35 replies to this topic

[Arrowhead]

Hello to all future Law students,

I've been on the forum for a while and I've seen that there are quite a few of you who plan on studying/want to study Law at University. I'm currently a second-year Law student at LSE in the UK and I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what studying Law is about at University and a career beyond.

I figured I'd start a thread where all of us can come together and talk about Law, what it actually means to study it, what it's about, what you can expect beyond a vague idea of it being challenging, and such. I'm not saying that I will have all the answers, but I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. I'm sure there must be other Law students on the forum or University students who have friends in Law. As future Law students, in a year or two, you guys will have a lot of information and experiences to contribute as well.

So yeah, any and all questions/concerns about studying Law or working towards making a career as a Solicitor/Barrister/Arbitrator/Advocate/etc. are welcome.

Cheers,
Arrowhead.

[Gaby]

A hopeful future Law student here! Ok, so if you can clarify, because I'm getting confused despite reading a lot about it: what exactly is the difference between a solicitor and a barrister? Because, from what I've read, it seems like this difference is slowly disappearing and this confuses me a lot. (I mean, difference beside the training )

[Arrowhead]

Gaby, on Dec 14, 2011 - 15:05, said:

A hopeful future Law student here! Ok, so if you can clarify, because I'm getting confused despite reading a lot about it: what exactly is the difference between a solicitor and a barrister? Because, from what I've read, it seems like this difference is slowly disappearing and this confuses me a lot. (I mean, difference beside the training )

Hey!

So that's a pretty common question and admittedly one that confounded me for most of the first-half of my first-year until I decided to pay attention in Introduction to Legal Systems.

As I'm sure you know, after completing the three year Bachelor's in Laws, those who want to go down the Solicitor's route have to clear the LPC exam (Law Practitioner's Certificate) and those for the Bar have to go down the BTPC (Bar Professional Training Course), formerly known as BVC (Bar Vocational Course).

After completing their specific exam, solicitors then move onto completing a two-year Training Contract with a Law firm and Barristers complete a two-year Pupillage at a Chambers.

The functional difference between a Solicitor and Barrister is that Solicitors deal directly with clients, they compile all the evidence, witness statements, etc. and provide these details to a Barrister, who then goes forward and appears on behalf of the client in court. Solicitors cannot appear in court, Barristers are to have limited contact time with clients. That, at least, was the traditional difference between the two. In recent years, that gap is bridging and slowly making the Barristers' position obsolete.

Solicitors can now apply for, pass an exam, and gain 'Rights of Audience' allowing them to appear on behalf of clients in front of judges in certain, selective courts. A number of Barristers now work in-house in Law firms because Law firms prefer to have them in-house and pay lesser fees for commercial arbitration cases (alternate dispute resolution out of court, something that is only getting bigger and bigger with time as clients do everything to avoid legal costs of fighting a case in court), as opposed to hiring out Barristers from Chambers.

One other reason it is becoming obsolete is because of globalisation. The Solicitor/Barrister distinction in the legal profession is limited to only England and Wales, in most other jurisdictions across the world, this no longer or has never existed. With so much cross-jurisdictional law occurring in the world today, many American, Continental, and some Asian firms find it very difficult to cope in England and Wales as the Rules of Evidence vary considerably in a common law system like that of England and Wales, and because they find it difficult to establish themselves in England and Wales' legal sector.

There is also an educational requirement difference, only the best of the best and the most talented of law students become Barristers (maybe a slight exaggeration, but this is mostly true), whereas anyone can become a Solicitor at a firm (again a slight exaggeration, but mostly true). As a student from LSE with an average 2.1 in my first-year and an expected average of a high 2.1 in my second-year, I would face considerable difficulty gaining a pupillage. They choose the best of the best and you have to have considerable mooting and debating experience in University outside of excellent grades. Nothing short of excellent grades will suffice for a Chambers. Most students serious about becoming Barristers spend an extra year completing their Masters to have a better shot after the LLB. You can actually get accepted by a top Law firm (I personally know of people getting into Baker and McKenzie and Norton Rose) with averaging scores of high 2.2s.

