Barrister earnings

antoinolachtnai

rule 8.6 is the particular one I am referring to. There are many other restrictions.

"8.6. In the interest of maintaining an independent Bar Barristers shall not carry on their practices as partners or as a group or as professional associates or in such a way so as to lead solicitors or others to believe that they are partners or members of a group or associated in the conduct of their profession as Barristers."

The Bar Council is not the regulator of the profession in any meaningful sense. It is a trade association which controls critical resources which are essential to barristers' work. I am a little surprised that a member of the profession would not know this basic fact.

johnnyskeleton

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am looking at the Council membership at the moment. These are excellent people offering quality, value and service in their work. But they are not very diverse looking. I just don't see how a career at the bar is really accessible to someone without quite a lot of wealth behind them.

Could be said about all professions. Not many people feel that they can access medicine if they cant afford grinds, have to work part time during the leaving cert, have disengaged teachers, cant survive six years in college followed by a few years working 100+ hours a week etc.

antoinolachtnai

For sure. I only said that in response to the proposition that rule 8.6 is designed or at least has an effect to increase the diversity and representativeness of those practising as barristers.

johnnyskeleton

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

For sure. I only said that in response to the proposition that rule 8.6 is designed or at least has an effect to increase the diversity and representativeness of those practising as barristers.

Which is rule 8.6? The chambers rule?

...And Justice

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just to avoid confusion on this point, a JC can find themselves paid better than some SCs but they would want to be exceptionally busy or doing work that is very well paid by its nature. Criminal work is not particularly well paid work but a very good living can be made by those who are busy.

SCs charge higher rates but might have less work, either by choice or as a result of having to "rebuild" their practice when they become SCs. It's like changing to a completely different job tbh and for many barristers, taking silk will never be an option for a variety of reasons. A very busy JC working mostly in the Circuit Court (particularly outside of Dublin) with a few High Court cases here and there would be mad to consider taking silk.

There are also Dublin practitioners who will never take silk as the type of work doesn't suit them.

Got it, didn't know what taking silk meant:o. This lad has been on high profile cases the last few years, and straight forward cases that don't make the news. He's "freelance" if that's the right way to put it? He works from the four courts, more defense than prosecution. I don't see a practice as such that you would see with attachment to insurance companies.

antoinolachtnai

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Which is rule 8.6? The chambers rule?

Yes. Is quoted above.

antoinolachtnai

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Which is rule 8.6? The chambers rule?

Yes. Is quoted above.

antoinolachtnai

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Fair comment - however I think the removal of the restrictions, that have historically been there (and have been loosened) is not a great idea for reasons beyond the scope of an earning discussion.

Unfortunately this is the heart of the economics of the whole thing. Maybe someone can explain to us about the historical reason for this particular restriction?

[...] As it stands a JC brings on his or her Devils and I assume (although I welcome correction here) a SC brings on talented JCs who one day become SCs and bring on their own JCs. Surely if there wasn't a self perpetuating stream of talent at the Bar it would have become apparent by now?

An SC is not permitted by his or her trade association to 'bring on talented JCs' beyond perhaps giving his or her recommendation. Being in association with other barristers is basically forbidden by rule 8.6. That is not to say that it does not happen, but it does not happen in public.

There is in general no economic incentive for more more experienced barristers to help less experienced barristers in their career, particularly if they are in a specialism. The reason is simple - if they do so, they are training in their own competition, and they will only be hurt, and will never benefit from their prospective protege's increased knowledge. No other profession works this way.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the heart of the economics of the whole thing. Maybe someone can explain to us about the historical reason for this particular restriction?

In short to try and maintain a degree of independence and equality of access.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

An SC is not permitted by his or her trade association to 'bring on talented JCs' beyond perhaps giving his or her recommendation. Being in association with other barristers is basically forbidden by rule 8.6. That is not to say that it does not happen, but it does not happen in public.

That's not my reading on 8.6.

