they must be disingenuous to do so.

Johnny I said lawyers often come from fee paying schools. I didn't say or dont think that makes one "elite" or prevents one from being honest and having a sense of justice. That came from your mind not mine

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

Johnny I am not referring exclusively to the supreme court Judges rather too the route to becoming a barrister and the resistance some students from disadvantaged backgrounds report to us.

Ok, well that was what most of the OP was about. To be honest, people from disadvantaged backgrounds will make up a minority in all professions due to several reasons entirely unconnected to the professions themselves. Then, there is the fact that many people find it difficult to be barristers. Finally, as I've said above, it is often easier to use your background as an excuse than to face up to the real reasons why it didn't work out.

I don't mean that in a bad way, but it is easier to live with a chip on your shoulder because you feel excluded from the profession because you are from Ballymun, rather than face up to the more unconfortable truth that it was a significant risk to take and you felt that you probably wouldn't make it.

It would also be fair to say that a lot of students hear that (unfairly prehaps) that a career in legal services requires contacts and are turned off The idea.

It is a misunderstanding of what "contacts" are. As I said above, it's people skills and getting involved that's important. Being related to someone in the legal profession is of benefit to maybe one in thirty lawyers.

steddyeddy

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is no role for private schools in the legal profession imo. It just a matter of coincidence. There is absolutely no bar on becoming a Barrister at any stage relation to the school you came from.

It just so happens that the road to becoming a successful Barrister is fraught with penuary and so to get over that hurdle, you either need parents to support you or you need to get off your ass and get a part-time job.

When we think of fee-paying schools, we think about youngsters coming out of secondary school and their parents paying their way right through for them, that happens and there is nothing we can do about that. But the legal profession is perhaps the most diverse profession I have ever seen and many professionals in other areas have worked for years in one area to pay their way through legal education and training.

If there is a question along the lines of "the privileged few have it handed to them on a plate so why cant the disadvantaged have the earth moved for them to help them along" well then, I'm sorry, but thats not right. I revert to my first paragraph and reiterate that there are absolutely no bars to anyone becoming a Barrister if they want it. I'm not saying it will be easy, it may involve getting a job and saving up quite a bit of money, but there are no bars.

Im a scientist and don't believe in coincidence. I dont wanted anything handed to anyone on a plate. I would rather a situation where the only impediment to a career in law is academic ability and not finances.

I agree with you that giving disadvantaged students a free ride would be as bad as parents funding their kids through private school.

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

Johnny I am not referring exclusively to the supreme court Judges rather too the route to becoming a barrister and the resistance some students from disadvantaged backgrounds report to us.

It would also be fair to say that a lot of students hear that (unfairly prehaps) that a career in legal services requires contacts and are turned off The idea.

The Bar is the most open profession I know of. I could on my first day in the library go up to the most prominent SC and ask a question no matter where I was educated he or she would answer me.

I am not from a privileged class far from it, my family had it rough in the 80's as did most in the area I lived in. I like many I know in practice, come from ordinary backgrounds got into college, entered the inns and got into practice. I can point at children of teachers, cooks, clerical workers and on and on who are now barristers, these are no longer the exception to the rule they are the rule. Yes it's hard to make it (and it should be) but its equally hard for all, no matter how many connections you have if you can't do the job no one will brief you it's that's simple.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im a scientist and don't believe in coincidence. I dont wanted anything handed to anyone on a plate. I would rather a situation where the only impediment to a career in law is academic ability and not finances.

But there is a financial risk in every business/profession. Perhaps it is greater on a risk/reward basis in the legal profession than in others, but the fact that most journalism students have to spend a few years scratching around writing the odd freelance article and working part time until they get a break is never criticised as being elitist, yet it is remarkably similar to the financial difficulty in entering the legal profession.

No one owes you a living, and if you want to work in a competitive environment you have to take some level of financial risk on board, to be honest. And if you don't want to take that risk then just say so, don't dress it up in the language of a conspiracy.

NoQuarter

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would rather a situation where the only impediment to a career in law is academic ability and not finances.
.

So would I but the bar is what it is, you are self-employed at the bar and nobody is going to pay you for something where they can get someone more experienced for the same price. There is inevitably going to be free years.

Its the same as any business, there is absolutely no guarantee of gaining business or an income.

