To consider retraining as a barrister?

[princessglitter]

I am a teacher in middle management with a fairly secure, reasonably satisfying career. I have always dreamed of a career in the law. Originally I considered becoming a solicitor, doing a conversion course and going down the LPC route.

However, at the last minute, I lost my nerve and pulled out of my college course. The idea of that amount of debt was horrifying to me.

I trained as a teacher, but has always felt unfulfilled if I'm honest. As I've got older, the idea of retraining as a barrister has become more appealing, but I am acutely aware that so many fall by the wayside. I have secured a mini-pupillage this summer, which I am extremely excited about. I am also going to apply for vacation schemes at solicitors' firms to enable me to make an informed decision.

I do have a strong academic background and an Oxbridge 2.1 - but I know that that alone will not be enough.

Am I unreasonable to take a risk (with my husband's support) and consider a career in the law? Possibly as a barrister, but I intend to research this thoroughly with some real experience in both areas and different specialisms.

Xenia, you are either deliberately missing the point to be provocative or you are a bit thick.

It simply isn't true that there is ample funding to ensure the brightest and the best get through. There is ample funding from a handful of commercial chambers or those very few that service the divorces of Russian oligarchs.

A lot of good people won't get on because they or their parents can't fund it.

You have looked at a few websites. I have been at the bar for nearly 20 years. I will leave it to the readers of this thread to determine who is most likely to be talking bollix.

I have to go and do some actual work now, luckily my case collapsed this morning so I will now be able to take my daughter to gym and not have to pay £20 for a taxi so the au pair can take her.

I now also have time to ring my bank and plead for an extension to my overdraft as the Legal Services commission haven't been paying us for the last three months.

No doubt Xenia will be tutting and saying it is entirely my fault for being mediocre and choosing a field which is not simply about the pursuit of profit. I don't regret the choices I have made about my career, but it is hard and getting harder.

I hope op hasn't bee completely depresses and put off, but I have certainly found it a really interesting thread.

Princessglitter when I did my GDL 9 years ago there was one woman in our class (full time) in a similar position. She was working for the civil service and had a son. She gave it up to drop to part time and then I think she dropped out completely after the civil service offered her a better job. It was hard then to get a training contract or pupillage but it's many times harder now that the bar has been restricted and many firms have been hit by the recession.

The other consideration is whether you'd consider a compromise of becoming a solicitor advocate or specialising in one of the areas where you get more court time as a solicitor (I've done a fair bit in litigation e.g. hearings/applications before masters in the high court) as a compromise. Solicitor is a much more stable starting point as you don't have the difficulties of being self-employed. The big commercial chambers do give funding (not as good as city solicitors) but frankly most of the junior barristers I see coming through these chambers are straight out of junior academia or have maybe spent a year doing something high profile abroad e.g. something legal and language related with the EC or legal studies/practice in other parts of the world. The exception to that rule is solicitors who have been in successful city practice for a number of years and then switch to the bar. Obviously they come with experience, clients and a name.

Also a lot of the bigger commercial chambers do try and get their junior barristers seconded to large law firms now because they get a better spread of work there helping on large cases and since a lot of cases settle nowadays this is the only way to really get them involved with the nitty gritty of life.

Thanks Spero.

My son is spending post-GDL year doing mini pupillages and charity legal work. He is going to try and get support from his Inn/a chambers and we will help him as much as we can.

He definitely does not want to do commercial work despite the huge financial rewards. He spent the day at a big City Firm and absolutely hated it.

Xenia - I am not liking your absurd reductionist 'survival of the fittest' argument much.

Well I've certainly helped in showing the better commercial chambers do provide funding. It has never been easy but it's much easier than in the day when none of that funding was around and in a sense you had to pay to be trained. I also accept we are in the middle of a recession and times are hard but not everyone finds it too difficult and lots of people do enjoy what they do. Good careers will never be handed to anyone on a plate as an entitlement and nor should they.

Xenia is only looking at the very top end commercial chambers. These chambers fight (financially and by wooing prospective pupils) to get 20 or so very highest of high fliers who are offered pupillages by several chambers. Outside this magic circle pupillage awards are much lower and the level of cushioning support available for new tenants would also be low. If you are poor, you have to be brilliant to get on in the Bar.

btw xenia - you never answered my question about your assumption that there's a direct relationship between interesting and highly paid

Xenia, the chambers you've used as your example is Brick Court Chambers, one of the top commercial sets in London. To see the standard of barristers there you only have to look at their CVs. They will get hundreds of pupillage applications, and they take a maximum of 4 pupils per year. This is not realistic even for the vast majority of BPTC students, let alone a late entrant with a 2:1 and a young family. The money is far better at the commercial bar, but it is in no way compatible with family life, and the OP isn't interested in that area of law anyway.

Incidentally RavenVonChaos, based on the research I did into family law, I think you have a good chance of making it to the bar - as long as your brain's sharp enough! Your professional experience, together with your life experience and relative maturity, will be invaluable. Good luck :)

I thought that too about RVC. If I were recruiting I'd snap her up over a 20-year old anyday.

To be fair to Xenia, we all said Chambers don't provide funding for BVC or pupillages. She did prove that some do. So she wasn't wrong there,

But, it isn't relevant to the OP. Without sounding harsh, everyone has agreed (even Xenia) that the Chambers who offer these types of funding only select the top academics from a select few universities, so whilst the OP has a great education it wouldn't get her very far in the application for those types of Chambers.

Secondly, the OP is NW based, it's slightly different in that lawyers here are rarely getting the type of money mentioned for London based Advocates. They do well, but it's not the same, and that should be considered.