Oh! And in terms of the Barristers becoming obsolete, they've faced considerable criticism in recent years from the Judicial Diversity Panel of the government for being too selective in that they choose, upper-middle class, White men and women  from Oxbridge, and that's it. Firms on the other hand are stupendously more diverse. There's also work-wirse a difference. When you get a Pupillage and (hopefully) eventual work at a Chambers, you have to do what the Chambers does whether that be construction arbitration or private international law, there are only two top Chambers in London (Blackstone and Maxwell) that have barristers in multiple fields of law. Whereas at a Law firm, you can pick a Department that interests you the most and work your way up the ladder in that Department because more Law firms are diverse in their practising fields than Chambers.'

There's also the matter to consider that Chambers accept about 10-12 pupils on average in a year for a Pupillage, after two years, hardly 5 or 6 of them are offered places at the Chambers as practising Barristers (and it's no surprise that these students are generally exclusively from Oxbridge). Law firms accept around 50-100 Trainees every year (depending on size), the selection process is rigorous (perhaps not as rigorous as that of a Pupillage, but don't underestimate it), but after you've been trained by a firm, these firms have a trainee intake rate of over 90% bordering on 95-97% in most cases.

So I hope that answers your questions, if something is unclear, or I haven't elucidated an important point, please feel free to ask.

Cheers,
Arrowhead.

[Award Winning Boss]

Hello,

I am not sure if I want to go straight into law or I want to start a course then change to law, is that idea unnecessary or will it hinder me if I don't go right into law?

Understandably you may not know what the graduate course is like but would I be at a disadvantage taking the conversion course?

ps is patent law the same as commercial law? what about intellectual property? if my intentions are to become a barrister, where would I fit into there?

Also, why did you pick law?

another thing... how are you average?... you're arrowhead. That's impossible.

Edited by AHiddenName, Dec 14, 2011 - 16:43.

[Gaby]

Arrowhead, on Dec 14, 2011 - 16:28, said:

Gaby, on Dec 14, 2011 - 15:05, said:

A hopeful future Law student here! Ok, so if you can clarify, because I'm getting confused despite reading a lot about it: what exactly is the difference between a solicitor and a barrister? Because, from what I've read, it seems like this difference is slowly disappearing and this confuses me a lot. (I mean, difference beside the training )

Hey!

So that's a pretty common question and admittedly one that confounded me for most of the first-half of my first-year until I decided to pay attention in Introduction to Legal Systems.

As I'm sure you know, after completing the three year Bachelor's in Laws, those who want to go down the Solicitor's route have to clear the LPC exam (Law Practitioner's Certificate) and those for the Bar have to go down the BTPC (Bar Professional Training Course), formerly known as BVC (Bar Vocational Course).

After completing their specific exam, solicitors then move onto completing a two-year Training Contract with a Law firm and Barristers complete a two-year Pupillage at a Chambers.

The functional difference between a Solicitor and Barrister is that Solicitors deal directly with clients, they compile all the evidence, witness statements, etc. and provide these details to a Barrister, who then goes forward and appears on behalf of the client in court. Solicitors cannot appear in court, Barristers are to have limited contact time with clients. That, at least, was the traditional difference between the two. In recent years, that gap is bridging and slowly making the Barristers' position obsolete.

Solicitors can now apply for, pass an exam, and gain 'Rights of Audience' allowing them to appear on behalf of clients in front of judges in certain, selective courts. A number of Barristers now work in-house in Law firms because Law firms prefer to have them in-house and pay lesser fees for commercial arbitration cases (alternate dispute resolution out of court, something that is only getting bigger and bigger with time as clients do everything to avoid legal costs of fighting a case in court), as opposed to hiring out Barristers from Chambers.

One other reason it is becoming obsolete is because of globalisation. The Solicitor/Barrister distinction in the legal profession is limited to only England and Wales, in most other jurisdictions across the world, this no longer or has never existed. With so much cross-jurisdictional law occurring in the world today, many American, Continental, and some Asian firms find it very difficult to cope in England and Wales as the Rules of Evidence vary considerably in a common law system like that of England and Wales, and because they find it difficult to establish themselves in England and Wales' legal sector.

There is also an educational requirement difference, only the best of the best and the most talented of law students become Barristers (maybe a slight exaggeration, but this is mostly true), whereas anyone can become a Solicitor at a firm (again a slight exaggeration, but mostly true). As a student from LSE with an average 2.1 in my first-year and an expected average of a high 2.1 in my second-year, I would face considerable difficulty gaining a pupillage. They choose the best of the best and you have to have considerable mooting and debating experience in University outside of excellent grades. Nothing short of excellent grades will suffice for a Chambers. Most students serious about becoming Barristers spend an extra year completing their Masters to have a better shot after the LLB. You can actually get accepted by a top Law firm (I personally know of people getting into Baker and McKenzie and Norton Rose) with averaging scores of high 2.2s.