I'll happily be corrected but is Ms Egan is aware of a few JCs who happen to have a talent for that work I'm sure they're at the top of the list ot be called.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is in general no economic incentive for more more experienced barristers to help less experienced barristers in their career, particularly if they are in a specialism. The reason is simple - if they do so, they are training in their own competition, and they will only be hurt, and will never benefit from their prospective protege's increased knowledge. No other profession works this way.

I completely disagree that no other profession tries to monopolise knowledge. However one learns from doing - to make that amount of money there had to be an awful lot of delegated doing.

johnnyskeleton

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is in general no economic incentive for more more experienced barristers to help less experienced barristers in their career, particularly if they are in a specialism. The reason is simple - if they do so, they are training in their own competition, and they will only be hurt, and will never benefit from their prospective protege's increased knowledge. No other profession works this way.

Every other profession works this way. Which is why the other professions control the number of people entering those professions by having limited training places. If the bar did that, they would have half the numbers they have now and the best specialist knoweldge would only be available to a select few clientel

antoinolachtnai

In what professions is it forbidden for a less experienced practitioner to work for a more experienced practitioner? In what profession are practitioners forbidden from going into business by one another?

All of this by their trade association?

Victor

Doctor - provided they have the required training, post-qualification experience and undergo the required CPD, they can operate as employees (within medical businesses or non-medical businesses), sole traders, partnerships, employ other medical and non-medical staff. Same goes for other medical professions. Foreign medics can come here and subject to much the same rules, and assuming they have the correct work permit, can operate here. Doctors can come together in multi-disciplinary practices where specialisation takes place - where competent, but ordinary doctors can overcome limitation by referring a patient to a colleague and such referral doesn't necessarily result in a loss of income.

Same with architects, engineers, surveyors, bankers, accountants, pilot, scientist, teacher, etc.

Few professions are as confined as law - to the point of some lawyers breaking down crying because their parents sent them to the wrong schools.

johnnyskeleton

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In what professions is it forbidden for a less experienced practitioner to work for a more experienced practitioner? In what profession are practitioners forbidden from going into business by one another?

All of this by their trade association?

Well youre changing the goal posts now. You were originally talking about how professions prevent other people gaining experience for fear of competition.

In the bar its not forbidden for a less experienced barrister it happens in devilling and it happens when less experienced barristers are paid to do research for more experienced barristers.

As regards going into business with each other, this allows them to make it harder for new entrants into the profession as large firms can control which new entrants are accepted. As happens in the UK with the number of pupilages being less than the number of qualified barristers and the number of tenants even less still.

But ultimately ever profession tries to keep their knowledge and experience away from new entrants for fear of competition and I dont think rules preventing chambers is an aspect of this.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Few professions are as confined as law - to the point of some lawyers breaking down crying because their parents sent them to the wrong schools.

Well first I assume you mean the bar because theres no restrictions on business models for solicitors.

But tell me this, if the bar is so anti competitive, why do we have a big problem with doctors becoming consultants, with many of our young doctors emigrating because the profession here is too impenetrable?

Similarly, architecture is a great analogy where there are lots of architects working day in day out on small jobs for a modest enough professional salary while there are some high demand architects who can charge millions for their fees. Again, in a profession which allows firms to form etc, you still have some at the top making massive amounts of money so forming firms is not a panacea to the specific fault you raise in this thread i.e. a professional making a lot of money from providing services to the State.

antoinolachtnai

As it happens there are restrictions on business structures for solicitors.

The fault isn't that barristers and in particular particular barristers are making a lot of money. We are all agreed that these professionals are well regarded and I am very sure very happy for them to be well rewarded.

The issue is that the work and the experience is so narrowly distributed. In a particular sector, one person has apparently gotten miles ahead of all the others. This is despite this being a significant size sector with millions of euros of yearly expenditure on advocacy. This is a disaster for customers and as a result for justice.

Successful architects have large firms which provide a career for many architects and these architects get exposure to significant projects to build up their expertise. Some stay in their old firm, some move. But this is forbidden for barristers to get experience in this way.

