Legal careers and private school qouatas

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

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.

I am aware of that. Maybe this will be the paradign shift that will remove the non academic variables.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

I'm studying law and know many others (through college and interning) who have done so, I think only three attended a private school. Others came from quite disadvantaged schools and have done very well for themselves, better than the private school students. I attended public school btw.

steddyeddy

I think my major problem with those saying anyone can do its seem to be underplaying the struggle certain socio economic groups undergo too get too college. On top of that getting the degree seems too be the easiest part of a career in law for some disadvantaged students.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think my major problem with those saying anyone can do its seem to be underplaying the struggle certain socio economic groups undergo too get too college. On top of that getting the degree seems too be the easiest part of a career in law for some disadvantaged students.

I think you're missing the fact that it's the easiest part for any law student. KI and Blackhall are difficult to get into no matter who you are. At that point your degree (marks: 1.1, 2.1) and the further exams are what matter either way anyway.

I understand that there are more difficulties for the disadvantaged when it comes to third level education but that applies to any subject.

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I'm studying law and know many others (through college and interning) who have done so, I think only three attended a private school. Others came from quite disadvantaged schools and have done very well for themselves, better than the private school students. I attended public school btw.

Well thats good too hear. I hope things are changing in this regard. I don't want a situation where we get x amount from a deis school and y amount from public. I am against advantage linked too anything but academic achievement.
I am actually not a fan hear programmes people will be surprised to know.

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I think you're missing the fact that it's the easiest part for any law student. KI and Blackhall are difficult to get into no matter who you are. At that point your degree (marks: 1.1, 2.1) and the further exams are what matter either way anyway.

I understand that there are more difficulties for the disadvantaged when it comes to third level education but that applies to any subject.

Yes thats what I said in an earlier post. I would say science differs in that you require no contacts too make good.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think my major problem with those saying anyone can do its seem to be underplaying the struggle certain socio economic groups undergo too get too college. On top of that getting the degree seems too be the easiest part of a career in law for some disadvantaged students.

Well if you are not prepared to believe opinions other than your own, why bother with this thread? Most posters here are genuinely trying to help you understand how mistaken your assumptions are, and all you do is accuse us of lying, flippant or misinformed.

Cody Pomeray

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wouldnt agree with some of the points for example our students seem to find careers in law the hardest too obtain.

You say a legal postgraduate qualification is more difficult to acquire than, say, a medical degree?

I find that hard to believe. How big is your sample of students who have progressed to careers in higher established professions compared with law? I would guess you don't have a very large sample to choose from.

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I'm studying law and know many others (through college and interning) who have done so, I think only three attended a private school.

Is this undergraduate?
How many in the class?

While I think the OP is off the mark, I as assuming your class must be tiny.

steddyeddy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well if you are not prepared to believe opinions other than your own, why bother with this thread? Most posters here are genuinely trying to help you understand how mistaken your assumptions are, and all you do is accuse us of lying, flippant or misinformed.

Lying? Right. And help me with understanding? It's not a matter of help I dont agree with some of ths points your made.

The fact is many of our students have been saying the same thing again and again regarding law. I myself assume fee paying pupils make up a large percentage of law graduates, barristers and judges. To large to be explained by coincidence.

You seem to think socio economic background is no impediment to a career in law historically. That is not what we have heard from students.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You say a legal postgraduate qualification is more difficult to acquire than, say, a medical degree?

I find that hard to believe. How big is your sample of students who have progressed to careers in higher established professions compared with law? I would guess you don't have a very large sample to choose from.

Is this undergraduate?
How many in the class?

While I think the OP is off the mark, I as assuming your class must be tiny.

Undergrad. Class of 70ish I think. I can think of one private school student (a mature student) but maybe there was or two others. None that I knew though. The other two I met while interning (out of a large group).

steddyeddy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You say a legal postgraduate qualification is more difficult to acquire than, say, a medical degree?

I find that hard to believe. How big is your sample of students who have progressed to careers in higher established professions compared with law? I would guess you don't have a very large sample to choose from.

Is this undergraduate?
How many in the class?

While I think the OP is off the mark, I as assuming your class must be tiny.

I am not talking about obtaining a law degree. From what I hear its the easy part.

Most of my students have progressed through science, medicine or engineering.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

You seem to think socio economic background is no impediment to a career in law historically. That is not what we have heard from students.

