Debating and being a Barrister

edgal

Is debating / mooting in college an important prerequisite when considering whether to become a barrister rather than a solicitor?
Studying for a BCL at the moment but I have not got involved in debating because already the standard seems too high for a beginner.

Also general questions about a career as a Barrister..
Why are there no barrister type firms like there are with solicitors ? Would the big solicitor law firms just have their main free lance barristers that they use to advocate in Court?

How should I decide whether to go into a career as a solicitor or barrister?
My main lean toward the latter is because it seems less office base, there's no boss and seems more advocacy involvement.

Without contacts in the field is it extremely difficult to get a good barrister to devil with ? Or would a first class honors law degree prior to the kings inns be enough?
(future speculation)

johnnyskeleton

edgal wrote: »

Is debating / mooting in college an important prerequisite when considering whether to become a barrister rather than a solicitor?

No, but I suppose it can't hurt to get a bit of public speaking experience, make friends, get into the discipline of organising your thoughts on an unfamiliar topic and presenting them.

Studying for a BCL at the moment but I have not got involved in debating because already the standard seems too high for a beginner.

It's really not - a polished public orator isn't better than someone who can make some very intelligent points.

Why are there no barrister type firms like there are with solicitors ? Would the big solicitor law firms just have their main free lance barristers that they use to advocate in Court?

Tradition and bar council rules. Barristers in Ireland are people who work in an "independent referral bar". This means that they provide their services as specialist litigators to other lawyers, rather than directly to the client. Other countries, such as the usa have people who do the same but they are not called barristers and it is not as rigid a system. In the uk, barristers can work in a firm of solicitors or, more commonly, in a group called chambers where they are still independent by and large but share services.

Typically, solicitors tend to use the same barristers for much of their work but not always.

How should I decide whether to go into a career as a solicitor or barrister?

Lots of threads on this already.

My main lean toward the latter is because it seems less office base, there's no boss and seems more advocacy involvement.

Barristerring nowadays requires significantly more paperwork/office work than previously - a litigation solicitor will probably have a similar court/office split as a barrister. Being your own boss is not quite the same as having no boss. But yes, there is more advocacy generally.

Without contacts in the field is it extremely difficult to get a good barrister to devil with ? Or would a first class honors law degree prior to the kings inns be enough?
(future speculation)

Neither of those things is as important as having contacted the desired master several years in advance, or calling them at the right time. Sometimes it is just random.

nuac

I agree generally with J Skeleton, except that I believe debating practice is important for any aspiring lawyer, or indeed for anyone who may have to make any kind of presentation or appearance before any group. That includes interviews

I knew or know some excellent lawyers on both sides of teh profession, very good on paper, but very weak on their feet, easily rattled or diverted by an exochet or heckle from the bench or opposition.

In any job you need to be able to think on your feet and be able to get your POV or case across.

Some of the larger college debating societies - the L and H in UCD, the Lit and Deb in UCG were bearbits. Heckling could be ferocious, but it was good training.
There were however quieter more civilised societies such as Solicitors Apprentices where experience or confidence can be gained.

In my time in secondary school there was actually no debating that I can recall, but there has been in my childrens' schools. I have encouraged them to take part. Now they can talk me down!. C'est la vie

Cody Pomeray

Debating/ mooting is important. It should be mandatory and examinable for law students. If you're the kind of person who can't maintain a calm head when your arguments are coming undone in public, short term nerves will be the least of your problems.

Confident public speaking is a skill that can be learned at the Bar but it's a lot less pressure when your professional standing and someone else's money isn't on the line.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Debating/ mooting is important. It should be mandatory and examinable for law students.

Presenting a legal case fairly and succinctly is not the same as taking pot shots at feminists and getting a hoot out of the crowd.

There is benefit to debating, but lets not overplay its relevance.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Presenting a legal case fairly and succinctly is not the same as taking pot shots at feminists and getting a hoot out of the crowd.

Mooting is not just about presenting a case fairly and succinctly. It's about oral delivery. It is already taught in UCD by a practising Barrister, and is an examinable module.

Taking pot shots at feminists does not earn extra credits, and "hoots" are no more sought ought than they are in court rooms.