The reason doctors are leaving Ireland is not because the profession is impenetrable. It's because the sector is budget-constrained. Again, doctors get experience through working with other doctors. But this is basically forbidden to barristers.

The idea that this rule and the associated rules are something to do with access to the profession is hard to take.

johnnyskeleton

The idea that this rule and the associated rules are something to do with access to the profession is hard to take.

Well there are c. 2,500 barristers for a population of 4.6m in Ireland and approximately 16,000 barrister for england and wales with a population of 56m. Thats one barrister per 1840 people in Eire and one per 3,500 in England and Wales.

I mean, you can make points about the differences in the roles of each in either system, or the volume of litigation, or even the attrition rate in Ireland where a lot of people leave. But what is undeniable is that the Irish system allows more qualified barristers to practose than the E&W system does. Therefore there is impirically more access to the profession in Ireland than there is in E&W, even if youre right about less access to experience etc.

I dont think it is true to say that the Irish bar has no facility for people to gain experience. A busy barrister will usually hand cases over if they have too much other work to do, or will refuse to act in the less lucrative cases etc and so the system rolls on. And the top experts must have, almost by definition, learned their trade without being employed by someone else, so it doesnt make sense to say that people cant gain this experience when self employed. Some people have already done it!

hullaballoo

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

rule 8.6 is the particular one I am referring to. There are many other restrictions.

That is the prohibition on chambers.

The prohibition on chambers exists because in this country, we have an independent referral bar. That means that we are all self-employed practitioners who are independent of one another and of other interests that could compromise our various duties and lead to a conflict of interests. We are independent of our clients and this is particularly important as it provides us with the freedom (or, imposes the obligation on us) to do certain things where they might be against our client's interests.

As such, we do not have a win-at-all-costs system of advocacy and we are not beholden to anyone. We are accountable, yes, but not beholden.

It is somewhat amusing that you have referred to this "restriction" and quoted the Code of Conduct of the Bar Council and then in the same breath, said the following words:-

The Bar Council is not the regulator of the profession in any meaningful sense. It is a trade association which controls critical resources which are essential to barristers' work. I am a little surprised that a member of the profession would not know this basic fact.

Of course the Bar Council is the regulator of the profession in a very real and meaningful way. It investigates complaints against barristers where everyone is entitled to make a complaint. It imposes sanctions on barristers for anything from failing to obtain sufficient CPD points to bullying clients into settlement to committing criminal offences (which is quite rare but not unknown.)

Having said that, it has delegated the disciplinary function to a lay-dominated Disciplinary Tribunal and appeals body so that the potential for conflict is removed. In other words, the people responsible for the investigation of complaints and disciplining of barristers are non-lawyers who are unbiased and can, without fear of professional conflict or reprisal, impose real sanctions on barristers no matter how much of a big deal the barrister is.

It's an effective system as it stands but it's somewhat irrelevant now because there is a new quango in town who will take over the disciplinary aspect. The problem with that is one that is not often talked about in the media and that is the costs that will be payable as a result of the new body. (The disciplinary stuff for the bar had a total budget of €130,000 or €56ish per barrister per year. The new body has many many more salaries to be paid so you're looking at an increased cost that could be any multiple of that figure. This has to be paid for by lawyers. So, more overheads look to be imminent. If that happens, fees have to go up. Chopping off your nose to spite your face, imo, but perhaps a discussion for another day.)

Probably the issue is that the Bar Council is also the representative body for barristers and is the body that owns and controls the Law Libraries. It's probably too much control for a small group. Thankfully, the small group in charge of all of this changes every year by a democratic process whereby we, as members of the profession, vote to elect or re-elect the Councillor by secret ballot. So, if we have concerns about the running of the Council's business, we can vote once a year to oust the current ones and replace them with people we think will do a better job. (There is no hivemind either, we are again totally independent and can choose to vote for whomever we think is best.)