What are they basing their theory on? Could they just be trying to find excuses?

You also say that you assume that there are more private school students. Do you have any facts to back that up? You have ignored those who have said otherwise.

steddyeddy

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

What are they basing their theory on? Could they just be trying to find excuses?

You also say that you assume that there are more private school students. Do you have any facts to back that up? You have ignored those who have said otherwise.

No and for this reason: we have People who graduate, win awards, work on cancer, aids andother problems and start their own company or gp practice but those aspiring too be judges or barristers seem to run against oppisition. The students have generally also done very well in their degree.

One your second point there doesnt seem to be much consensus on the private school make up on this thread.

steddyeddy

Is there generally only one fee paying students per class in law?

NoQuarter

steddyeddy wrote: »

those aspiring too be judges or barristers seem to run against oppisition. The students have generally also done very well in their degree.

From my experience, that is nonsense.

XxMCRxBabyxX

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is there generally only one fee paying students per class in law?

I can only speak for my class. There may well be more in other colleges.

steddyeddy

NoQuarter wrote: »

From my experience, that is nonsense.

Im going too have to disagree with you on that point unless you can expand. Because I dont find it credible that judges and barristers where represented from all sections of society historically.

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.

By the way I dont blame humble backgrounds for an inability to get on. The fact is these students did well in their degree and are not bad students.

NoQuarter

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im going too have to disagree with you on that point unless you can expand. Because I dont find it credible that judges and barristers where represented from all sections of society historically.

I can only say from my own experience, coming from a public school and a working class background that I was met with absolutely no opposition in becoming a Barrister nor any opposition to become a solicitor if I had have chosen that route which was opened to me a few years ago. It is a financial struggle, of course, but as I said in an earlier post, there is no fix for that because you are a self-employed commercial business in competition with a couple of thousand others so the money just isnt there at the bottom rung.

Its the same with any business, there is no bar with anyone from any background setting up any business bar a financial struggle of having to pay to start the business and support yourself somehow whilst the business finds its feet. People with rich parents or people with money saved will have an easier time with this and life at the bar is no different.

steddyeddy

NoQuarter wrote: »

I can only say from my own experience, coming from a public school and a working class background that I was met with absolutely no opposition in becoming a Barrister nor any opposition to become a solicitor if I had have chosen that route which was opened to me a few years ago. It is a financial struggle, of course, but as I said in an earlier post, there is no fix for that because you are a self-employed commercial business in competition with a couple of thousand others so the money just isnt there at the bottom rung.

Its the same with any business, there is no bar with anyone from any background setting up any business bar a financial struggle of having to pay to start the business and support yourself somehow whilst the business finds its feet. People with rich parents or people with money saved will have an easier time with this and life at the bar is no different.

Good post. I just think I find it annoying when I hear people say its no harder coming foment a disadvantaged background ect.

McCrack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good post. I just think I find it annoying when I hear people say its no harder coming foment a disadvantaged background ect.

Has anybody on this thread said that?

NoQuarter

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good post. I just think I find it annoying when I hear people say its no harder coming foment a disadvantaged background ect.

I think people will accept that its financially more difficult, as is the very nature of it, but what we are trying to say is that there is no bar to disadvantaged persons making it. Absolutely not.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

Lying? Right. And help me with understanding? It's not a matter of help I dont agree with some of ths points your made.

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You are not, however, entitled to assert that other people's opinions must be wrong just because they are at variance with yours.

The fact is many of our students have been saying the same thing again and again regarding law.

Yet you don't question ten further on this not can you accept the posibility that they are not able to give a definitive view on the whole legal profession. A number of explanations have already been provided, not least of which is that law is a tough career regardless of your background.

I myself assume fee paying pupils make up a large percentage of law graduates, barristers and judges. To large to be explained by coincidence.

"Assume". Vs other posters who profess to have first hand experience to the contrary. You haven't even quantified what you think a large percentage is. Is 10% large? Or 90%? What would be an acceptable level etc?

You seem to think socio economic background is no impediment to a career in law historically. That is not what we have heard from students.