Oh! And in terms of the Barristers becoming obsolete, they've faced considerable criticism in recent years from the Judicial Diversity Panel of the government for being too selective in that they choose, upper-middle class, White men and women  from Oxbridge, and that's it. Firms on the other hand are stupendously more diverse. There's also work-wirse a difference. When you get a Pupillage and (hopefully) eventual work at a Chambers, you have to do what the Chambers does whether that be construction arbitration or private international law, there are only two top Chambers in London (Blackstone and Maxwell) that have barristers in multiple fields of law. Whereas at a Law firm, you can pick a Department that interests you the most and work your way up the ladder in that Department because more Law firms are diverse in their practising fields than Chambers.'

There's also the matter to consider that Chambers accept about 10-12 pupils on average in a year for a Pupillage, after two years, hardly 5 or 6 of them are offered places at the Chambers as practising Barristers (and it's no surprise that these students are generally exclusively from Oxbridge). Law firms accept around 50-100 Trainees every year (depending on size), the selection process is rigorous (perhaps not as rigorous as that of a Pupillage, but don't underestimate it), but after you've been trained by a firm, these firms have a trainee intake rate of over 90% bordering on 95-97% in most cases.

So I hope that answers your questions, if something is unclear, or I haven't elucidated an important point, please feel free to ask.

Cheers,
Arrowhead.

Wow, thank you, that clarified a lot. So, basically, if I wanted to focus on a particular area of Law, I'd want to be a solicitor rather than barrister?

And isn't it that becoming a solicitor is a bit "safer" option? Also, how are these to compared in terms of money (as in, future salary )?

[Arrowhead]

AHiddenName, on Dec 14, 2011 - 16:41, said:

Hello,

I am not sure if I want to go straight into law or I want to start a course then change to law, is that idea unnecessary or will it hinder me if I don't go right into law?

Understandably you may not know what the graduate course is like but would I be at a disadvantage taking the conversion course?

It will not in any way hinder you. I have been to loads of meet-and-greet events with representatives from some of the top City Law Firms in London and majority (no exaggeration here) went down the GDL route as opposed to the traditional three-year degree route. In fact, one statistic in The Guardian claimed that 60% of LLB Law Grads in the UK went onto doing completely different things in their professional lives. One of the Senior Partners at Magic Circle Law Firm Clifford Chance whom I met at an LSE-Clifford Chance networking event had done his Bachelor's at LSE, that delighted me, then I found out that he had done his Bachelor's in Economics and then done the GDL into Law and was now a Senior Partner in the Mergers and Acquisitions Department at CC. You have nothing to worry about.

AHiddenName, on Dec 14, 2011 - 16:41, said:

ps is patent law the same as commercial law? what about intellectual property?

Erm...how do I answer this? It's a pretty big question. Commercial Law is one gigantic legal sector. We traditionally have two broad areas of law: private (between citizens) and public (between the citizen and State). But in recent years, a third area that used to be under private has expanded so explosively that it arguably has its own heading with the big two: Commercial. This kind of law covers everything to do with the actions and dealings of companies. So it would involve the Law of Business Associations, Company Law, Taxation, Real Estate, IT, Intellectual Property, and the list goes on.

Each of these sub-areas of law are the same for the private brand of law, the difference is that when it comes to commercial law, it focusses on these dealings between companies, so 'commercial purposes.'

So Patent law is a form of commercial law when it is between companies and not private citizens. Intellectual Property has three broad categories that can be specialised in: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright (and an increasing demand to add a fourth category of Information Technology which is currently almost exclusively governed by Copyright, but that debate is ancillary to this discussion...) Each of the three areas covers a different kind of, in layman's terms, 'idea protection.' If you want more information on that, like something specific you're wondering about in the law or otherwise, ask me.

AHiddenName, on Dec 14, 2011 - 16:41, said:

if my intentions are to become a barrister, where would I fit into there?