Of course, the primary point around all of this is the LSRA which has been enacted and commenced for the most part. This permits multi-disciplinary practices and partnerships between barristers (and solicitors, and whomever else wants to join the show...) So it seems we can now start setting up chambers and all of it but we, almost universally I think, do not believe it to be a good idea and the reasons why harp back to my opening comments about the independent referral bar. There are dangers when you start to remove the independence of advocates and put them into bounds like chambers where conflicts can arise. An independent bar imho serves the public and the justice system far better than alternative systems.

I am usually highly critical of the way we Irish people do things but in relation to maintaining an independent referral bar, I have to doff my cap to the politicians who wisely left this be because it is (albeit an imperfect system) like democracy, the best of a bad bunch of alternatives. For consistency and also to voice a concern, I should also do the opposite of doffing my cap to the politicians who decided the LSRA was a viable and beneficial option. I fully expect to be sanctioned for expressing such a view but there it is anyway.

...And Justice wrote: »

Got it, didn't know what taking silk meant:o. This lad has been on high profile cases the last few years, and straight forward cases that don't make the news. He's "freelance" if that's the right way to put it? He works from the four courts, more defense than prosecution. I don't see a practice as such that you would see with attachment to insurance companies.

We are all freelance in that we are all self-employed and take work as it comes to us. This is a universal aspect of the above-mentioned independent referral bar. We cannot refuse work unless we are too busy (*scoffs at the thought*) or are otherwise conflicted (if we know a party or have an interest, usually financially, in the subject-matter.)

I don't quite follow your last sentence but in case you are referring to barristers who do work for insurance companies, it's an offence under the Code of Conduct to act on a retainer, which means that those who work regularly for the same client be it insurance company or whatever have to mark a fee commensurate to the work done. For example, I have a client who, by virtue of the nature of their work, has regular recourse to the courts and for whom I do a good deal of work. I do not and cannot work for a retainer for him. Them's the rules.

Criminal barristers have it tough because the only cases that really pay are from Circuit Court upwards and that represents a very small number of cases. The vast majority of cases both criminal and civil, take place in the district court where you get paid peanuts as a criminal lawyer and between zero and nothing as a civil lawyer. Well done to your mate for making hay, he must be very good at what he does.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the heart of the economics of the whole thing. Maybe someone can explain to us about the historical reason for this particular restriction?

I think I have explained the restriction above but here are some papers on the topic that go into more detail on the idea of the independent referral bar and its function in a modern democracy:

http://wbc.advocates.org.uk/davidbarniville.pdf

https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Value-and-functions-of-a-referral-advocate_3.pdf

An SC is not permitted by his or her trade association to 'bring on talented JCs' beyond perhaps giving his or her recommendation. Being in association with other barristers is basically forbidden by rule 8.6. That is not to say that it does not happen, but it does not happen in public.

I am going to ignore your repetition of the "trade association" jibe because it doesn't serve you or me in the context of this discussion because it is just a jibe. While the Bar Council shares certain attributes with a trade association, it is certainly not one and its roles, diverse and perhaps incompatible with modern sensibilities as they are, are not ones that trade associations engage in. (Fundamentally, a trade association is supposed to be a PR machine. The Bar Council is hopeless at PR.)

However, your point about training incentives is misconstrued and inaccurate. It is understandable that you would reach the conclusions that you have from an outside perspective but it displays a deep misunderstanding of how we operate that probably permeates most of society (including the other limb of the legal profession, from the comments thus far in this thread.)

There is nothing worse than being opposite a badly trained barrister. Literally, in this profession, that is the worst thing that can happen in your professional life. Badly trained barristers create massive difficulties in the running of any case. Thankfully, these people are very rare.. We have this as an incentive to train more junior people well.

Secondly, professional pride makes us want to do our best to train and nurture talent. It might seem a bit airy fairy but it is a big deal amongst us if you have a devil who prospers and becomes one of the top barristers. It's not a wholly altruistic sense of pride because if you are the person who the top barrister devilled for, you will get +XP on your rep score.