Historically it was. For example, until Daniel o Connell no catholic could become a member of the inner bar. But now? Look, face facts:

1) students do not have the same understanding of a profession as people who work in it;
2) it is easier to blame external factors than to blame yourself;
3) we live in a world where people from disadvantaged backgrounds are constantly told that they are disadvantaged;
4) there is no clear demographic trend in the legal profession, and whenever this is pointed out to you you shift the goalposts.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

No and for this reason: we have People who graduate, win awards, work on cancer, aids andother problems and start their own company or gp practice but those aspiring too be judges or barristers seem to run against oppisition. The students have generally also done very well in their degree.

Well obviously your group has a strong aptitude towards science and medicine, and away from law. If I picked a random bunch of students who were good at law but bad at medicine I wouldn't assume they are discriminated against, like you seem to.

One your second point there doesnt seem to be much consensus on the private school make up on this thread.

There is a fairly strong consensus that the bar is far from being a majority or even significant minority privately educated, and there is unanimity that being a graduate from a fee paying school is not a prerequisite, significant advantage or even relevant factor in getting into the law library. Again, there is unanimity that people from national schools and non-fee paying schools can easily join the law library and commence practise, and everyone also agrees that such a career is tough for everyone involved.

No one agrees with your view I'm sorry to say.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good post. I just think I find it annoying when I hear people say its no harder coming foment a disadvantaged background ect.

I find it annoying that people who are unwilling to risk entering a competitive environment don't face facts and say "look, it's just not for me" and revert to the conspiracy theory that its an old boys club and my accent excludes me from the group etc etc. it's just not true.

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good post. I just think I find it annoying when I hear people say its no harder coming foment a disadvantaged background ect.

How many travellers are University Professors, how many GP's how many surgeons, how many heading up large multinational companies, how many run ministerial departments. I believe the answer is none but I'm open to correction. How many are Barristers well 1, but hopefully he will mean others follow in his footsteps.

Sorry I correct myself the first traveller GP graduated 2012, 7 years after the first traveller barrister.

subrosa

The elephant in the room with regard to the Barristers profession is the fees charged by the Inns. The current fee for the degree course is 12,500 (ish). This is a significant barrier to entry for people from a less well-off background. Added to this is the 1,500 (ish) that the Law Library will charge you up front when you join the library. The possiblity to do the course over two years (and therefore work during it) is fairly recent.

My experience of the Bar is that most people, but by no means all, are from middle class backgrounds. Having said that the complexion is not all that different from my (non-law) undergraduate class.

Manach

My own 2p, coming from a poorish rural conservative background myself, is that there is no real barrier to going down the legal route in Ireland, beyond the cost/time involved. Public/Private schools not an issue and ditto family background. The law degree itself can be picked up, to coin a phrase "in a fit of absent mindedness" (Engineer myself), but the extra time/resources going down the formal legal profession route is a bit daunting.

Pro Hoc Vice

subrosa wrote: »

The elephant in the room with regard to the Barristers profession is the fees charged by the Inns. The current fee for the degree course is 12,500 (ish). This is a significant barrier to entry for people from a less well-off background. Added to this is the 1,500 (ish) that the Law Library will charge you up front when you join the library. The possiblity to do the course over two years (and therefore work during it) is fairly recent.

My experience of the Bar is that most people, but by no means all, are from middle class backgrounds. Having said that the complexion is not all that different from my (non-law) undergraduate class.

The above statment is incorrect, the Kings Inns course was always a 2 year evening course up until the early 2000's it then changed to a 1 year full time day course and a few years later brought back the part time course. In relation to fees same can attract a grant.

In relation to library entry, while the payment of both the joining fee and annual membership are payable in the first year, it would be best to offer some method to spread that. But in any event membership is discounted each year until a person is 10 years qualified when full annual membership is due.

Cody Pomeray

steddyeddy wrote: »

I am not talking about obtaining a law degree. From what I hear its the easy part.

Then what are you talking about? Be specific. Are you talking about entry to the Inns?

I'm not sure how you could suggest that is any more contact based than university exams or the leaving certificate exams.

Contacts do matter in the profession, the same as for any other sole trader in the land. But a lack of contacts doesn't stop anyone from getting to the law library. I'd love to know how anyone suggests it does. You can be a hermit and successfully get through the Inns.

And since you appear to be referring to law graduates who have not got to the Inns, it seems you have no valid point.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is a fairly strong consensus that the bar is far from being a majority or even significant minority privately educated

What do we mean by privately educated? I would count grind schools like the Institute as private schooling. Perhaps there is a strong consensus to the above effect. It's still wrong.

subrosa

infosys wrote: »

the Kings Inns course was always a 2 year evening course up until the early 2000's it then changed to a 1 year full time day course and a few years later brought back the part time course.

