Unemployed Solicitors ?

dats_right · 06-10-2008 05:44PM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Most criminal clients never see the inside of the solicitors offices, let alone their homes. Meetings take place in the vicinity of the courts or in the prisons.

Even so, it is an unavoidable fact that there will still be many criminal clients who do attend at their solicitors office. In fact, some criminal practices that I have been in resemble banks or post offices with glass screens at reception, doors locked, etc. I can only presume that this is as a result of clients.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is a solicitor running a criminal legal aid practice from an apartment on the Dublin Quays.

Good for them. I just hope that they don't have a Bang Olufsen 40" flat screen tv in the apartment!

BanzaiBk · 06-10-2008 06:11PM

dats_right wrote: »

Even so, it is an unavoidable fact that there will still be many criminal clients who do attend at their solicitors office. In fact, some criminal practices that I have been in resemble banks or post offices with glass screens at reception, doors locked, etc. I can only presume that this is as a result of clients.

That's crazy, I've never ever seen that. I can only imagine the kind of clientele they are dealing with.

From my experience its very rare for meetings to take place in the practice. I spend most of my life hanging around prisons and cafe's around Chancery st., and I always run into the same people doing exactly the same.

Milk & Honey · 06-10-2008 06:55PM

dats_right wrote: »

Even so, it is an unavoidable fact that there will still be many criminal clients who do attend at their solicitors office.

It is entirely avoidable. Just make appointments away from the office. Criminal clients are invariably in court frequently. Consultations take place in the vicinity of the courthouse. Many firms do this. Some do meet clients at the office. Some big criminal practises have open plan reception areas. It is not just criminal firms which are security conscious. Try an walk around the offices of A & L goodbody for example.

elgransenor · 06-10-2008 10:11PM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Most criminal clients never see the inside of the solicitors offices, let alone their homes. Meetings take place in the vicinity of the courts or in the prisons. There is a solicitor running a criminal legal aid practice from an apartment on the Dublin Quays.
That said there is a waiting list to be put on the panel for legal aid so it is not a simple matter of going to the local District Court and hanging around. Most business is gained by
1. Repeat clients
2. Recommendations from existing clients.
3. Bench asignments, where a judge picks a solicitor in the courtroom.
4. Casual walk ins to the office.
5. Approaches in the vicinity off the court from clients.
6. Referrals from other solicitors who do not wish to handle the case themselves.

A newbie relies mostly on 3 and 5 above. Casual approaches in the courthouse are rare.
Bench assignments are common but are usually made to solicitors who are well known to the judge. The senior partners of the criminal law firms, who are well known to the judges, tend to got to court on a daily basis to ensure that their firm gets the maximum number of bench assignments. It is a slow process for a newbie to build up a sufficient number of case to make a reasonable income.
Every scrap of criminal business is chased assiduously and there is no easy route to making a living income from it, starting from scratch.

Good post there Milk & Honey.
Pertinent, relevant information that a guy could make use of.

Teacherman · 06-10-2008 10:19PM

BanzaiBk wrote: »

There are 9 associates at the practice I work in, excluding my dad, my 2 aunts, a cousin and myself, and we are actually hiring at the moment. A few friends in Dublin haven't had their contracts renewed in the past few weeks, not really the same as being let go though. I haven't heard of any losses in Cork (where I am based) though?

In fairness not having your contract renewed means no job. The exact same result as being made redundant. There will of course be firms still hiring but sometimes these jobs are in quite specialized areas and also the bar for experience can be quite high nowadays for even General practice jobs.

dazza21ie · 07-10-2008 11:28AM

BanzaiBk wrote: »

There are 9 associates at the practice I work in, excluding my dad, my 2 aunts, a cousin and myself, and we are actually hiring at the moment[/B]. A few friends in Dublin haven't had their contracts renewed in the past few weeks, not really the same as being let go though. I haven't heard of any losses in Cork (where I am based) though?