Thirdly, this is probably not believable for most people reading this but nonetheless is true in my experience. Training someone to be a good lawyer/advocate is rewarding from a purely altruistic point of view. If you have a devil or a more junior colleague in need of a push here and there, it's second nature to reach out and help. In fact, it works inversely as well. I often help out more senior colleagues if they have a question that falls within my area of knowledge. I have recent experience of approaching a barrister with whom I share absolutely no connection and who helped me research a very peculiar question of law and without whose help I would have been stranded in the very literal sense of the word. It didn't cost him a thought to guide me right because there is, despite our growing number and competitiveness, a sense of collegiality at the bar that knows no demographic.

I add this in because it's central to the discussion around restrictions and barriers to entry and competitiveness etc. I am a man who comes from a poor, single-parent background who grew up in a disadvantaged area and whose childhood neighbours are mostly either in prison or pumping up tyres for a living. So the glitz and glamour of having privilege to fall back on is a myth to me. I am not an anomoly in the legal profession. There are literally thousands of us at this stage who have come from nothing to the extent that it is a rather crass cliche to try and benefit from having come from a disadvantaged background in your life in this profession.

There is in general no economic incentive for more more experienced barristers to help less experienced barristers in their career, particularly if they are in a specialism. The reason is simple - if they do so, they are training in their own competition, and they will only be hurt, and will never benefit from their prospective protege's increased knowledge. No other profession works this way.

Someone else already said this but there are multiple professions that work in this way. Every professional who trains another more junior professional dilutes the pool of professionals capable of performing their specific job.

Of course, in a firm or chamber situation, the incentive is that your firm or chamber maintains a reputation for being the best in whatever the field is. It's no different for barristers who train more junior barristers in their field. The more junior barristers are not competition unless they are exceptionally brilliant, in which case, why begrudge them?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In short to try and maintain a degree of independence and equality of access.

This tho.

It's baffling to me that people consider the bar to be outside their reach. Yeh, it's difficult to make a living but not impossible. It's not an easy job but it's not impossible either and tbh, anyone. ANYONE can do what I do for a living.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In what professions is it forbidden for a less experienced practitioner to work for a more experienced practitioner? In what profession are practitioners forbidden from going into business by one another?

All of this by their trade association?

well... trade association... It's not doing your arguments any favours to have such a populist standpoint but whatever floats your boat.

Victor wrote: »

Few professions are as confined as law - to the point of some lawyers breaking down crying because their parents sent them to the wrong schools.

What the fcuk are you talking about? I've genuinely never ever seen a lawyer break down because his parents sent him to the wrong school. Must be a pure lie and trolling.

Victor

hullaballoo wrote: »

What the fcuk are you talking about? I've genuinely never ever seen a lawyer break down because his parents sent him to the wrong school. Must be a pure lie and trolling.

Her. Felt she didn't have the right connections to be successful.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hullaballoo - would you have a quick read over your post above and maybe have a look at the tags - I'm not sure if you're quoting me or responding to to someone quoting me.

On this point:

I'm not sure what the point here is. Emily Egan is the best person for her job but ****it lets see what happens if we don't brief her is it?

I was suggesting that she has go to JCs for assistance and they they are getting the benefit of her experience.

This is where I got a bit lost:

I completely disagree that no other profession tries to monopolise knowledge. However one learns from doing - to make that amount of money there had to be an awful lot of delegated doing.
There is not a whole lot I can say that will deliver you from this point. However, it is totally untrue. We are an independent body of practitioners and nothing you can say will implicate that.

Are you saying that all other professions share knowledge and that barristers at the bar do not?

The point I was trying to make is if an SC is delegating work, which I assume she must have to be - the other barristers getting the work are leaning by doing.

antoinolachtnai

No. This is forbidden. What you are describing is a chamber. Barristers must do their own work, personally. The barrister referred to certainly does not engage in this practice. The rule is:

"If Barristers receive papers in a matter which they cannot for any reason deal with personally them should return the papers to the instructing solicitor."

The other practice referred to in this thread, of passing files on to other barristers, is also forbidden by this rule. A may ask another barrister to carry out a specific task of research or opinion work but this is much more limited.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Her. Felt she didn't have the right connections to be successful.