It's hugely important. If you deny that, ok.

lawfilly

Mooting is very different to debating in style and substance.
Ive done both competitively.
However loads of opportunity in Kings Inns to get involved in mooting if you dont get a chance in university. It will most certainly stand to you in ant future career at the Bar!

Hunchback

Moot court is now a module in NUIG. It was hard work, and I was quite nervous (it was held in the Couthouse in Galway), but you learn SO much. Personally, I think I am too introverted to be an excellent litigator, but doing Moot court, if you have the opportunity, is something I would recommend a law student to avail of.

But it sounds like Moot court is not an option for you.

I know you say that you want to be a barrister, but maybe a a clinical placement might be a good option in your BCL, just to learn from outside the campus environment.

Anyhow, there are definitely others with more experience here that can offer you better advice than I can, but I would like to say that I really loved that point made by a previous poster that a few really intelligent points trump a polished orator.

Hunchback

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Moot court is now a module in NUIG. It was hard work, and I was quite nervous (it was held in the Couthouse in Galway), but you learn SO much. Personally, I think I am too introverted to be an excellent litigator, but doing Moot court, if you have the opportunity, is something I would recommend a law student to avail of.

But it sounds like Moot court is not an option for you.

I know you say that you want to be a barrister, but maybe a a clinical placement might be a good option in your BCL, just to learn from outside the campus environment.

Anyhow, there are definitely others with more experience here that can offer you better advice than I can, but I would like to say that I really loved that point made by a previous poster that a few really intelligent points trump a polished orator.

Obviously a clinical placement might have no bearing on debating or Mooting, I don't know, it's not something I have done yet, but maybe if you express an interest in litigation, you might find yourself in the courthouse watching the goings on??

I visit the courthouse in Galway during the academic year to soak it up. I think this is a good way to learn, you soak it up by osmosis, watching the experienced doing it. Can't wait to get back when they reconvene

AndonHandon

I would say that it is vital to get involved in debating in university for two reasons. One reason is for the experience and skills you will learn. It is easier said than done to make an intelligent point when put on the spot with dozens of people staring at you. The second, and most important, involves the contacts you make. As a barrister seeking to get established your contacts will be your strongest weapon.

nuac

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Moot court is now a module in NUIG. It was hard work, and I was quite nervous (it was held in the Couthouse in Galway), but you learn SO much. Personally, I think I am too introverted to be an excellent litigator, but doing Moot court, if you have the opportunity, is something I would recommend a law student to avail of.

But it sounds like Moot court is not an option for you.

I know you say that you want to be a barrister, but maybe a a clinical placement might be a good option in your BCL, just to learn from outside the campus environment.

Anyhow, there are definitely others with more experience here that can offer you better advice than I can, but I would like to say that I really loved that point made by a previous poster that a few really intelligent points trump a polished orator.

I agree with that;

I was apprenticed in Galway in the fifties, and often attended courts there.

During the jury trials one court watch leading barristers in action.

Also some prominent solicitors in the District and Circuit COurt.

Hippo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Mooting is not just about presenting a case fairly and succinctly. It's about oral delivery. It is already taught in UCD by a practising Barrister, and is an examinable module.

Taking pot shots at feminists does not earn extra credits, and "hoots" are no more sought ought than they are in court rooms.

It's hugely important. If you deny that, ok.

I'm assuming that the pot shots and hoots refer to debating rather than mooting.

valleyoftheunos

Hippo wrote: »

I'm assuming that the pot shots and hoots refer to debating rather than mooting.

I dunno I've seen some Judges get pretty riled up by a good moot.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Mooting is not just about presenting a case fairly and succinctly. It's about oral delivery. It is already taught in UCD by a practising Barrister, and is an examinable module.

Taking pot shots at feminists does not earn extra credits, and "hoots" are no more sought ought than they are in court rooms.

It's hugely important. If you deny that, ok.

Really very important to do mooting, as part of a degree, but did you advise another poster that getting a degree to practice as a solicitor was not necessary. I can't see how your logic works that out.

OP both debating and Mooting are very helpful to any person who intends to practice law. Parliamentary Debating is very good and teaches a person how to react quickly to situations and arguments, Irish Times style teaches the debater how to craft an argument with research and also how to Change argument to deal with opposition.