Realistically, the easiest part of getting to the bar is paying for an undergrad and then the King's Inns. There are supports in place to assist disadvantaged persons that arent available to the privileged. The real financial struggle only begins once you begin practice and there is simply no way around it or at least, I dont see it. I say this as someone who is struggling in year 1 at the bar by the way.

johnnyskeleton

Also, on the issue of financial disincentives, most of my friends who have studied "science" have found that after unpaid college up to doctorate level taking up to 10 years, they then do a few years of post doctorate research at around minimum wage. This is all with no certainty of work afterwards.

Whereas with law anyone with a first or good 2h1 from nui or trinity have a fairly good chance of a training contract with a large firm paying 30k plus to start, and if they excel there they can swiftly move up to higher incomes. This is all regardless of background. I have never heard of someone with a 1st or high 2h1 being refused a job in the legal sector solely because of their socio-economic background.

evolving_doors

Yawn..this is Ireland , get over it, its all about contacts and 'getting someone in the door'...
Lawyers, politicians, civil public service, teachers... You would do the same for your little johnnie if you could...Could you imagine if there was an Irish big brother tv series, everyone would be just sitting around figuring out what relations they have in common, we are only a step above Iceland.

Then again ...the private sector would do the same for their kids, many tradesmen of a certain age can be seen going around with their offspring in tow....builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, farmers...Is that unfair?.. Would you be equally giving out about farming being a closed shop?

the way I see it, talent will out eventually if you have the persistence to back it up.

Its actually 'fee charging' btw as the school doesn't pay the fees..Private schools are schools outside the system run for profit..Institute of Ed. Etc.

camphor

All second level schools other than VEC charged fees until 1968. I am not aware of any member of the legal profession who went to a VEC school.
Up to the early 70s only a small minority got to the leaving cert and smaller number again got to Third level and a smaller number again were able to launch professional careers.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

I can point at children of teachers, cooks, clerical workers and on and on who are now barristers, these are no longer the exception to the rule they are the rule.

Ah now.

Lets not over-egg this pudding. Some reality... the legal contacts issue is nonsense, but 'the rule' is not that the children of cooks or unskilled manual labourers are representative.

I can't over-emphasize enough that socio-economic background appears not to have the anticipated bearing on a barrister's subsequent outlook (my experience), but for what it's worth I don't think it's accurate to portray the children of unskilled or manual workers and cooks as "the rule" at the Bar.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ah now.

Lets not over-egg this pudding. Some reality... the legal contacts issue is nonsense, but 'the rule' is not that the children of cooks or unskilled manual labourers are representative.

I can't over-emphasize enough that socio-economic background appears not to have the anticipated bearing on a barrister's subsequent outlook (my experience), but for what it's worth I don't think it's accurate to portray the children of unskilled or manual workers and cooks as "the rule" at the Bar.

Was out today at lunch 3 barristers 4 solicitors, the jobs of the fathers as follows, 1 mechanic, 1 post office employee, 1 university professor, 1 A.I. man, 1 Van driver 1 self employed business men 1 solicitor.

Cody Pomeray

Can we just get to the bottom line?

What are you suggesting, that socio-economic backgrounds at the bar are representative of and proportional to the national population? Lets be clear.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can we just get to the bottom line?

What are you suggesting, that socio-economic backgrounds at the bar are representative of and proportional to the national population? Lets be clear.

I am saying from my personal experience the Bar has over the last 10 to 20 years become more representative of society in general. I know guys who went to the top end schools and who went to schools some would consider average enough. In fact in all my time in law no one has ever asked which school I went too.

Cody Pomeray

Ok we're still beating around the bush here.

1. The Barristers' profession, like all higher established professions (medicine, dentistry, actuary, university lecturers), is simply not representative of the full socio-economic backdrop of the national workforce. I'm afraid anyone who is suggesting otherwise (and that may be nobody) has a major credibility issue. Ditto on this point for judges.

2. The OP is completely off the wall on the matter of contacts as it relates to the Barristers' profession. He may have a point on personal contacts and judicial appointments.

3. The OP is probably off the wall in suggesting that the Barristers' or Judges' professions are disproportionately more elite than the other established professions, insofar as this relates to personal and family wealth.

Is that agreed or not?

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ok we're still beating around the bush here.

1. The Barristers' profession, like all higher established professions (medicine, dentistry, actuary, university lecturers), is simply not representative of the full socio-economic backdrop of the national workforce. I'm afraid anyone who is suggesting otherwise (and that may be nobody) has a major credibility issue. Ditto on this point for judges.

