Legal careers and private school qouatas

LowKeyReturn

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.

Thats why you do work ex and make contacts outside of college, its also why you spread the net very widely.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

What a strange thing to say. I can't remember the last time I ever heard that x employment is 20% to the benefit of the employer and 80% to the benefit of the employee.

It's an irrational way of looking at it. As long as there remains any marginal benefit to the master - and these benefits are both professional and financial - he would be stupid not to take on a pupil. This is not a zero sum game and the value of each opportunity cannot be given such silly, random values.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What a strange thing to say. I can't remember the last time I ever heard that x employment is 20% to the benefit of the employer and 80% to the benefit of the employee.

It's an irrational way of looking at it. As long as there remains any marginal benefit to the master - and these benefits are both professional and financial - he would be stupid not to take on a pupil. This is not a zero sum game and the value of each opportunity cannot be given such silly, random values.

But a devil master relationship is nothing like an employment relationship. There is no obligation on the master to give payment, nor is there any obligation on the Devil to perform any particular duty.

But in the vast majority of cases it is to the benefit of the devil, in that the master gives to the devil access to his contacts, and precedent bank.

hullaballoo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What a strange thing to say. I can't remember the last time I ever heard that x employment is 20% to the benefit of the employer and 80% to the benefit of the employee.

It's an irrational way of looking at it. As long as there remains any marginal benefit to the master - and these benefits are both professional and financial - he would be stupid not to take on a pupil. This is not a zero sum game and the value of each opportunity cannot be given such silly, random values.

That's really not how the relationship works, though. johnnyskeleton is more or less on the money in terms of the benefits: they are strongly weighted in the devils favour. There are some who would argue there is no actual benefit to the master because of the burden of taking on the role.

It's not universal because of relationship dynamics and other micro factors but in general, taking on a devil is a very generous thing for an established practitioner to do and I don't think any view to the contrary is healthy for the current system. It would simply discourage people from willingly giving up time to train, teach and develop people who genuinely could not survive without that help.

Cody Pomeray

hullaballoo wrote: »

That's really not how the relationship works, though. johnnyskeleton is more or less on the money in terms of the benefits: they are strongly weighted in the devils favour.

It's not a question of proportionate benefits. Why should it be? That's a silly way of looking at any 'employment' transaction.

If there is a net marginal benefit to both sides, then they, being bright individuals, will share in the project. Paddy the master has nothing to lose whether Eileen the pupil is getting 100% of the value he is, or whether she is getting 150% the value. The values are of a different order; they are synergistic, they do not have to balance out.

The respective values of each net marginal benefit might sound relevant at first glance. But if it isn't clear to anyone why this is irrelevant, then so be it.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What a strange thing to say. I can't remember the last time I ever heard that x employment is 20% to the benefit of the employer and 80% to the benefit of the employee.

It's relevant here because most people, including it seems the OP, don't really understand the concept of devilling. To say that a devil works for a master for free makes it seem a one way system and perhaps a form of slavery. But, as infosys says its not employment. The best analogy I can give in a modern context is if a trainee chef asks if he/she can help out in a kitchen for a few nights. Obviously there is benefit to the kitchen to have an extra spud peeler, but most of the benefit goes to the potential chef. Moreover, the chef is not intending to work there long term, but is planning/has already set up on their own.

It's an irrational way of looking at it. As long as there remains any marginal benefit to the master - and these benefits are both professional and financial - he would be stupid not to take on a pupil.

I disagree. Obviously some barristers couldn't function without a devil, but not all of them. Taking on a devil means introducing them to solicitors. This in turn means that they could take work away from the master. They also give their time and experience to the devil. As said above, a good master can make a significant difference to a career, so while my figures are illustrative only and obviously can't be gospel, they are, in my view, a reasonable estimate of the relationship.

camphor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They also give their time and experience to the devil. As said above, a good master can make a significant difference to a career, so while my figures are illustrative only and obviously can't be gospel, they are, in my view, a reasonable estimate of the relationship.

What about those who have devils just for sex?

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's not a question of proportionate benefits. Why should it be? That's a silly way of looking at any 'employment' transaction.

If there is a net marginal benefit to both sides, then they, being bright individuals, will share in the project. Paddy the master has nothing to lose whether Eileen the pupil is getting 100% of the value he is, or whether she is getting 150% the value. The values are of a different order; they are synergistic, they do not have to balance out.

The respective values of each net marginal benefit might sound relevant at first glance. But if it isn't clear to anyone why this is irrelevant, then so be it.