Who are you hiring? A couple of uncles and grand father for good measure?!!:):)

BanzaiBk · 07-10-2008 11:21PM

dazza21ie wrote: »

Who are you hiring? A couple of uncles and grand father for good measure?!!:):)

Fluent Polish speakers actually. A lot of practices are family based fyi.

Maximilian · 08-10-2008 09:22AM

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Fluent Polish speakers actually. A lot of practices are family based fyi.

A lot of businesses of all types, are family based.

dazza21ie · 08-10-2008 09:28AM

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Fluent Polish speakers actually. A lot of practices are family based fyi.

True but im sure that a relative is less likely to be laid off unless absolutely necessary. In non-family based firms commercial realities dicate whether there will be redundancies

BanzaiBk · 08-10-2008 10:12PM

Last in, first out. My father is in charge but I very much doubt he'd let a 10 yr experienced associate go instead of a greeny like me. Of course I see what you mean though.

dazza21ie · 09-10-2008 09:57AM

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Last in, first out. My father is in charge but I very much doubt he'd let a 10 yr experienced associate go instead of a greeny like me. Of course I see what you mean though.

I don't think the last in first out rule is the correct way of picking someone for redundancy according to the legislation but very few employees would argue if it was done this way.

TheDemiurge · 09-10-2008 06:53PM

Just found this thread. I'm a solicitor, ten years qualified and practising this year, and I have to say that on balance I deeply regret it. Not so much the years spent training, but p***ing the last ten years away on a "profession" that is as tenable as candy floss. To the OP and other trainees, get out of it as fast as you possibly can.

There is no doubt that being a solicitor was a good thing as opposed to other trades in bad times of the 1980s. Conveyancing fees were 1.5% of the purchase price and 1% of the sale price. Whilst this may seem a lot to the man on the street, the fees ensured a steady stream of cashflow so that solicitors could bankroll their practices and take on litigation for clients without seeking payment up front.

Solicitors - being total idiots - were the only profession/trade to actually drop their fees during the recent "boom". A conveyance cannot be done properly, and the solicitor's overheads met, for approximately 700 Euro plus VAT and outlays, yet this is all you will pay in the Dublin region. One firm in Kerry started it all, and the whole pyramid came crashing down for lawyers after that. Meanwhile, estate agents continue to command 1% for bu**er all. And then some.

On top of this, the Boland regulations of 1987 (which led to the whole Lynn/Byrne debacle) put the onus onto the high street solicitors for the lending bank's work, where they certified title (instead of the bank having its own staff doing it). The Law Society did nothing to stop this in 1987 and they are paying the price now. The high street solicitor can be sued by the banks if they cock up the conveyance with a policy excess per file of 5,000 Euro (in spite of the paltry conveyancing fee and with aggressive clients telephoning morning noon and night). My insurance premium for 2008 was 2,750 Euro, and because of Lynn and Byrne, I'm looking at 9,100 Euro premium for 2009. Plus another 2,500 Euro practising certificate fee for 2009 to the Law Society (whose members are always on voicemail). I'm currently overdrawn 33,000 Euro on running costs.

The financial institutions are a nightmare to deal with - they constantly lose every piece of documentation you send them, and you won't get paid by your client if you try to bill extra for time spent redoing your work.

And as for litigation - you may as well be running the St. Vincent de Paul. It's charity work, nothing more. If someone sues someone else for say an amount of 2,000 Euro, the amount of hours you have to put in to get them that 2,000 Euro - that's assuming the Defendant pays by the way - the scale fee of 380 Euro is just laughable.

Most people do law because Mammies and Daddies bully their kids into it, thinking that it's a legal form of a printing press. What a f**king joke.

Being a solicitor in Ireland, you're at the bottom of food chain financially, and the top of the hit list in every other way. Get the hell out of it, whilst you still can.:mad::mad::mad:

Maximilian · 09-10-2008 11:25PM

A bit of an exaggeration but I can't help but agree with a lot of that. Residential conveyancing and DC litigation are a pointless waste of time and energy. Other areas are lucrative though.

NavanMan80 · 11-10-2008 02:33PM

nuac wrote: »

It does not look as if there will be much work available for most occupations for next year or so. Those young enough and able to travel might consider Australia.