2. The OP is completely off the wall on the matter of contacts as it relates to the Barristers' profession. He may have a point on personal contacts and judicial appointments.

3. The OP is probably off the wall in suggesting that the Barristers' or Judges' professions are disproportionately more elite than the other established professions, insofar as this relates to personal and family wealth.

Is that agreed or not?

Where did I say it was fully representative of society, 2500 barristers out of a population of close to 5million. But has it improved over the last 20 years of course it has. Free fees, access to third level, grants for the inns and Blackhall have all helped to get people to the door. Among a certain age of barrister there are huge amounts of private school boys, and a lesser extent girls. I am saying that is changed. Is there more to change yes. Do I think it should be easier to devil for barristers from certain backgrounds, yes. But once you get there it is fully up to the person themselves no matter what their background. Judge Frank Clark being a good example.

I don't know what you are asking is agreed or not. Do I think the OP is incorrect yup, do I think the Bar/Judicary is a old boys club no, if it was I would not be in it.

McCrack

The IT are doing a number of articles on the SC.

Link profiles the Judges:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/one-court-eight-voices-1.1454331

As I said previously they are not socio-economically representative of the legal profession as as somebody else pointed out 2nd level and 3rd level education was the preserve of few in this country until the late 1960's. It would follow that senior lawyers and Judges of today would usually have come from privileged backgrounds.

The Bar and Solicitors professions have opened up widely in the past 10-15 years to persons from non-traditional backgrounds. The Bar Council & Law Society/DSBA have bursaries that give financial assistance to people from non-traditional backgrounds without the means to pay exam/course fees and support themselves throughout training.

The reality is not that there are barriers to entry to the legal profession but circumstances from the time a child is born right through until they reach adulthood that unfortunately greatly influence that child's career or vocational prospects. The legal profession cannot and should not be blamed for that.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

Where did I say it was fully representative of society, 2500 barristers out of a population of close to 5million.

2,500 membership has nothing to do with it.

You could expect to pull 2,5000 people off the streets across the 32 counties and legitimately expect them to be representative of society.

If the Bar - like any other profession in the land - is not representative, then legitimate questions need to be asked.

That's all I'm saying. No need to take it so personally, I asked if it was agreed because your previous comments seemed vague.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

2,500 membership has nothing to do with it.

You could expect to pull 2,5000 people off the streets across the 32 counties and legitimately expect them to be representative of society.

If the Bar - like any other profession in the land - is not representative, then legitimate questions need to be asked.

That's all I'm saying. No need to take it so personally, I asked if it was agreed because your previous comments seemed vague.

I thought all my posts are clear on the point but to make it as clear as I can. The bar was an old boys club mostly inhabited bye rich gentlemen and or landed elite. The bar for many reason remained that way into the 1970's/80's.

Due to a number of reasons that has changed, I listed out some of those reasons. Now the bar is much more representative of society. Is it totally so, no, but there is many at the bar from very economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

I do not know why you think my post are vague as I have made what I believe are very clear statments of my personal opinion.

evolving_doors

All of miriam o callaghan's guests on saturday morning radio went to fee charging schools...
.
.
Just saying..

steddyeddy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ok we're still beating around the bush here.

1. The Barristers' profession, like all higher established professions (medicine, dentistry, actuary, university lecturers), is simply not representative of the full socio-economic backdrop of the national workforce. I'm afraid anyone who is suggesting otherwise (and that may be nobody) has a major credibility issue. Ditto on this point for judges.

2. The OP is completely off the wall on the matter of contacts as it relates to the Barristers' profession. He may have a point on personal contacts and judicial appointments.

3. The OP is probably off the wall in suggesting that the Barristers' or Judges' professions are disproportionately more elite than the other established professions, insofar as this relates to personal and family wealth.

Is that agreed or not?

I wouldnt agree with some of the points for example our students seem to find careers in law the hardest too obtain. I cannot fathom why people area saying contacts in law area unimportant.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wouldnt agree with some of the points for example our students seem to find careers in law the hardest too obtain. I cannot fathom why people area saying contacts in law area unimportant.

Probably worth noting that every law student is finding a career in law difficult at the moment. Contacts can only bring you so far during times like this.

steddyeddy

Armelodie wrote: »

All of miriam o callaghan's guests on saturday morning radio went to fee charging schools...
.
.
Just saying..

Indeed and I am willing too better a lot who studied law here attended fee paying. The same lot are probrably the ones saying anyone can do it oblivious to their advantage.