Oh wishful thinking. Wouldn't we all want to be a Barrister? No but seriously, I want to be a Barrister myself, and it is particularly challenging as I mentioned in my earlier post. I would say that technically, if you do the GDL, you shouldn't be disadvantaged, but realistically, I think you have a lesser shot to garner a pupillage as compared to a three-year traditional Law student. I mean if you dazzled in your interview, nothing like it. But Chambers (as opposed to firms) place a lot of importance on past mooting and debating experience after work experience. If you can gather sufficiently impressive work experience, great! You will be fine. But as a Law student in my second-year, I have already completed two mini-pupillages at mid-level Chambers as prized for winning moots, your work experience, unfortunately can't compare to something like that.

Furthermore, as a non-Law student, getting Mooting experience (which is a great way to understand how a court functions, particularities about presentation and such) is difficult, because competition is fierce, as I'm sure you can imagine. Let me put it this way, I'm participating in one of the most prestigious mooting competitions (on international law) called Jessup's. Law students at LSE are willing to kill to get a spot on this team. Say I win something at the Jessup's and write that down on my application and you submit yours with no mooting experience and as a non-Law student. All other things being equal, they would pick me. All other things being slightly unequal, in that you have slightly better grades (which is hard to do because everyone who applies to Chambers has brilliant grades) or you have more work experience than I do by say a small margin, they would still pick me.

So I would say that it would be tough getting into a Chambers with the GDL, but it's tough getting into Chambers with a 3-year degree as well, but it would be particularly challenging for the GDL person, in my honest opinion. Simply because it would be very easy to outshine you on paper, unless you were some kind of Law-obsessed freak doing another degree for an indeterminable reason.

AHiddenName, on Dec 14, 2011 - 16:41, said:

Also, why did you pick law?

I love arguing, reading, picking technicalities in documents, and I like to think I'm reasonably bright, so it seemed like a good option. While I hated my decision all through my first-year, I am actually enjoying some parts of Law now, particularly Public International Law and IP Law (so I do have some useful information for that subject, if you want to know more). But mainly because, it is a respectable undergraduate degree and my parents told me that if at the end of my Undergraduate study, I realised that Law was genuinely not for me, they would support me into whatever else I chose to do.

AHiddenName, on Dec 14, 2011 - 16:41, said:

another thing... how are you average?... you're arrowhead. That's impossible.

I have no idea what you mean by that? But I will smile and say 'thank you' for the very hyperbolic compliment.

Gaby, on Dec 14, 2011 - 17:20, said:

Wow, thank you, that clarified a lot. So, basically, if I wanted to focus on a particular area of Law, I'd want to be a solicitor rather than barrister?

Not necessarily so. You could apply to a Chambers that specialises in the kind of Law you're interested in (in fact you should do that to maximise your chances to get into a Chambers at all) and be able to practise that. It's always an option. The things is, there are way fewer Chambers than Firms, and there are only two multifarious Chambers as opposed to more than a dozen multifarious Law Firms. So the chances of you being able to practice what you're interested in, is more likely to happen at a Firm than a Chamber. But in a very lawyerly counterargument, you could be a genius who can get into any Chamber she wanted, so I wouldn't know, and won't give a definitive answer.

But I would encourage you not to go into Law school with definitive preferences. I went in thinking that Criminal Law was so 'totally awesome,' and reading contracts would be 'so boring.' Guess what? One month into Uni, I loathed Criminal Law (because I thought it was deplorably uninteresting and unnecessarily vulgar and archaic) and I actually enjoyed (the technical complexity and intellectual challenge posed by) Contract Law. Who would've thought that would happen? I most certainly didn't.

Gaby, on Dec 14, 2011 - 17:20, said:

And isn't it that becoming a solicitor is a bit "safer" option? Also, how are these to compared in terms of money (as in, future salary )?

Arguably, yes, becoming a Solicitor is considered the 'safer' option. But if you want to be a Solicitor at a top Firm (and everybody wants that), it's not exactly a walk in the park. I'm in the midst of my Vacation Scheme applications, so I would know.

Future salary. Well, a Junior Lawyer (someone who just finished their training contract) gets paid £50/hour at a top City law Firm like Freshfields, Clifford Chance, Allen and Overy, Linklaters, etc. A Partner at one of the top Firms, gets paid £700/hour. Jaw-dropping, I know.

A Barrister earns his wages based on how much work he does. He is in-charge of his own schedule and workload. So a successful Barrister can easily earn more than a high-paid Solicitor, but by the same token, a not-so-successful Barrister will never have the kind of job security, or moreover, the level of job security, that a Solicitor tends to enjoy.