It is not an employment situation. Imagine a self employed business man who takes in a young man, he is training that person and giving him all the necessary tools to compete with him in a very short time. He introduces him to all the people who give him work, he introduces him to the judges and persons working in the courts, he gives him his tools of the trade (precedents) in return he gets a person to do the minor work, and supports him if it goes wrong. Remember from the off the Devil can compete with his master for work. In many cases his first few reasonable cases are given to him by the master.

Pro Hoc Vice

camphor wrote: »

What about those who have devils just for sex?

Lol.

johnnyskeleton

camphor wrote: »

What about those who have devils just for sex?

I'll take two please!

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To say that a devil works for a master for free makes it seem a one way system and perhaps a form of slavery.

Slavery is a strong term but I think there is a certain amount of exploitation. Not necessarily by the master, mind you, but by the profession on an aggregate level.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not suggesting it's a form of slavery. In response to the apprehension which you are citing, it is sufficient to simply point out the benefit that a pupil derives from his apprenticeship. Worrying over whether the master's benefit is "20%" or "80%" is not relevant to anything.

But, as infosys says its not employment. The best analogy I can give in a modern context is if a trainee chef asks if he/she can help out in a kitchen for a few nights. Obviously there is benefit to the kitchen to have an extra spud peeler, but most of the benefit goes to the potential chef. Moreover, the chef is not intending to work there long term, but is planning/has already set up on their own.

I wouldn't liken someone with, say, 5 years of training behind him as a spud peeler. Law schools and to a lesser extent the Inns might give impractical instructions, but someone starting the apprenticeship stage of their career is not some unskilled spud peeler.

infosys wrote: »

It is not an employment situation.

Ok I ignored this the first time you said it because no offence, but can we just assume everyone already understands this? I think it should be obvious from the context, if not the inverted commas/ italics, that 'employment' is not intended to literally denote the relationship.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Slavery is a strong term but I think there is a certain amount of exploitation. Not necessarily by the master, mind you, but by the profession on an aggregate level.

Ok, well I have a different view than yours. Perhaps you might let me know what you think would be a non-exploitative set up for devilling/apprenticeship?

Worrying over whether the master's benefit is "20%" or "80%" is not relevant to anything.

I'm not worrying about it, I'm simply giving an illustration to the OP for him to put it in context.

I wouldn't liken someone with, say, 5 years of training behind him as a spud peeler. Law schools and to a lesser extent the Inns might give impractical instructions, but someone starting the apprenticeship stage of their career is not some unskilled spud peeler.

I would, and I think most people who start devilling have never spoken in court before would be wise to eat humble pie and recognize that they have to start at the very bottom. Some devils go into court in their first week full of confidence and the knowledge that with 4-5 years college behind them they are an expert on law. The master (of the high court) eats those types up and spits them out!

Pro Hoc Vice

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

It is not. I have no friend at the bar who was born into a rich family. Yes of course people who have rich parents are barristers. But so are very many from very ordinary background, just like me. If people find it hard to make it that's their issue and I really am fed up with people telling me its impossible for me to be a barrister. I am a barrister, I'm from a blue collar background. I'm the only lawyer in all my many cousins and siblings. There is no on in the previous generation who was a lawyer.

Getting on in any career should be less dependant on bring born into a rich family, but its a fact of life if your parents are rich you have a better start in life. But the law is the fairest profession in my opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I wouldn't liken someone with, say, 5 years of training behind him as a spud peeler. Law schools and to a lesser extent the Inns might give impractical instructions, but someone starting the apprenticeship stage of their career is not some unskilled spud peeler.

Ok I ignored this the first time you said it because no offence, but can we just assume everyone already understands this? I think it should be obvious from the context, if not the inverted commas/ italics, that 'employment' is not intended to literally denote the relationship.

As a person with undergrad, postgrad and the inns, I can assure you a spud peeler had more experience than me. But that's what Devilling is all about its the final piece in the jigsaw.

If you don't mean employment what is your argument.

To the OP I don't claim to know how academia works, or the systems involved in getting and keeping a job. Hence why I don't, say anything because I don't know anything about it. Yet people who have had a number of people who have actually devilled and worked as barristers, and they are from ordinary backgrounds, are ignored because their experience does not back up the theory. As a scientist is that not the idea, come up with a theory, if its disproved come up with a new one, not stick to the old one no matter what.

johnnyskeleton

infosys wrote: »

It is not. I have no friend at the bar who was born into a rich family. Yes of course people who have rich parents are barristers. But so are very many from very ordinary background, just like me. If people find it hard to make it that's their issue and I really am fed up with people telling me its impossible for me to be a barrister. I am a barrister, I'm from a blue collar background. I'm the only lawyer in all my many cousins and siblings. There is no on in the previous generation who was a lawyer.