My mistake. When I did the course it was the first year of the (re) introduction of the weekend option. I was not aware that it had existed before.

steddyeddy

McCrack wrote: »

Has anybody on this thread said that?

No they don't but they come out with the equally meaningless self-assuring mantra “anyone can do it”. Anyone can do it but it ignores the problem we have off being able to pay for an academic advantage eg private schools.

steddyeddy

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 don't Cody I expect them to be representative of the most intelligent of society and no those from realtively well off backgrounds.

steddyeddy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

Depends on the Science Johnny. I'm into the research end of biochemistry and unless I feck up it should be quite lucrative. Getting a doctorate of science is even harder than getting a doctorate of medicine but I'm not in it for the money.

I'm lucky in science in that I generally travel and am not confined to one university or country. This all but eliminates the possibility of neoptisim.

I have not heard of anyone being refused a job becuase of background but I have had students say that background is an asset. One student was in an interview waiting room when another applicant came back from the interview. he student asked the chap how did it go? The applicant said "ah it was grand he knew my dad and we ended up talking about the rugby."

I'm not saying it is the standard but contacts are an asset. I'm not saying a low socio economic background holds you back either but I'm saying those with contacts reportedly find it easier.

steddyeddy

I am taking on the points guys. It it good to see people from all backgrounds have made it. Some of our students do too but not all. I don't buy the fact that they were afraid to take risks for the simple fact is the students I deal with ar not simply from working class backgrounds, many are from foster homes and other tough backgrounds. They have taken many risks to get here believe you me.

The kids complain mostly of their annoyance with contacts. I would find that quite annoying to be honest. Maybe the students are put off by the idea of contacts than contacts or lack of contacts being a bar to success.

XxMCRxBabyxX

"steddyeddy wrote: »

.
One student was in an interview waiting room when another applicant came back from the interview. he student asked the chap how did it go? The applicant said "ah it was grand he knew my dad and we ended up talking about the rugby."
.

This is all anecdotal but the above doesn't necessarily mean that the guy in question got the job. I know a guy who came out with a similar story after an interview and was then was in shock when others were ofoffered the job and not him. That could be as much overconfidence and/or trying to scare the competition than anything else.

I have heard that some firms are actually less likely to hire you if you have certain connections due to the fear of nepotism accusations.

valleyoftheunos

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 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.

With all due respect to you and the work you do it seems you have very little experience or knowledge of the legal industry. My own class in Blackhall Place was very diverse in terms of age, geographical background and Socio-economic background. The least diverse factor was gender where women far out numbered men, the last point however is worth a thread all on its own.

I would also point out that no one got there on a free ride, every single person regardless of their background or "class" had worked very hard to get to that point.

Furthermore I find it remarkable that you would consider the experience of a single student as sufficient basis for your thesis on the matter, particularly when you consider all the other possible reasons and variables that lead to their struggling in the industry. As previously pointed out contacts are made not just inherited, it doesn't matter what job you want to do in what industry in what country, contacts are always going to play a role but those contacts are and can be made. the flip side of that is that just because someone went to a certain school doesn't mean they have a wealth of contacts that will allow them walk into any career.

steddyeddy wrote: »

....On top of that getting the degree seems too be the easiest part of a career in law for some disadvantaged students.

As already pointed out, I can assure you it is by far easiest part of starting a career in law.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

No they don't but they come out with the equally meaningless self-assuring mantra “anyone can do it”. Anyone can do it but it ignores the problem we have off being able to pay for an academic advantage eg private schools.

Abolish private schools then!

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

I am taking on the points guys. It it good to see people from all backgrounds have made it. Some of our students do too but not all. I don't buy the fact that they were afraid to take risks for the simple fact is the students I deal with ar not simply from working class backgrounds, many are from foster homes and other tough backgrounds. They have taken many risks to get here believe you me.

The kids complain mostly of their annoyance with contacts. I would find that quite annoying to be honest. Maybe the students are put off by the idea of contacts than contacts or lack of contacts being a bar to success.

Contacts, just so were clear, means people you know who work in the same area. So a person who wants to be a barrister but refuses to socialize or be agreeable to people they work with is like a stripper who refuses to take her clothes off in public.