I suppose you could also talk about other professions that force peoplw to carry out unnecessary hysterectomies:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Neary_(surgeon)

johnnyskeleton

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The other practice referred to in this thread, of passing files on to other barristers, is also forbidden by this rule. A may ask another barrister to carry out a specific task of research or opinion work but this is much more limited.

No its not. They arent allowed to hand over a case without the direction of their solicitor, which in practical terms means asking the solicitor if they have any objection to the case being handed over or if they have a specific barrister in mind:

Barristers may not hand over their brief to another Barrister to conduct a case
unless their instructing solicitor so directs.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry to be thick but whats the Junior doing there with the SC in court if not assisting? Just looking very dapper/pretty?

Claw Hammer

In virtually every case in which a Senior is briefed, there will also be a Junior briefed. he Junior will prepare inital drafts of pleadings and legal submissions. May cross examine minor witnesses and carr y out relevant research. In serious med neg case there will often be 2 Seniors briefed. The Juniors briefed with the Senior are going to see virtually everything that happens in the case and have anything they want explained to them.

antoinolachtnai

hullaballoo wrote: »

That is the prohibition on chambers.

The prohibition on chambers exists because in this country, we have an independent referral bar. That means that we are all self-employed practitioners who are independent of one another and of other interests that could compromise our various duties and lead to a conflict of interests.

There are places that have an independent referral bar and chambers. One does not necessarily contradict the other.

Of course the Bar Council is the regulator of the profession in a very real and meaningful way. It investigates complaints against barristers where everyone is entitled to make a complaint. It imposes sanctions on barristers for anything from failing to obtain sufficient CPD points to bullying clients into settlement to committing criminal offences (which is quite rare but not unknown.)

Next you will be telling us that the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland is the 'regulator' for advertising; and that CARB is the regulator for accountants; and even that SIMI is the regulator for the motor industry.

This is all pure nonsense. The above are trade associations. An example of a regulator is the Commission for Energy Regulation. Another is the Communications Regulation Commission. Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority is an example in the field of accountancy. The Medical Council regulates doctors.

It is hard to confuse a regulator with a trade association/representative body.

Having said that, it has delegated the disciplinary function to a lay-dominated Disciplinary Tribunal and appeals body so that the potential for conflict is removed. In other words, the people responsible for the investigation of complaints and disciplining of barristers are non-lawyers who are unbiased and can, without fear of professional conflict or reprisal, impose real sanctions on barristers no matter how much of a big deal the barrister is.

It's an effective system as it stands but it's somewhat irrelevant now because there is a new quango in town who will take over the disciplinary aspect. The problem with that is one that is not often talked about in the media and that is the costs that will be payable as a result of the new body. (The disciplinary stuff for the bar had a total budget of €130,000 or €56ish per barrister per year. The new body has many many more salaries to be paid so you're looking at an increased cost that could be any multiple of that figure. This has to be paid for by lawyers. So, more overheads look to be imminent. If that happens, fees have to go up. Chopping off your nose to spite your face, imo, but perhaps a discussion for another day.)

Discipline is not the same as regulation.

If costs quadrupled from 56 euros to 224 euros it wouldn't have any significant impact on the average refresher fee.

Probably the issue is that the Bar Council is also the representative body for barristers and is the body that owns and controls the Law Libraries. It's probably too much control for a small group. Thankfully, the small group in charge of all of this changes every year by a democratic process whereby we, as members of the profession, vote to elect or re-elect the Councillor by secret ballot. So, if we have concerns about the running of the Council's business, we can vote once a year to oust the current ones and replace them with people we think will do a better job. (There is no hivemind either, we are again totally independent and can choose to vote for whomever we think is best.)

Unless you have taken silk, no you can't. And even then you might run into problems. The election for the General Council of the Bar of Ireland is not democratic in any usual sense of the term and this is clearly spelt out in the Constitution.