I left a Top Five to join Minter Ellison in Sydney, 6 months ago, thank god I made the move sooner than later. I would consider Dubai or New Zealand too.

I was headhunted by an Irish Legal Recruiter based in London (Liam Taaffe - www.GRlaw.co.uk) he organised interviews for me within 2 weeks - i'd 100% make that move. Loads of my old college and work friends are looking to move to Sydney or Dubai too. It looks like they'll have no choice!!!

Dan133269 · 11-10-2008 08:48PM

jesus lads are things that bad at the moment?? I'm doing the fe1s next year and hoping to get a training contract after that. I've known for a while that the whole industry is saturated with qualified people after a limited number of jobs but I've always had the mentality that if something is hard that's not good enough reason to be dissuaded from it. Would those of you already working as solicitors strongly advise prospective solicitors not to get into it?

Teacherman · 12-10-2008 05:14PM

A Professional training will always stand to you. Do your exams but have something to fall back on in case you cant get your training contract. Pick something specialized legally as I have learned one thing-conveyancing/General practice Lawyers are the first to go in a downturn.

Gangu · 12-10-2008 05:53PM

Dan133269 wrote: »

jesus lads are things that bad at the moment?? I'm doing the fe1s next year and hoping to get a training contract after that. I've known for a while that the whole industry is saturated with qualified people after a limited number of jobs but I've always had the mentality that if something is hard that's not good enough reason to be dissuaded from it. Would those of you already working as solicitors strongly advise prospective solicitors not to get into it?

Yes they are that bad.

Gangu · 12-10-2008 05:57PM

NavanMan80 wrote: »

I left a Top Five to join Minter Ellison in Sydney, 6 months ago, thank god I made the move sooner than later. I would consider Dubai or New Zealand too.

I was headhunted by an Irish Legal Recruiter based in London (Liam Taaffe - www.GRlaw.co.uk) he organised interviews for me within 2 weeks - i'd 100% make that move. Loads of my old college and work friends are looking to move to Sydney or Dubai too. It looks like they'll have no choice!!!

I worked in ME in Brisbane a good few years ago, and Clayton Utz in Sydney. What sort of salary drop does it involve in terms of the move these days compared to commerical solicitors' rate in Dublin? And are there many jobs going.

juke · 13-10-2008 09:12AM

Dan133269 wrote: »

jesus lads are things that bad at the moment??

If not worse.
I'm also qualified 10 years. I'm facing redundancy in January unless there's a miracle between now and then. My areas are conveyancing (more commercial than residential) and employment, and new work in these areas has completely dried up.

TheDemiurge · 13-10-2008 02:58PM

Hi Juke. Even I would have thought that employment/bullying/harassment was the last area in which even a small fee could be commanded. Obviously not.

The problem wouldn't have been as bad, and there would have been far less redundancies, had lawyers not made the fatal error of dropping conveyancing fees below the traditional fee of 1%. We simply don't bill properly for legal services in this country.

Other areas such as family, employment and litigation just aren't worth doing. If your client is at a disadvantage, you simply can't expect them to cough up 200 Euro a hour which you need to run your practice. They don't have the money - that's why they came to you in the first place. And if you were to bill properly, what they would actually owe you, even if you get your costs, would be well in excess of what they would receive as an award. I'm talking mainly about District and Circuit Court cases here. Conveyancing fees of 1% were designed to allow solicitors to do other work which doesn't produce any fee income until many years later.

I'll be savaged for saying this but in essence law, apart from conveyancing (which the man on the street could not do because of the Boland regulations and the bank's reliance on solicitor's insurance) is a candy floss profession - it's more of a general education than say plumbing, electrical work or accountancy. It also attracts a contemporary "yummy mummy" element who qualify for image purposes, p**s around for a couple of years in practice, then make a point of getting up the duff and using it as an excuse to get out.

I know that I'm reaching the end when lawyer jibes send me into a violent rage and I want to punch the ignorant moron in the mouth. When you are placed in the invidious position of saying what you do for a "living", and get groans and sneers in return. Everyone thinks you're minted, and much of it is deeply misplaced jealousy.