It all comes down to one thing: If you're good at what you do, you will earn big money. I think that's true for whatever profession you pick.

I hope that helps and again, if something is unclear, or not explained thoroughly enough, or you have further questions; then I apologise for my brevity and please feel free to ask me.

Or if you have other questions like 'What is a Qualifying Law Degree?' Or why people choose to study Law in England even though they're international and their countries' law is different and they plan on going back? Or any other general or specific stuff.

Cheers,
Arrowhead.

Edited by Arrowhead, Dec 14, 2011 - 18:43.

[Award Winning Boss]

Can you tell me more of your experience with commercial law please?

[ninety]

Hey Arrowhead, have you ever come across anything related to legal translation? Do you know anybody who's aspiring to become a legal translator?

I'd love to find out more information about this field, because after I finish my LLB I want to go into translation of some sort (yes, my IB subjects do not really reflect that). I presume I'll have to take some sort of translation course after the LLB in order to get into translation, but other than that, I don't know too much. Would really appreciate it if you could share anything you might know on this. Thank you.

... Otherwise, would you know anything about practising law internationally? As in serving foreign clients or working abroad. Would this involve working for an international firm? Or for a multinational company? I have a feeling that international firms are only 'international' because they have branches in many countries, and not because the nature of the work itself is international. Thank you again.

[Arrowhead]

AHiddenName, on Dec 15, 2011 - 12:00, said:

Can you tell me more of your experience with commercial law please?

My experience with commercial law. Well, I'll definitely say that it is an acquired taste. While there is a lot of money to be made in this field, none of that money is made easily. Commercial law is 50% about drafting and 50% about avoiding court at all costs. Depending on which firm/chambers you work for, you will be focussed on a different aspect of commercial law to some extent. All the flourishing firms and chambers deal almost exclusively with commercial law. Is there anything specific about commercial law you were wondering about because I'm not quite sure how to answer your question? It's rather vague.

ninety, on Dec 15, 2011 - 15:24, said:

Hey Arrowhead, have you ever come across anything related to legal translation? Do you know anybody who's aspiring to become a legal translator?

I have come across it a few times, but do I know anyone who is actively trying to make a career in Legal Translation? I'm afraid not. Mostly I come across it when I study either EU or International Law where a number of authors have used translated authorities to substantiate or support their relevant arguments.

ninety, on Dec 15, 2011 - 15:24, said:

I'd love to find out more information about this field, because after I finish my LLB I want to go into translation of some sort (yes, my IB subjects do not really reflect that). I presume I'll have to take some sort of translation course after the LLB in order to get into translation, but other than that, I don't know too much. Would really appreciate it if you could share anything you might know on this. Thank you.

Frankly I think that just might make you a little over-quaified for a career solely focussed on legal translation. First of all, most authors I've read that have used translated authorities, have either done the translations themselves or have used an official translated version. This kind of work requires you to be fluent in both languages (obviously), but it is not exactly an easily locatable profession because you need not be an accredited lawyer to be able to qualify as a legal translator. You just need to be a run-of-the-mill translator tbh.

I guess the honest answer here would be that I'm not surrounded by people who would go into this kind of field, it is highly specialised (and sounds incredibly boring, I think you haven't factored into account how deplorably uninteresting legal documents can be, especially court judgment, they're the bane of my existence).

ninety, on Dec 15, 2011 - 15:24, said:

... Otherwise, would you know anything about practising law internationally? As in serving foreign clients or working abroad. Would this involve working for an international firm? Or for a multinational company? I have a feeling that international firms are only 'international' because they have branches in many countries, and not because the nature of the work itself is international. Thank you again.

I think you answered that question yourself to some extent. The truth is that international firms are international because they have offices everywhere (or at least in more than 5-10 countries), but they specialise in international transactions between companies across jurisdictions. For example, when A&NN Corporation (Russian company) bought UK's Waterstone's at the beginning of 2011 from UK HMV Company, Taylor Wessing (an American firm, but the London office), conducted the transaction. This was when their lawyers in Moscow worked in tandem with their lawyers in London. It's a lot of international work in that respect. The best commercial lawyers are the ones who are reasonably cognisant and able in understanding the law from more than one country, common combinations would include UK-Hong Kong, US-UK, France-Germany, etc.