Mooting is only in the last few years becoming more main stream in colleges, when I went to college very few if any mooted. But it is growing and in my personal opinion any person considering law should at least try mooting. I have judged moots and debated and judged debates up to Worlds level. Both disciplines bring advantages to any who intends to practice law. But if advocacy is not your thing there is still room at the bar, I know a good few juniors who are amazing with drafting and submissions and research who work with an excellent SC who does all the advocacy, its horses for courses. I also know a number of solicitors who do there own advocacy in the Circuit Criminal Court, its rare in the Higher Courts but it does happen, the days of judges or counsel looking down on such actions in my opinion are long gone.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

Really very important to do mooting, as part of a degree, but did you advise another poster that getting a degree to practice as a solicitor was not necessary. I can't see how your logic works that out.

Yes it's very important to do mooting as part of a degree. I say that to someone embarking upon a law degree at undergraduate level. To anyone else, I say get public speaking experience.

Just because I say that a law degree is un-necessary for practice doesn't stop me from saying that law degrees are currently too impractical. Thankfully, this is changing.

Any confusion?

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes it's very important to do mooting as part of a degree. I say that to someone embarking upon a law degree at undergraduate level. To anyone else, I say get public speaking experience.

Just because I say that a law degree is un-necessary for practice doesn't stop me from saying that law degrees are currently too impractical. Thankfully, this is changing.

Any confusion?

No confusion at all, but why did you start out on the law degree road, as same is not necessary.

camphor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Just because I say that a law degree is un-necessary for practice doesn't stop me from saying that law degrees are currently too impractical. Thankfully, this is changing.

Any confusion?

A law degree is an academic qualification. It is not intended to be practical: that is the purpose of the vocational training provided by both branches of the profession.
As for mooting and debating, the biggest bores I have met are those who talk about their win against some prominent person 20 or 30 years ago and who wouldn't get out of a parking fine if they tried.

Pro Hoc Vice

camphor wrote: »

A law degree is an academic qualification. It is not intended to be practical: that is the purpose of the vocational training provided by both branches of the profession.
As for mooting and debating, the biggest bores I have met are those who talk about their win against some prominent person 20 or 30 years ago and who wouldn't get out of a parking fine if they tried.

I actually did laugh when I read that, because it can be so true. I have heard people say that and yes in most cases could not win any real case.

Cody Pomeray

infosys wrote: »

No confusion at all, but why did you start out on the law degree road, as same is not necessary.

Getting out of bed is 'not necessary'; people do it because they see it as a worthwhile personal exercise.

If I were only getting into law at 24 and wanted to be economical/ realistic with finances, would i have done a law undergrad? not a chance.

I left you to that thread infosys, take it up there to your heart's content.

camphor wrote: »

A law degree is an academic qualification. It is not intended to be practical: that is the purpose of the vocational training

I don't think a year at the Inns really cuts it. I think it's a skill you need to pick up much earlier, however you get it - debating, mooting, politics, whatever.

The law schools recognize this more and more. From installing replica courtrooms in law faculties, to involving practising barristers in teaching skills at undergraduate level (which I thinka all law schools probably do by now), current practice disagrees with you.

Pro Hoc Vice

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Getting out of bed is 'not necessary'; people do it because they see it as a worthwhile personal exercise.

If I were only getting into law at 24 and wanted to be economical/ realistic with finances, would i have done a law undergrad? not a chance.

I left you to that thread infosys, take it up there to your heart's content.

I don't think a year at the Inns really cuts it. I think it's a skill you need to pick up much earlier, however you get it - debating, mooting, politics, whatever.

The law schools recognize this more and more. From installing replica courtrooms in law faculties, to involving practising barristers in teaching skills at undergraduate level (which I thinka all law schools probably do by now), current practice disagrees with you.

Well I did decide to enter law at 25 and decided to get a degree in law first I am delighted I made that decision.

camphor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Getting out of bed is 'not necessary'; people do it because they see it as a worthwhile personal exercise.

If I were only getting into law at 24 and wanted to be economical/ realistic with finances, would i have done a law undergrad? not a chance.

