Competition report on Lawyers

Just as in all walks of life, some people in the profession are absolute snobs, most are not. There are people in my profession from all walks of life and all backgrounds. A lot of my colleagues that I know personally are genuine decent and nice people- believe it or not! :eek

Hi purple;

Perhaps I am being very unfair, but it may be the case that your girl had a very strong academic background and therefore felt (wrongly in my view) that to do her skill-set justice, she had to look for training with a large "prestigious" Dublin firm. It may then be the case that at interview she was unlucky enough to come across the sort of twits who felt her working class accent might not sit comfortably with their firm's clients. (such twits exist; this much I concede - but they are not truly representative).

If the foregoing is the case with this girl, let me offer her these words of comfort: there are clients in Cavan, Kilkenny and Mullingar (as well as in Tallaght no doubt) who need excellent support and top class legal advice just as much as the plc clients. There are firms where a working class accent will be a positive advantage, but an accent is only ever something that can speed up or slow down getting your foot in the door. Once you are in the door with a client (or with an employer) , the quality of the advice and the service will speak for themselves.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that just because other professions (e.g. medicine) operate unreasonable entry conditions that legal bodies should be free to do likewise.

My experience of some doctors would suggest that they'd actually be far happier pursuing other occupations. I suspect their entry into the profession was the result of a social conditioning that encourages those with the most points in their Leaving Certificate to pursue the careers for which the most points are required (which reflects the scarcity of places available rather than any identified intellectual capacity).

If the professions had a genuine interest in the students they admit, and the public they will eventually serve, they would take active steps to ensure that those coming in were the most suitable both in terms of the intellect required and the personal characteristics appropriate to the job for which they are being trained.

The current scenario encourages an elitist mentality which isn't very healthy even if it makes some people financially well off. Neither does it serve the public to the best possible effect, but this seems to be way down on the list of priorities.

Hi Biggles,

"I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that just because other professions (e.g. medicine) operate unreasonable entry conditions that legal bodies should be free to do likewise."

I hope I didn't suggest this. I certainly didn't intend to. A previous poster had stated that there were barriers to entry in the legal profession which he claimed were absent in other professions. I was merely pointing out that this was clearly not true. He as suggesting that not having contacts was particularly a barrier to entry in the legal profession. For a trainee solicitor, although having contacts may help in securing a training position, the reality is that anybody who passes the exams can secure an apprenticeship (perhaps not in the location of their choice) so "lack of contacts" is not in fact a barrier to entry at all.


Of course, there are barriers to entry into any profession. In the solicitors profession, they are mainly academic and partially financial. In my view , those barriers are both reasonable and appropriate.


"If the professions had a genuine interest in the students they admit, and the public they will eventually serve, they would take active steps to ensure that those coming in were the most suitable both in terms of the intellect required and the personal characteristics appropriate to the job for which they are being trained"

Actually, if you are suggesting that applicants be screened in some way other than through the exam process, then this being Ireland, I think that what you would find is that the children of lawyers would show an above average aptitude for law, the children of accountants an above aptitide for accountancy and so on. For better or worse, a system based upon exam results - though far from perfect - is less prone to interference based on more subjective appraisals. I think you need to give some more credit to graduates. They are most unlikely to pursue a career for which they are wholly unsuited. Conversely, if they want a particular career, and can pass the necessary exams, then I don't think some nebulous "lack of aptitude" criterion should be used to deny them entry.

In the case of doctors, I agree that some have ended up in positions which do not suit them, at least partly because of social conditioning. However, I place a very high value on letting people make their own personal choices in life, and I likewise believe that people must take the consequences of their own actions. If somebody has become a doctor and realised it is not the career for them, they should face up to that reality - but it is not for me or anybody else to force somebody in or out of a career choice, at least not in the private sector.

Of course, there are barriers to entry into any profession. In the solicitors profession, they are mainly academic and partially financial.

Click to expand...

That applies to all professions in spite of the abolition of third level fees. Hence the need for meaningful grants for the less well-off. No fees are payable for a first degree but are for subsequent study unless grant-aided.

The barriers to becoming a Barrister have recently been strengthened. Fees have to be paid to the Kings Inns by anyone aspiring to become a Barrister. It was possible to complete that course part-time over two years but, as was shown in “Legal Eagles”, it is planned to abolish this facility thereby excluding anyone who cannot afford the fees or to be unemployed for a full year. This may have been implemented already.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that just because other professions (e.g. medicine) operate unreasonable entry conditions that legal bodies should be free to do likewise.

Click to expand...

That assertion is factually incorrect. The points system is the only factor that definitely “excludes” anyone from third level. It is a matter of the number of places and the number of applicants. The brightest academically get first choice. The points required for Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy are as high if not higher than for Medicine due to the cost and small number of places. The points required for Law are very much lower. Medical schools could offer more places if the government were to provide the funding and have sought this without success.

The fees element of any university course only reflects a small proportion of the actual cost. In the faculty of Law, the course is shorter and costs are lower. Therefore there are more places and fewer points are required.

I think that what you would find is that the children of lawyers would show an above average aptitude for law, the children of accountants an above aptitide for accountancy and so on.

Click to expand...

Perhaps true but cannot be taken into consideration. Points are the sole determining factor for entry. Even if your Daddy is a Professor you won’t get in without the required points. Lets not cloud the Issue.

I accept that MOB writes in good faith from his/her perspective but may be somewhat naive. The question is - why should a top-level graduate in Law have to settle for migration to a country town (no disrespect) because he/she hasn’t got the right accent or is without contacts?

Top graduates in Medicine will invariably be offered an internship in a University hospital while those lower down the academic scale (irrespective of accent or contacts) have no choice but to settle for less prestigious places in which to obtain further training and experience.

Why should this not also apply when a law graduate seeks an apprenticeship?
The only other profession that approaches the Law in controlling entry is Pharmacy as was alluded to in an earlier post. The profession will only allow entry to those with an Irish degree. That restrictive practice is currently under scrutiny. The Legal profession has been scrutinised and appropriately criticised in the recent report.

It will be a long time before the draw-bridge comes down thereby allowing full access to the best and the brightest irrespective of contacts, accent or wealth. Why? Too much at stake obviously. Something like the taxi drivers as someone suggested earlier. The latter were a powerful lobby group but as nothing compared to our legal brethren.

8)