I, and another poster, mentioned becoming a solicitor advocate, have you thought about this route OP? Will give you a chance to experience a wide range of cases and will help you decide what type of work you excel at. After all, you mint be academic but it doesn't equate to being good at advocacy. I know an amazing lawyer here who is awesome but struggles on her feet.

I am not getting into the debate re: intellects v types of law. Most lawyers are academic enough. DH did make a comment about look at the backgrounds of the Law Lords, most of whom were Criminal Barristers. I think that speaks volumes.

DH has toyed with the idea of joining a Chambers, but like Xenia, he knows the real money lies in owning your own law firm. Which explains why Xenia may have a different mindset to the barristers on this thread. That isn't meant offensively, merely an observation.

Ah, I shame myself with all my grammatical and spelling errors.

I should stick to gossip or housewife threads!

Xenia. No one is asking for a good career to be handed to them on a plate. What I am asking is do you see any unfairness at all in someone's life chances being reduced because their parents aren't rich? And do you now accept that this is the case at the Bar?

To be fair to us I don't think anyone said chambers don't fund pupil ages. They have done for ages, but most at low rates. And most give you no help with bar school fees.

Xenia, I'm afraid it's simply incorrect to say that if you're good enough, you'll get funded. That's just not the case in some areas of law. If OP wants to go into legal aid as a solicitor, an option she mentioned, getting funded is not a realistic possibility. Because it isn't on offer. She could go into one of the best and most respected legal aid solicitors firms in the country, but they're still not offering funding. Certainly not for the GDL. It's just not feasible for legal aid practices at the moment to pay thousands to take on a trainee in two years. None of them even really know whether they'll be here in two years! The LSC did run one scheme that paid fees:

www.legalservices.gov.uk/public/training_contract_grants.asp

But it's stopped now. I suppose you could try and get funding from an employer if you're already paralegalling there, but even then I guess they'd have to be doing a fair amount of private work too, in order to have a few grand lying around to invest in a trainee.

So it's inaccurate to say if you're good enough, you'll get funded. Your point is much stronger with regards to eg people who want to work in the magic circle who are starting the LPC without a TC. I do know one person who pulled this off, but he was an Oxford graduate. The rules are different for us, let's not pretend otherwise. Whereas the people I knew on the LPC who wanted to do corporate but hadn't even been motivated enough to apply for any TCs, let alone got them, are people who perhaps should have thought more carefully about their options.

It has never been easy but it's much easier than in the day when none of that funding was around and in a sense you had to pay to be trained.
Were there no LEAs in your day, Xenia?

What Xenia seems to be saying that if you don't want to go into corporate/commercial, that is because you are too thick to get accepted for anything else, therefore tough if you can't afford to train.

That is all well and good if ALL life is about is pursuing money. Even the Daily Mail seems to have recognised that it is not a great idea to have alleged paedophiles cross examining their alleged victims in court. some areas of law are not just about profit and billable hours.

Some of us who are clever enough to get good degrees and scholarships actively chose areas of law that offered something more than a 100 hour week even if the bucks were mega at the end of it. But it doesn't look as if anyone will be following me up the ladder.

L Why are there no professional development loans anymore Xenia? Because we are in financial meltdown because your chums in the city went for greed every time.

Just to add - having now scanned a lot of the thread - law in practice is very different from in law school, public image or theory. I thought I wanted to do crime, personal injury or clinical negligence. Then I did them. I now do an absolutely fascinating highly legal area of commercial law subject to constant changes and great fun. Would never have believed this if you'd told me where I'd end up. If anyone wanted to get into the area I'm in nowadays I'd tell them to try working for relating companies who are clients of all the major firms (specific industry quite a number of these) to gain an understanding of the area and make yourself more attractive. Also paralegals unless exceptional, doing it while waiting for their already gained tc to start, or taken on by the firm just gain an aura of failure which is off-putting. Whereas legal related experience goes down much better. If you're in the NW though, my area is not much of a runner as there's only 2 firms who do it.

I do agree with the general sentiment expressed. It's incredibly difficult to get into law nowadays and as an older candidate you'd be at a severe disadvantage. I have a 2:1 from Oxbridge and a 2:1 alone was basic criteria when I applied - degrees like a-levels have all been subject to grade inflation. Also as said practice is often very different from theory and not nearly as interesting and that's before you get to the admin side.

pupillageandhowtogetit.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/interviews/

this is interesting reading - particularly the right hand coloum

Most solicitors arwen't good enough, lucky enough and all the other factors (of which parental wealth is about 0.01% of your advantage) to get into jobs which fund your training. Even harder at the bar. However it is easier than in the days when there was no funding. The very brilliant can go to those sets (they are the only sort I ever come into contact with). Many won't even if they are good get chosen. It is the same in plenty of other careers. It's always been a b it of a lottery too.

I was asked if I thought only well paid work was interesting. No, although most low paid work is not interesting - cleaning , call centre. however some low paid work (being an artist, writing,badly apid bits of the bar might well be interesting. Most of us with chidlren to keep need to be careful however. Loads of well paid work is also fasciating and far far too many women think only low paid areas of law are "female" and go into those like lanbs to the slaughter and then whinge about low pay.

The very brilliant within your area of practice Xenia.

Seriously, keep these kinds of comments for rollonfriday, where everyone seems to think not working for a Magic Circle firm means you are a sad loser and shouldn't be allowed to have a practicing certificate.

Oh FFS. A practising certificate, I clearly meant, before she jumps on it.