The other, more formalistic, understanding of International Law is Public International Law, the law between states. The Law that takes place and is judged by the ECJ, the ICJ, ICC, and other international or supranational judging bodies. To qualify as a judge for these courts I believe the qualification is that you have to have the credentials to be considered for the highest-ranking judging position in your home country. So that's a long way off.

However, it is possible to a representative of clients in these courts, all the Human Rights cases, state abuses of authority, crimes against humanity, genocide conventions, etc. But that is a tough life, you will be fighting the 'good fight,' which is unfortunately 'piss poor' in the income department. That is international law, which tbh, the more and more I study, I find there to be no law in it whatsoever. Both sides can claim diametrically opposite things and can reasonably find its justification in international law via Treaty, but mostly by Custom. It's a big hodgepodge in my honest opinion (and in the opinions of most international jurists).

I hope that answers your questions.

Cheers,
Arrowhead.

[ninety]

Arrowhead, on Dec 15, 2011 - 19:04, said:

Frankly I think that just might make you a little over-quaified for a career solely focussed on legal translation. First of all, most authors I've read that have used translated authorities, have either done the translations themselves or have used an official translated version. This kind of work requires you to be fluent in both languages (obviously), but it is not exactly an easily locatable profession because you need not be an accredited lawyer to be able to qualify as a legal translator. You just need to be a run-of-the-mill translator tbh.

I guess the honest answer here would be that I'm not surrounded by people who would go into this kind of field, it is highly specialised (and sounds incredibly boring, I think you haven't factored into account how deplorably uninteresting legal documents can be, especially court judgment, they're the bane of my existence).

Thanks a lot for your advice. I've asked various people the same questions and nobody has ever given me such a detailed answer.

Yeah, I was also thinking that I might be a bit over-qualified if I took that route. I asked a friend studying Law for advice, and he was convinced that I needed formal training to do translation in the legal field. I guess it is the safer path to take, but perhaps I can find another way to prove my competence in languages.

I understand what you said about legal documents being extremely uninteresting. During my work placement at a law firm I saw how tedious and unbelievably lengthy they were at first hand

I'm multilingual and I really love languages, so I really want to find a way to combine my multilingualism with my law career. I can think of so many possible ways of doing this, but I don't know whether they're realistic or not. The possibilities I've thought of are: translating legal documents, working for an international firm or becoming solicitor who can double as an unqualified translator/interpreter in my firm/company. They all sound like they could work, but at the same time it feels like they're out of reach.

And the reason I'm doing Law is because I want to secure a good and stable income, so I don't think I'll be going into human rights or pro bono work... I do want to help the needy, but not in this way.

Thank you again.

[Arrowhead]

ninety, on Dec 16, 2011 - 15:38, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 15, 2011 - 19:04, said:

Frankly I think that just might make you a little over-quaified for a career solely focussed on legal translation. First of all, most authors I've read that have used translated authorities, have either done the translations themselves or have used an official translated version. This kind of work requires you to be fluent in both languages (obviously), but it is not exactly an easily locatable profession because you need not be an accredited lawyer to be able to qualify as a legal translator. You just need to be a run-of-the-mill translator tbh.

I guess the honest answer here would be that I'm not surrounded by people who would go into this kind of field, it is highly specialised (and sounds incredibly boring, I think you haven't factored into account how deplorably uninteresting legal documents can be, especially court judgment, they're the bane of my existence).

Thanks a lot for your advice. I've asked various people the same questions and nobody has ever given me such a detailed answer.

Yeah, I was also thinking that I might be a bit over-qualified if I took that route. I asked a friend studying Law for advice, and he was convinced that I needed formal training to do translation in the legal field. I guess it is the safer path to take, but perhaps I can find another way to prove my competence in languages.

I understand what you said about legal documents being extremely uninteresting. During my work placement at a law firm I saw how tedious and unbelievably lengthy they were at first hand

I'm multilingual and I really love languages, so I really want to find a way to combine my multilingualism with my law career. I can think of so many possible ways of doing this, but I don't know whether they're realistic or not. The possibilities I've thought of are: translating legal documents, working for an international firm or becoming solicitor who can double as an unqualified translator/interpreter in my firm/company. They all sound like they could work, but at the same time it feels like they're out of reach.

And the reason I'm doing Law is because I want to secure a good and stable income, so I don't think I'll be going into human rights or pro bono work... I do want to help the needy, but not in this way.

Thank you again.

