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.

"I was asked if I thought only well paid work was interesting" - if that was a reference to me Xenia it isn't what I asked you.

you had said: "We need many more women doing decent legal areas with proper pay, not the low pay options."

Your implication is that the low pay options aren't "decent".

"Dealing with criminals and people who are getting divorced or losing their chidlren is not that intellectual satisfiying and is some of the worst paid of the work."

you give these as examples and, I would argue, your implication is that poorly paid areas of law aren't that interesting.

I gave you specific examples of poorly paid law - human rights law, public law, international law that are highly interesting (as evidenced form their frequent appearance in the media)

Exactly irishbird. You cannot even compare the funding provided to would-be solicitors by their firms to that provided by would-be barristers by their chambers (i.e. none).

*to would-be barristers

I agree with Xenia that dealing with divorces is not very interesting but when it comes to people losing their children this requires knowledge and application of the ECHR, challenges to public bodies by way of judicial review, cross examination of experts in many fields of medicine, emergency hearings.

It is interesting, intellectually challenging and you sometimes feel you are making a positive impact on a difficult situation. There are not many jobs you can say that about.

To dismiss something as inherently unworthy or lacking interest because it involves children and families, seems a strange world view... Or not so strange if what motivates you is money and prestige.

Spero sorry you were right, I said that I didn't think Chambers funded the pupillage and BVC, and actually was prepared to be corrected, on that point alone, by Xenia.

The other points of Xenia's I massively disagree with and again I will ask what is the background of the majority of Law Lords - Criminal and Family Barristers. Isn't it amazing that despite their chosen areas of law, which have been deemed as less intelligent by some, manage to rise through to get the top legal jobs in the Country. Or, just maybe, someone doesn't have any real experience of Criminal/Family law and is just speaking bollocks, whilst boosting their own ego at the same time.

Have you said what your age is OP? (haven't read the whole thread, sorry).

Judging by the numbers of immensely bright young things who are in the market for mini-pupillages and tenancies, I'd say don't follow your dream unless you are still fairly young and completely, utterly, outstandingly brilliant.

Xenia, can I second the request to know what you do?

Maitland Chambers publishes the qualifications of its barristers. Take a look - they're beyond clever (I used to go out with one, I can vouch for it:)). Most top sets like Maitland offer £60K of which part can be drawn down for the BVC year so it's a semantic quibble to say that the BVC isn't funded: no trainee barrister needs £60K for their Pupillage year, they can probably slum it a bit that year.

If baby barrister is dealing with divorces and jurisdictional issues then I concur she must have the brain the size of a planet. Sorry, should have clarified, the type of divorce I deal with is not very interesting as generally my clients have only just enough money to make them think litigation about who drives the four year old jeep would be a really sensible use of funds...

Xenia I'm waiting for our fish and chips to arrive and whiling away time wondering how you on earth you manage to earn so much and own your own island and fraternise on equal terms with Brick Court barristers while at the same time managing to screw up your spelling so execrably on each and every post?

Please tell us what you do.

Xenia is a solicitor who now has her own (niche) firm.

Do you think she's got any jobs going?

Xenia - do you use a certain orange coloured legal forum?! I suddenly think I recognise you...

Re: the pupillage funding of 60k that you posted, this is exactly what TableVamp and I mentioned a few pages back. It is not bar school funding! It is a (very high) pupillage award which you normally receive during your pupillage i.e. after finishing bar school, unless the chambers allows you to draw some of it early.

proudfoot if a pupil is able to draw down funding ahead for their Bar school year then of course it's funding for their Bar school year!

These £60K deals are only going to shore up the tiny minority of entrants though, obviously. DD3 is keen to apply to a set which is one of the top in its own field but offers £35K with only £7,500 available to draw down for the BPTC. That's not going to sustain her and I can't do much for her for the foreseeable future at least.

Maybe she'll have to be nudged over the road to the commercial sets, though she's not that keen. But then she'd be in clover. All she'd need would be a First, or preferably a Double First, probably a scholarship after Prelims, clean up on a whole load of Inns of Court scholarships, be winning at interview, forget that she thinks she'll find commercial work too dry and then Bob's her uncle. Sorted.

Xenia is Lydia? Fuck me, I'm off. If she isn't spaffing away in the gazette, she is following me round the internet. Aggrah. All that inverted feminist bullshit. Spare me.

Are there a few ROFers/ROFettes here then? I have been off there for about a year as it was getting batshit mental - there was some nutjob on there who considered my possession of a practising certificate when I was "clearly" thicker than him a personal affront. I couldn't tell if he was on a massive wind up or on a determined mission to identify me so I stopped posting.

I go on ROF every now and again. A lot of the people are still batshit mental tbh.

What's ROF, is it a legal forum?

rollonfriday. Yes it's a general discussion sort of place for legal types, although there are lots of random non legal types there too.

Batshit mental is a beautiful phrase :) Thank you.

Xenia was asked a while ago if she was 'Lydia' and she dissembled but didn't deny. Whoever 'Lydia' is.

Her feminism isn't inverted, surely? The first time I encountered Xenia was when she berated me vigorously for not working to earn money to send my kids to school. All credit to her, she stuck to her guns even under the heaviest return fire which should have annihilated her views. Her tactic was to keep repeating the same discredited point, over and over again. The judges would go batshit mental if she was at the Bar.

And then she told us that she owned an island too I think.

She does have a certain Thatcherite doggedness which is kind of admirable, in its way. I love her and think MN would be greatly diminished without her.

the last bit of my post of last night got cut off...

it as meant to have, at the end,

... and asked you why you seem so hung up on the idea that there's a correlation between high pay and academic interest.

but, to be honest, I'm not that interested in the answer. I enjoy debating and arguing, but not when views are presented in such a dogmatic, obstinate way. It just gets a bit tiresome and boring...

Used to post on ROF from its inception in 2000 until about 2005 when I slowed down and left the city, to 2008 when I stopped and had the babies, been back a handful of times since. Also stopped because the other posters were MENTAL. Lydia is another long timer. Inverted feminism as she rejects choice. Her way or the high way. No reason to be a SAHM or take maternity leave, after all she didn't and just took 2 weeks annual leave with her first child don'tyouknow. You should do paid work to be a role model, but are somehow lacking or selling out if you stay at home. She'd be Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins, if Mrs Banks worked.