I left you to that thread infosys, take it up there to your heart's content.

I don't think a year at the Inns really cuts it. I think it's a skill you need to pick up much earlier, however you get it - debating, mooting, politics, whatever.

The law schools recognize this more and more. From installing replica courtrooms in law faculties, to involving practising barristers in teaching skills at undergraduate level (which I thinka all law schools probably do by now), current practice disagrees with you.

Public speaking is part of a general education. Some of what is going on with moots is positively dangerous. The most important skill in a courtroom is to read the judge. A now retired judge once confided in me that the sentence goes up, the longer the mitigation plea goes on! Some idiots are so concerned with getting their elaborately prepared speech made that they don't realise that they are digging their client (and themselves) into a hole.

nuac

camphor wrote: »

Public speaking is part of a general education. Some of what is going on with moots is positively dangerous. The most important skill in a courtroom is to read the judge. A now retired judge once confided in me that the sentence goes up, the longer the mitigation plea goes on! Some idiots are so concerned with getting their elaborately prepared speech made that they don't realise that they are digging their client (and themselves) into a hole.

I agree that it is most important to keep one eye on the judge at all times.

No matter what line of argument you are making, if the judge asks a question that becomes the most important issue at present.

If the judge has stopped taking notes, it is time to move onto a new point or sit down.

Moots were before my time, but from what I hear students may be over-mooting.

However public speaking experience is essential, and debating societies are a good way to get it

Cody Pomeray

camphor wrote: »

Public speaking is part of a general education. Some of what is going on with moots is positively dangerous. The most important skill in a courtroom is to read the judge. A now retired judge once confided in me that the sentence goes up, the longer the mitigation plea goes on! Some idiots are so concerned with getting their elaborately prepared speech made that they don't realise that they are digging their client (and themselves) into a hole.

You seem to be confusing mooting with not knowing when to stop talking.

If mooting is "positively dangerous" it's surprising the judiciary, the law schools, Barristers in practice and the Inns are so supportive of it, or going out of their way to facilitate it.

gozunda

May I suggest the use of Public Speaking skills especially the preparation of Persuasive Speeches rather than Debating per se as the essential skill for all courtroom and legal matters

Firstly Public Speaking skills provide for a better understanding of rhetoric and the specific application of persuasive speech methodology - both being highly advantageous for the majority of adversarial circumstances

Secondly a knowledge of and ability to analyse stock issues of Persuasive Speeches will enable an advocate to deal with argument and counter argument more successfully


Obviously knowledge and practice go hand in hand and the more practice the better imo.

Bepolite

I'd never debated before hitting college, I've debated in two Irish Times competitions, one Irish Mace and a number of inter-varsity competitions. Some of the people I've debated against are the very top if the game, some having debated all over the world; Irish debating is very well respected. I've nothing but good things to say about the competitions or the people taking part despite being completely trounced at every turn. While you're on your feet, expect some very witty, and extremely cutting remarks. Taking points of information can be pretty gut wrenching but it's all giggles in the bar afterwards.

Mooting is a different animal entirely and the two should not be confused. Mooting is meant to be as close to real life as possible, and you treat the other side with respect, and above all you do not interrupt. It's a completely different skill set, you simply will not get your points across unless you are clear and succinct. The DCU National, in my opinion, is something every law student should experience, even if they simply go and watch. While Trinity and UCD with Queen's up there now and again (the Queen's guys are brilliant; tweed jackets and all) on the debating circuit, they are much less of a splash in the Mooting. This is bearing in mind in Mooting you generally don;t know what institution the other team is from. It's interesting to note that the debaters are from all walks of life, where as mooters are generally only law students. I make this point because it seems to me the distance, in ability, between law students seems generally smaller.

Anyway I've indulged in some anecdotes and waffle so I'll ramble on to my point. Don't avoid debating because you think the standard is too high. Everyone is having kittens before they stand up and anyone who isn't falls into to one of two categories; liars and the insane! Many people, especially in the initial rounds of even national competitions have never debated before. Give it a go, you've nothing to loose and free drinks to gain.

johnnyskeleton

Bepolite wrote: »

I'd never debated before hitting college, I've debated in two Irish Times competitions, one Irish Mace and a number of inter-varsity competitions. Some of the people I've debated against are the very top if the game, some having debated all over the world; Irish debating is very well respected. I've nothing but good things to say about the competitions or the people taking part despite being completely trounced at every turn. While you're on your feet, expect some very witty, and extremely cutting remarks. Taking points of information can be pretty gut wrenching but it's all giggles in the bar afterwards.