Cody Pomeray

steddyeddy wrote: »

I am taking on the points guys.

...The kids complain mostly of their annoyance with contacts. I would find that quite annoying to be honest. Maybe the students are put off by the idea of contacts than contacts or lack of contacts being a bar to success.

Fine but what are you talking about?

You still haven't answered this... at what point along the line do you say that old contacts become most relevant?

Because you don't seem to be talking about contacts after the Inns here. How many of those you are talking about have been called to the Bar? Because prior to being called to the Bar, I don't see the relevance of contacts at all.

And as everyone (I hope) agrees, there isn't a sole trader in the land who doesn't require contacts, once they get into business. Same with Barristers.

The thing is, I actually think you have a point in that Barristers' backgrounds are largely un-representative of the wider socio-economic backdrop of the country. I just think you're approaching the issue in a completely narrow and erroneous way.

camphor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Because prior to being called to the Bar, I don't see the relevance of contacts at all.

Contacts prior to being called to the bar can make a huge difference with devilling. That can make or break a career. The good masters are booked years ahead.

Cody Pomeray

camphor wrote: »

Contacts prior to being called to the bar can make a huge difference with devilling. That can make or break a career. The good masters are booked years ahead.

eh, that's why I am asking about contacts in the run-up to being called to the bar.

There's absolutely no doubt that contacts are helpful for being a pupil and a junior with strong prospects. Only the most naive would deny that.

I don't believe these are the people the OP is talking about, or has met.

LowKeyReturn

camphor wrote: »

Contacts prior to being called to the bar can make a huge difference with devilling. That can make or break a career. The good masters are booked years ahead.

These are so easily made that even I've done it. Closest I got to private(public) school was jumping across the ditch to chat to the girls in the private school next door to the middle school I used to go to.

steddyeddy

Ok so has anyone any advice for making contacts for devling purposes? That's the one where you work pro bono for two years or more isnt it?

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ok so has anyone any advice for making contacts for devling purposes? That's the one where you work pro bono for two years or more isnt it?

Its a lottery, its like marriage some people get on with a master others not. Its like any relationship. Making contacts as a barrister is like any other business if you get on with people it helps.

camphor

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

These are so easily made that even I've done it. Closest I got to private(public) school was jumping across the ditch to chat to the girls in the private school next door to the middle school I used to go to.

Wait till you've devilled and started in practice and see how good those contacts are. I know many people who were given bum steers by college lecturers.

NoQuarter

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ok so has anyone any advice for making contacts for devling purposes? That's the one where you work pro bono for two years or more isnt it?

Theres no need. Id say 95% of the devils that start didnt know their masters before. All you do is call someone who looks good, if they are taken they will recommend others and thats it. Its not contacts based. I mean maybe if someones father was a Barrister or Solicitor they might be able to ask the master if they are free an can they take their son/daughter but thats about it. But that is the the rare situation nowadays.

There is little nepotism anymore if you ask me, the opportunities are there for absolutely anyone who will work hard enough to get them, whether they are from the richest or poorest backgrounds.

Pro Hoc Vice

camphor wrote: »

Wait till you've devilled and started in practice and see how good those contacts are. I know many people who were given bum steers by college lecturers.

If college lecturers could they would!!

steddyeddy

Thanks for the advice guys info, johnny, lost and the rest! As I say I'm a scientist and have no experience in law. The students I deal with would be from secondary school onwards to people looking to start devling. I work in a general capacity with secondary students who want to get into college but a science specific capacity most of the time. So I appreciate the advice.

johnnyskeleton

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ok so has anyone any advice for making contacts for devling purposes?

1. Speak to practicising lawyers, do an intership for them, go drinking with them, don't be a jerk, etc.
2. See step 1.

That's the one where you work pro bono for two years or more isnt it?

If you don't really understand what "pro bono" means, or the nature of deviling, I don't think you are in any position to comment about how the legal profession works, to be honest.

But yes, devilling is a period of apprenticeship where there is no direct payment between the established barrister (master) and the new entrant to the profession (devil). There is no contract for service, there is no obligation to work, there is nothing to stop the new entrant from earning money from their own cases and the benefit of devilling is, in most cases, about 70-80% to the benefit of the devil and only about 20-30% to the benefit of the master.