Dan133269, you will not make money. (One third of my contemporaries in Blackhall from ten years ago have wisely gotten out of the game.) But you will be very, very accountable to everybody.

In short - I would not recommend it.

McCrack · 13-10-2008 06:32PM

Haha o god TheDemiurge sounds like dooms day is near.

I agree with quite a lot of what you say but not with the overall tone of being up sh*t creek.
For instance you mention that family, employment and litigation arent worth doing. Leaving out family, most defendants in employment and litigation (personal injury) are Ltds, local authority/county council, insurance and MIBI...deep pockets in other words. Fees are there in these areas and as you know costs follow the event. Essentially if you have an impecunious client with a no chance case youre hardly going to run it.

Amazotheamazing · 13-10-2008 07:48PM

McCrack wrote: »

Haha o god TheDemiurge sounds like dooms day is near.

I agree with quite a lot of what you say but not with the overall tone of being up sh*t creek.
For instance you mention that family, employment and litigation arent worth doing. Leaving out family, most defendants in employment and litigation (personal injury) are Ltds, local authority/county council, insurance and MIBI...deep pockets in other words. Fees are there in these areas and as you know costs follow the event. Essentially if you have an impecunious client with a no chance case youre hardly going to run it.

That's fine in theory, but it does mean you can be waiting for years for any payment at all. Sadly not receiving fees for several years isn't an option.

elgransenor · 13-10-2008 08:49PM

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Hi Juke. Even I would have thought that employment/bullying/harassment was the last area in which even a small fee could be commanded. Obviously not.

The problem wouldn't have been as bad, and there would have been far less redundancies, had lawyers not made the fatal error of dropping conveyancing fees below the traditional fee of 1%. We simply don't bill properly for legal services in this country.

Other areas such as family, employment and litigation just aren't worth doing. If your client is at a disadvantage, you simply can't expect them to cough up 200 Euro a hour which you need to run your practice. They don't have the money - that's why they came to you in the first place. And if you were to bill properly, what they would actually owe you, even if you get your costs, would be well in excess of what they would receive as an award. I'm talking mainly about District and Circuit Court cases here. Conveyancing fees of 1% were designed to allow solicitors to do other work which doesn't produce any fee income until many years later.

I'll be savaged for saying this but in essence law, apart from conveyancing (which the man on the street could not do because of the Boland regulations and the bank's reliance on solicitor's insurance) is a candy floss profession - it's more of a general education than say plumbing, electrical work or accountancy. It also attracts a contemporary "yummy mummy" element who qualify for image purposes, p**s around for a couple of years in practice, then make a point of getting up the duff and using it as an excuse to get out.

I know that I'm reaching the end when lawyer jibes send me into a violent rage and I want to punch the ignorant moron in the mouth. When you are placed in the invidious position of saying what you do for a "living", and get groans and sneers in return. Everyone thinks you're minted, and much of it is deeply misplaced jealousy.

Dan133269, you will not make money. (One third of my contemporaries in Blackhall from ten years ago have wisely gotten out of the game.) But you will be very, very accountable to everybody.

In short - I would not recommend it.[/QUOTEDan133269, you will not make money
The tenor and thrust of the Demiurge's posts is that you cannot make money,based on his experience.
If this is true then the logical conclusion to draw is that in 5/10 years time there will be no solicitors as it would be madness to persist in a profession where you could only lose money.
However we are talking about a profession that is hundreds of years old.......how likely is it that there will not be one in 5/10 years time?
Make up your own mind on that.
The Demiurge states that he is not making money in the game;that is unfortunate but can you extrapolate from that that nobody will make money?Don't think so.
For evey mom and pop store that closes you will see a new Centra/londis/Spar..............does this mean you can make money in retail or not?Clearly some people can and some can't.
One thing that I can predict with certainty is this-notwithstanding the recession we now face there are people in various industries who will make a fortune. But some will lose their shirt.This has always happened and the people who make the fortune are unlikely to be posting to chat rooms circa 15.00hrs on a Monday.

nuac · 13-10-2008 09:25PM

Demiurge earlier today referred to law apart from conveyancing being a candy floss profession. If (s)he means that you can do all legal work apart from conveyancing without a high level of legal knowledge and of procedures than I would worry for Demiurge's clients.