Getting on in any career should be less dependant on bring born into a rich family, but its a fact of life if your parents are rich you have a better start in life. But the law is the fairest profession in my opinion.

Well said.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, well I have a different view than yours. Perhaps you might let me know what you think would be a non-exploitative set up for devilling/apprenticeship?

i think a fairer system of dealing with library fees would be a helpful start. The senior members and the governing authority that seem so concerned about 'disrepute' and 'integrity' have no problem overseeing a system where well educated trainees are forced to do unpaid work, go along with archaic anti-competitive traditions, while working every spare hour down the local Londis.

Older Barristers... not seniors, but the ones who were lucky to go through pre-recession, some of whom are now masters,... think this is highly amusing. People can smile away, and they can hand down endless guff about 'work ethic' and 'learning the trade' on this bulletin board and "shur aren't we lucky? thanks boss! three bags full boss!", it's nonsense.

I've said this plenty of times. Most people who have joined the bar in the last few years aren't in it for the money any more. New recruits like the work, and want to do a good job. Arcane, outdated, arduous and inflexible demands are bad for the health and standing of the profession.

The master (of the high court) eats those types up and spits them out!

Funnily enough, I don't think the master would enjoy that sort of caricature any more than the people you're talking about do. Every barrister is tasked with respectfully advancing their arguments to the extent that their knowledge allows. After that, people can characterise it as they want. Whatever.

infosys wrote: »

As a person with undergrad, postgrad and the inns, I can assure you a spud peeler had more experience than me.

I didn't say experience. It is axiomatic that an apprentice is inexperienced.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

i think a fairer system of dealing with library fees would be a helpful start.

I agree with you in respect of the joining fee - there is no administrative or logical reason why a new entrant pays an extra €1,500 or whatever on top of their first year fees simply to join. There was a plan to make masters pay this fee but that fell foul of competition rules.

But don't forget that the fees in the law library are already on a gradient scale. Moreover, these are fees for specific services eg book rental and use of premises etc. there is no reason to presume that a devil uses less services than a senior counsel, so there is a subsidization already there. And it would be very difficult for a barrister to set up on their own with a place to work from with books and such for under the few grand it costs to be a member of the law library.

The senior members and the governing authority that seem so concerned about 'disrepute' and 'integrity' have no problem overseeing a system where well educated trainees are forced to do unpaid work, go along with archaic anti-competitive traditions, while working every spare hour down the local Londis.

Don't be so sure that they didn't go through the same thing themselves. But lets look at some other industries. Do people complain that the plumbers/buikders/carpenters body is doing nothing about the fact that newly qualified tradesmen after 4 years apprenticeship have difficulties getting paid for contractor jobs and have to work part time?

Or like most self employed people do they just have to get on with it? I think most of the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the industry. Being self employed means that you have to plow your own furrow.

By the way, what anti competitive practices are you referring to?

Older Barristers... not seniors, but the ones who were lucky to go through pre-recession, some of whom are now masters,... think this is highly amusing. People can smile away, and they can hand down endless guff about 'work ethic' and 'learning the trade' on this bulletin board and "shur aren't we lucky? thanks boss! three bags full boss!", it's nonsense.

It's not nonsense, how do you know they haven't had to put in a hard slog with part time jobs etc themselves when they were starting up? Anyone who joins the bar knows what is ahead of them, and while I'm sure there's more to the reality than can be communicated to them in advance, but it can't really come as a shock to most new barristers that they have to work part time or have another source of income for 3-5 years.

I've said this plenty of times. Most people who have joined the bar in the last few years aren't in it for the money any more.

I'm sorry to get personal, but you seem to have a fairly big chip on your shoulder. You seem to think that the past generation of barristers were all in it for the money and all had an easy ride, whereas now it is only people who don't care about money and love the work, but who are finding it conspicuously harder than previous generations. I just don't think that this view is accurate, save that the traditional safety valves of leaving to go in house etc are no longer there.

New recruits like the work, and want to do a good job. Arcane, outdated, arduous and inflexible demands are bad for the health and standing of the profession.

Other than the model of being self employed and devilling to get a start, what other arcane practices and what arduous and inflexible demands are placed on younger barristers?

steddyeddy

infosys wrote: »

It is not. I have no friend at the bar who was born into a rich family. Yes of course people who have rich parents are barristers. But so are very many from very ordinary background, just like me. If people find it hard to make it that's their issue and I really am fed up with people telling me its impossible for me to be a barrister. I am a barrister, I'm from a blue collar background. I'm the only lawyer in all my many cousins and siblings. There is no on in the previous generation who was a lawyer.