Mooting is a different animal entirely and the two should not be confused. Mooting is meant to be as close to real life as possible, and you treat the other side with respect, and above all you do not interrupt. It's a completely different skill set, you simply will not get your points across unless you are clear and succinct. The DCU National, in my opinion, is something every law student should experience, even if they simply go and watch. While Trinity and UCD with Queen's up there now and again (the Queen's guys are brilliant; tweed jackets and all) on the debating circuit, they are much less of a splash in the Mooting. This is bearing in mind in Mooting you generally don;t know what institution the other team is from. It's interesting to note that the debaters are from all walks of life, where as mooters are generally only law students. I make this point because it seems to me the distance, in ability, between law students seems generally smaller.

Anyway I've indulged in some anecdotes and waffle so I'll ramble on to my point. Don't avoid debating because you think the standard is too high. Everyone is having kittens before they stand up and anyone who isn't falls into to one of two categories; liars and the insane! Many people, especially in the initial rounds of even national competitions have never debated before. Give it a go, you've nothing to loose and free drinks to gain.

Try it, by all means. No one here is saying otherwise. Just don't take it as seriously as the debate society types. After all, they are not necessarily looking for someone who is good at debating, they are looking for someone who is good at their style of debate.

LutherBlissett

With the disclaimer that I did not really debate in college - just attended some public meetings and practice sessions - I have to say that the above post seems pretty bitter.

Contrary to the idea of there being a particular style that you must conform to, there are many different types of debating (like the poster above referred to - Times, Mace etc). It is not a case of one homogeneous, prescribed style as has been claimed. It is probably worth noting that the styles referred to above have probably been around far longer than individual debaters, so it's hardly an immutable thing established by "debating types" (as johnnyskeleton pejoratively referred to).

As to whether it's useful for law or not, well, I'm not a barrister, so I don't really know, but I can not imagine how publicly speaking in all the different formats referred to above could possibly hinder an individual. I witnessed some of the best debaters in my college adapt their styles pretty effectively from Times to Mace to other categories of competition. If people like that can adapt accordingly to a courtroom environment (and if they can change for individual debating events I can't really see why they would not be able to), I don't think there's really a question of debating being of some value in this regard.

johnnyskeleton

LutherBlissett wrote: »

With the disclaimer that I did not really debate in college - just attended some public meetings and practice sessions - I have to say that the above post seems pretty bitter.

Interesting ad hominem attack. I'm not bitter, my point, given that the OP is concerned that not debating in college might hinder his/her future career, is that the value of debating lies in having some experience of public speaking and making some friends, but its importance shouldn't be exaggerated. A lot of good barristers are bad at debating and vice versa. College acting would, IMO, be just as worthwhile as debating.

As to whether it's useful for law or not, well, I'm not a barrister, so I don't really know, but I can not imagine how publicly speaking in all the different formats referred to above could possibly hinder an individual.

No one said it would.

I witnessed some of the best debaters in my college adapt their styles pretty effectively from Times to Mace to other categories of competition. If people like that can adapt accordingly to a courtroom environment (and if they can change for individual debating events I can't really see why they would not be able to), I don't think there's really a question of debating being of some value in this regard.

I disagree, that's like saying that because someone can easily transfer their skills from rugby league to rugby union that they must also be a good snooker player. They are very different things.

LutherBlissett

Ah in fairness the tone of the post about "debating types" clearly suggested something about the style of debating being rigid and possibly exclusionary, there are many less hostile ways to phrase the point.

Regarding the rugby union/ league point you misunderstand - I'm not saying debaters will inevitably be good in the courtroom if they are in the chamber, I'm saying if they can adapt from one setting/ format to the other, the public speaking experience from one probably serves to enrich performance in the other. (In that sense I don't think we really disagree?)