I am going to ignore your repetition of the "trade association" jibe because it doesn't serve you or me in the context of this discussion because it is just a jibe. While the Bar Council shares certain attributes with a trade association, it is certainly not one and its roles, diverse and perhaps incompatible with modern sensibilities as they are, are not ones that trade associations engage in. (Fundamentally, a trade association is supposed to be a PR machine. The Bar Council is hopeless at PR.)

It certainly is a trade association. It is not a matter of who the term serves. According to no less an authority than the Law Library website itself: "The Bar of Ireland is the representative body for the barristers' profession in Ireland and is governed by the Constitution of The Bar of Ireland. "

However, your point about training incentives is misconstrued and inaccurate. It is understandable that you would reach the conclusions that you have from an outside perspective but it displays a deep misunderstanding of how we operate that probably permeates most of society (including the other limb of the legal profession, from the comments thus far in this thread.)

You have no idea what information I have gathered or how I have reached my conclusions.

Would you like me to roll out insults about you? It would be easy enough based on what you have written.

Mod

How has Hullaballoo insulted you? Disagreement does not = insult, and vigorous disagreement is fine as long as it is kept civil

Secondly, professional pride makes us want to do our best to train and nurture talent. It might seem a bit airy fairy but it is a big deal amongst us if you have a devil who prospers and becomes one of the top barristers. It's not a wholly altruistic sense of pride because if you are the person who the top barrister devilled for, you will get +XP on your rep score.

So that's how it works.

What the fcuk are you talking about? I've genuinely never ever seen a lawyer break down because his parents sent him to the wrong school. Must be a pure lie and trolling.

Nice.

368100

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look it- we all see these stories and think that they are creaming it but the vast amount of Barristers are broke.

Even with the huge earners the average is very low which means a large proporation are earnging exactly zero.

Emily is 23 years at the Bar.

I used to work in bad debt department of a bank. The amount of barristers we had on the books was unreal. What was worse was they thought they were clever enough to outwit and legally out manoeuvre us in an attempt to get out of paying. Like they were above the law.

BTW, I'm not saying all barristers are like this, I've just seen a lot of the ones that are.

antoinolachtnai

Mod

How has Hullaballoo insulted you?

As I understand it, the policy on boards.ie and Legal Discussion is not to back-seat moderate or question the moderators. Unusually, I have been invited by a moderator to engage in a back-seat moderation discussion in relation to the thread. If the moderators still feel it is important that I go back through chapter and verse, that is fine and I am happy to do so.

Another boards.ie member has remarked to me on the fact that a sentence of my post is in bold and expressed surprise that I had formatted the post in this way. I had to explain that someone else, a moderator, had made this formatting change. I would now like to state clearly for the record that the posting is not as I originally posted but has been modified and that the modification changed the emphasis and meaning significantly.

4ensic15

368100 wrote: »

I used to work in bad debt department of a bank. The amount of barristers we had on the books was unreal. What was worse was they thought they were clever enough to outwit and legally out manoeuvre us in an attempt to get out of paying. Like they were above the law.

BTW, I'm not saying all barristers are like this, I've just seen a lot of the ones that are.

Why did the bank lend them money then?

368100

4ensic15 wrote: »

Why did the bank lend them money then?

Because we werent in the business of employing fortune tellers.

4ensic15

368100 wrote: »

Because we werent in the business of employing fortune tellers.

Why would a bank need a fortune teller to spot a bad risk? Did they not have a professionally staffed credit department?

368100

4ensic15 wrote: »

368100 wrote: »

Because we werent in the business of employing fortune tellers.

Why would a bank need a fortune teller to spot a bad risk? Did they not have a professionally staffed credit department?

If you think a professionally staffed credit department can spot ALL risks to a bank you obviously haven't been aware of what's happened in the country for the past 10 or so years.

In any event, just because a risk Might be identified, doesn't necessarily mean that it is or should be avoided, it would be factored into the cost of providing credit and as long as the risk/reward ratio was sufficiently favourable to the bank.

Just because we had what I would deem to be an unusually high number of defaulted barristers given that a bad debt judgement against them would have a considerable impact on their career, it doesn't mean that the bank as a whole didn't make money off lending off them as a profession.