Getting on in any career should be less dependant on bring born into a rich family, but its a fact of life if your parents are rich you have a better start in life. But the law is the fairest profession in my opinion.

I think its one of the rare times on boards where someone turns around and says "fair enough I was misinformed"! My main priority is getting students into science and I'm only going on what some law students tell me but I will take a closer look at this. Your points have been very helpful guys thank you.

LowKeyReturn

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think its one of the rare times on boards where someone turns around and says "fair enough I was misinformed"! My main priority is getting students into science and I'm only going on what some law students tell me but I will take a closer look at this. Your points have been very helpful guys thank you.

A new barrister told me a story that I quite like. If you were a hairdresser down in, say, Cork and you asked a few hairdressers what it was like being a hairdresser in Dublin, as you were thinking of moving up there and setting up a hair dressing business, what do you think the range or responses would be?

Please also never underestimate the laziness of undergraduates, myself included, especially in the 'cool courses'. Law unlike medicine, doesn't require anything other than a good memory at leaving cert (to get the points for Trinners/UCD) and frankly beyond that, the undergrad is only one step up from a basic arts degree. I'm not saying that there aren't significant hurdles outside of the academic realm, but there is a big issue with the majority of degree courses not preparing students for a profession that is tough going at the best of times. Hence the current vogue for clinical skills.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

there is no reason to presume that a devil uses less services than a senior counsel, so there is a subsidization already there.

The difference is that a pupil's financial return of membership of the law library is miniscule compared to a more established member, for whose financial benefit the pupil may be working.

Don't be so sure that they didn't go through the same thing themselves. But lets look at some other industries. Do people complain that the plumbers/buikders/carpenters body is doing nothing about the fact that newly qualified tradesmen after 4 years apprenticeship have difficulties getting paid for contractor jobs and have to work part time?

Let me see... do plumbers/ builders/ carpenters have an embargo on advertising and approaching clients? No, that would be silly.

Or like most self employed people do they just have to get on with it?

Barristers are not 'like most self employed people'. Most self employed people can run down to Reads of Nassau Street and print off 500 business cards for €50, approach clients, and trade competitively, you know, by not fixing prices and stuff. They are subject to a level playing field with their peers, not subject to arbitrary and silly, out-dated restrictions of a monopolised system.

I have to say you're entitled to your views, but they and some other "I am but a humble spud peeler" arguments are not reflective of what young barristers are saying and going through in real life. I know there is always an element of internet swagger, and this forum has its fair share of moral preachers, or maybe some of these opinions are honestly held. I'm just saying that a stranger would be wrong to look at this thread and take it as reflective of how young barristers feel about the profession in 2013. There's a lot of anger and disillusion with a profession so obsessed with integrity and yet so determined to resist progress or fairness.

steddyeddy

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

A new barrister told me a story that I quite like. If you were a hairdresser down in, say, Cork and you asked a few hairdressers what it was like being a hairdresser in Dublin, as you were thinking of moving up there and setting up a hair dressing business, what do you think the range or responses would be?

Please also never underestimate the laziness of undergraduates, myself included, especially in the 'cool courses'. Law unlike medicine, doesn't require anything other than a good memory at leaving cert (to get the points for Trinners/UCD) and frankly beyond that, the undergrad is only one step up from a basic arts degree. I'm not saying that there aren't significant hurdles outside of the academic realm, but there is a big issue with the majority of degree courses not preparing students for a profession that is tough going at the best of times. Hence the current vogue for clinical skills.

Well from what I knw of friends who study law it seems to be as hard as you want it to be. The same with science really. You could gluide through with a bad gpa or put the work in and get into research.

LowKeyReturn

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well from what I knw of friends who study law it seems to be as hard as you want it to be. The same with science really. You could gluide through with a bad gpa or put the work in and get into research.

The difference with science is that M-theory is genuinely harder than say Speed=distance over time. In law it's all slightly above speed=distance over time in relation difficulty, there is just a lot more of it. It also doesn't always make logical sense (I'm not saying science does either :P)

There is also far less funding available for legal research unless it's in Irish or to do with Brehon law. SFI and the HRB hand out grants like sweeties imho.

Also to be fair, it's not beyond the realms of possibility for come out of University with a bare pass, study like a demon, pass the entry exams to the Inns and do rather well, relying on your other skills. I'm not sure if that supports or further refutes some of your opinions in all honesty!

EDIT: Just to underscore the point, one Barrister with a doctorate from Cambridge and another with a masters from the same institution lecturing oiks like me in an old Army Barracks on the south circular, not to mention the various Harvard LLMs.