One is always learning - new relevant issues are thrown up by caselaw and legislation by the day.

dats_right · 14-10-2008 08:49AM

McCrack wrote: »

Haha o god TheDemiurge sounds like dooms day is near.

No, but is painting an accurate reflection of the current state of the profession. There is hardly a practice in the country that has not been adversely affected by the downturn in the economy. Wannabee solicitors shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that for some reason they are going to fare better than everybody else because they are deluding themselves. Make no mistakes, these are lean times for the profession as a whole. The profession could just about support the numbers of new entrants in the profession in the boom times, but will struggle to maintain the current numbers of qualified solicitors let alone the vast numbers of deluded FE-1'ers seeking to enter the ranks of the profession! It is just not sustainable, something more will inevitably have to give and that is in addition to what is giving at the moment i.e. wages, jobs and prospects. I'm not advocating the law society enforcing quotas or the likes as that would create certain legal difficulties. But law firms should be encouraged totake a more responsible attitute to recruiting trainees going forward.

McCrack wrote: »

For instance you mention that family, employment and litigation arent worth doing. Leaving out family, most defendants in employment and litigation (personal injury) are Ltds, local authority/county council, insurance and MIBI...deep pockets in other words. Fees are there in these areas and as you know costs follow the event. Essentially if you have an impecunious client with a no chance case youre hardly going to run it.

It's not quite that simple. Firstly, regarding employment law costs do not follow the event in the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The EAT can only award costs (and only then for travelling expenses and other reasonably incurred expenses but specifically not counsel or solicitors costs) where it is of the opinion that a party has acted frivolously or vexatiously. Essentially this means you'll get awarded your bus fare to Adelaide Road if the other side acts frivolously or vexatiously, but both sides pay their own legal costs regardless of outcome.

Secondly, as you know all PI now must be brought to PIAB for their assessment before being brought to the Courts and PIAB only award legal costs in extremely limited circumstances, so if a claimant accepts an award then they are responsible for their own legal costs (i.e. costs not following event). Furthermore, s 51a of the PIAB Amendment Act 2007 means that where a claimant rejects an award by PIAB and doesn't subsequently beat it in court proceedings then no award of costs can be made for the plaintiff and the court may decide to actually impose costs against the plaintiff! So even if a solicitor feels a PIAB award is a little light, how can they advise a client to reject and go to court with this particularly nasty piece of legislation hanging over their client's head? If they advise rejection and don't beat the award, well it means that no legal costs will be awarded so the solicitor and barrister will be out of pocket and worse still the client may actually have to pay the defedant's legal costs as well (at which point the plaintiff will probably start asking their own solicitor about whether they have paid their professional indemnity insurance!!)

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 14-10-2008 11:38AM

Hmmm, I finished my Fe-1s in march and left for Oz for a year with the hope of finding a traineeship when I returned. Would it be wise to try to do at least another year here so that things may improve even slighly? It certainly looks that way...

I'm making good money being a labourer here, better off paying off my loans and staying here if I can methinks...
To the posters in Australia, do you think there is the possibility of any valuable legal work here with just your Fe-1's?

And to the people who are in fear of losing jobs after 10 years or so, my heart goes out to ye, hope there's a miracle between now and then

TheDemiurge · 14-10-2008 11:40AM

Elgransenor - I get the impression that you are desperately clinging to the belief that there are still "fortunes" to be made in law. Many people don't want to let go of their legal fantasies, particularly if they've invested much time and mammy/daddy cash in it - a more sophisticated version of "X-Factor" syndrome, as you will - that's ok, I understand.