4ensic15

368100 wrote: »

If you think a professionally staffed credit department can spot ALL risks to a bank you obviously haven't been aware of what's happened in the country for the past 10 or so years.

In any event, just because a risk Might be identified, doesn't necessarily mean that it is or should be avoided, it would be factored into the cost of providing credit and as long as the risk/reward ratio was sufficiently favourable to the bank.

Just because we had what I would deem to be an unusually high number of defaulted barristers given that a bad debt judgement against them would have a considerable impact on their career, it doesn't mean that the bank as a whole didn't make money off lending off them as a profession.

If a lot of barristers have bad debts it is obvious that they shouldn't have been lent money. Anyone with a titter of wit could have seen that the banks lending policies were ridiculous. That is why the banks failed as businesses.
The banks made no money. All the all did was lose money. How can you say that thye banks made money from barristers despite the high level of bad debt but lost money overall?

368100

368100 wrote: »

If you think a professionally staffed credit department can spot ALL risks to a bank you obviously haven't been aware of what's happened in the country for the past 10 or so years.

In any event, just because a risk Might be identified, doesn't necessarily mean that it is or should be avoided, it would be factored into the cost of providing credit and as long as the risk/reward ratio was sufficiently favourable to the bank.

Just because we had what I would deem to be an unusually high number of defaulted barristers given that a bad debt judgement against them would have a considerable impact on their career, it doesn't mean that the bank as a whole didn't make money off lending off them as a profession.

4ensic15 wrote: »

If a lot of barristers have bad debts it is obvious that they shouldn't have been lent money. Anyone with a titter of wit could have seen that the banks lending policies were ridiculous. That is why the banks failed as businesses.
The banks made no money. All the all did was lose money. How can you say that thye banks made money from barristers despite the high level of bad debt but lost money overall?

Read my post. I didn't say they definitely made money, i said that just because there was a level of bad debts, it doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't make money.....there's a difference.

I agree that the bank's credit policies were not right, i certainly didn't write them but this is not the thread to debate that on, there's plenty of other more suitable threads on boards and elsewhere if you need to have a bank bashing rant. My comments were in the context of barristers in bad debt in relation to the thread title "barrister earnings".

Thanks :-)

4ensic15

368100 wrote: »

My comments were in the context of barristers in bad debt in relation to the thread title "barrister earnings".

Thanks :-)

Barrister borrowings are not barrister earnings. Working for an incompetent bank does not make you an expert on the subject.

368100

4ensic15 wrote: »

Barrister borrowings are not barrister earnings. Working for an incompetent bank does not make you an expert on the subject.

Again, please read my post. I said that they were related, which they are...not the same thing.

I also haven't claimed to be an expert on the subject. I simply discussed my experience in barrister's financial affairs. I understand boards to be a discussion forum where being an expert on the subject matter is not a prerequisite. If you'd rather not read other people's opinions and experiences, a discussion forum isn't the best thing to frequent.

It's also clear from the tone of your posts that I've touched a nerve here so perhaps we should leave it at that.

4ensic15

368100 wrote: »

Again, please read my post. I said that they were related, which they are...not the same thing.

t.

Borrowings and attitude are not related to earnings. You have simply taken an opportunity to have a cheap shot at a small group. Coming from someone who worked in a sector which bankrupted the country and then had to be bailed out saying bthat one group of customers think they are a law unto themselves is ridiculous.

368100

368100 wrote: »

I used to work in bad debt department of a bank. The amount of barristers we had on the books was unreal. What was worse was they thought they were clever enough to outwit and legally out manoeuvre us in an attempt to get out of paying. Like they were above the law.

BTW, I'm not saying all barristers are like this, I've just seen a lot of the ones that are.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Borrowings and attitude are not related to earnings. You have simply taken an opportunity to have a cheap shot at a small group. Coming from someone who worked in a sector which bankrupted the country and then had to be bailed out saying bthat one group of customers think they are a law unto themselves is ridiculous.