But I'm sorry - there are no fortunes to be made in law, and this situation is unprecedented in the legal profession's Irish history. Not even for the big firms - they are letting people go right, left and centre. If you think the slump might provide fees to the big firms in the form of repossessions, insolvencies - forget it. You can win all the cases you want and obtain all the orders you like, but if the liquidity ultimately isn't there, you won't get paid. Legal fees and costs will rank at the bottom of the list of creditors.

You are right - many people will leave the profession and many firms will close. The numbers of practices open will reduce to a manageable level, and the ones that survive will be those who have enough assets already acquired and other business interests. Those relying on law for a living will go to the wall.

We never until two years engaged in below cost selling. Your analogy with the corner store is absolutely right. As long as Tesco is engaged in below cost selling, other stores will suffer. And law currently is a "below cost" - nay, "zero cost" - selling game.

When I referred to law as a "candy floss" profession, I said I'd be savaged, so that's ok as well. What I actually meant, but said it provocatively, is that it's a far more accessible profession or trade than most others, in its early stages, and it fools people into thinking it's easy money. It's written in English; there's little mathematics involved; and it doesn't involve the risk of electrocution or cleaning up various forms of unsavoury substances. That's why so many people with high points go for it above other professions.

The reason I'm posting on boards.ie is that there is no other way of getting the truth out about what it's like for solicitors out here. The media wants the myth perpetuated that we're minted and the public (who, quite frankly, need us on their side) hate us. (And posting on the internet doesn't run up a phone bill that I can't pay.;))

And this myth - that lawyers are minted and make money in recessions - is scarily being bandied around at the moment. Radio and print ads are awash with advertisements for FE-1 courses. People seem to think that the legal profession is a safe refuge in times of financial trouble. It is so wrong.

TheDemiurge · 14-10-2008 11:54AM

nuac wrote: »

Demiurge earlier today referred to law apart from conveyancing being a candy floss profession. If (s)he means that you can do all legal work apart from conveyancing without a high level of legal knowledge and of procedures than I would worry for Demiurge's clients.

One is always learning - new relevant issues are thrown up by caselaw and legislation by the day.

Well, if you don't mind me saying so, the State itself doesn't agree with you. Apart from conveyancing - which they are trying to decimate with their plans for licenced conveyancing practitioners - all other areas of law can be done by a non-solicitor. EAT; PIAB; family; and probate. A solicitor's knowledge and expertise obviously will help, but in theory, he or she is not needed. EAT and PIAB in particular were deliberately designed to cut solicitors out of the equation.

See my post above by what I actually meant.

Amazotheamazing · 14-10-2008 12:10PM

elgransenor wrote: »

the people who make the fortune are unlikely to be posting to chat rooms circa 15.00hrs on a Monday.

I could equally point out that a trainee (which you are, iirc) giving a lecture to a solicitor with 10 years experience is foolhardy in the extreme. You may not agree with what was posted, but you'd be naive to assume you've a greater insight than someone with 10 years experience, particularly when this insight is simply vouching for what many of us trainees are seeing on a daily basis.

TheDemiurge · 14-10-2008 12:16PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I could equally point out that a trainee (which you are, iirc) giving a lecture to a solicitor with 10 years experience is foolhardy in the extreme. You may not agree with what was posted, but you'd be naive to assume you've a greater insight than someone with 10 years experience, particularly when this insight is simply vouching for what many of us trainees are seeing on a daily basis.

Thanks for that. I guessed Elgransenor was a trainee. Even though they slate solicitors, people deep down want to believe that there is money in law. They want to hold onto the belief that if the gods had looked down favourably on them, that they too could have been Gerald Kean one day (who made his money in ways other than running a law practice).

I can say that, because I was there once. In the early to mid 1990s, I starting pre-Professional Course (as it was then) in-house experience. Some older solicitors told me quietly to consider doing something else - they predicted every single thing that would happen, and I didn't listen to them. I was arrogant, and thought, like Elgransenor and other trainees on here, that for me it would be different. It wasn't.

Two of the best and most experienced solicitors I know recently left the profession. One to set up a tiling importers; the other to open a childrenswear store. Go figure.

Unemployed Solicitors ?

Comments