I think you've underestimated the amount of importance that a law firm, any law firm, places on multilingualism in this globalised economy. Case and point, when you apply to a Law firm, one of the sections of every application you fill in will ask you how many languages you are fluent in. Languages also play a role in determining international seats during a training contract. Someone I know at a Firm is fluent in German and French, he got to do two international seats during his contract: one in Paris and another in Düsseldorf, he's now stationed in Morocco. Languages are incredibly important in a traditional legal career, you really need not try to find further ends because this will be demanding enough of your linguistic skills. Also, you need not worry, if you indicate you're fluent in a language, written and oral, they will make you translate all the documents, to your, and more importantly, their hearts' content. Nobody wants to spend money to hire a legal translator (if there is such a thing, as opposed to an all-purpose translator), when one of their own employees could do the job within the pay check they are already receiving.

Do keep that in mind,
Arrowhead.

[sarahlouise]

Hey,
I'm thinking of applying to study Law in the UK. I was wondering if anyone knew of any books that one could read in preparation for it, or even just to get a better idea of what studying Law is like.
Thanks in advance.

[Arrowhead]

sarahlouise, on Dec 20, 2011 - 06:26, said:

Hey, I'm thinking of applying to study Law in the UK. I was wondering if anyone knew of any books that one could read in preparation for it, or even just to get a better idea of what studying Law is like. Thanks in advance.

I would suggest the following, by no means should you read all of them, but even one would be enough.
1. J. Adams and R Brownsword Understanding Law.
2. A. Bradney et al How to Study Law
3.C. Gearty Can Human Rights Survive?

The last one particularly is optional, but I would recommend it because with the state of law as it is now, you tend to involve Human Rights in all aspects and this book gives you a good, general overview.

[Gaby]

Arrowhead, on Dec 19, 2011 - 01:21, said:

ninety, on Dec 16, 2011 - 15:38, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 15, 2011 - 19:04, said:

Frankly I think that just might make you a little over-quaified for a career solely focussed on legal translation. First of all, most authors I've read that have used translated authorities, have either done the translations themselves or have used an official translated version. This kind of work requires you to be fluent in both languages (obviously), but it is not exactly an easily locatable profession because you need not be an accredited lawyer to be able to qualify as a legal translator. You just need to be a run-of-the-mill translator tbh.

I guess the honest answer here would be that I'm not surrounded by people who would go into this kind of field, it is highly specialised (and sounds incredibly boring, I think you haven't factored into account how deplorably uninteresting legal documents can be, especially court judgment, they're the bane of my existence).

Thanks a lot for your advice. I've asked various people the same questions and nobody has ever given me such a detailed answer.

Yeah, I was also thinking that I might be a bit over-qualified if I took that route. I asked a friend studying Law for advice, and he was convinced that I needed formal training to do translation in the legal field. I guess it is the safer path to take, but perhaps I can find another way to prove my competence in languages.

I understand what you said about legal documents being extremely uninteresting. During my work placement at a law firm I saw how tedious and unbelievably lengthy they were at first hand

I'm multilingual and I really love languages, so I really want to find a way to combine my multilingualism with my law career. I can think of so many possible ways of doing this, but I don't know whether they're realistic or not. The possibilities I've thought of are: translating legal documents, working for an international firm or becoming solicitor who can double as an unqualified translator/interpreter in my firm/company. They all sound like they could work, but at the same time it feels like they're out of reach.

And the reason I'm doing Law is because I want to secure a good and stable income, so I don't think I'll be going into human rights or pro bono work... I do want to help the needy, but not in this way.

Thank you again.

I think you've underestimated the amount of importance that a law firm, any law firm, places on multilingualism in this globalised economy. Case and point, when you apply to a Law firm, one of the sections of every application you fill in will ask you how many languages you are fluent in. Languages also play a role in determining international seats during a training contract. Someone I know at a Firm is fluent in German and French, he got to do two international seats during his contract: one in Paris and another in Düsseldorf, he's now stationed in Morocco. Languages are incredibly important in a traditional legal career, you really need not try to find further ends because this will be demanding enough of your linguistic skills. Also, you need not worry, if you indicate you're fluent in a language, written and oral, they will make you translate all the documents, to your, and more importantly, their hearts' content. Nobody wants to spend money to hire a legal translator (if there is such a thing, as opposed to an all-purpose translator), when one of their own employees could do the job within the pay check they are already receiving.

Do keep that in mind,
Arrowhead.

Ok, so if languages are so useful in Law career, what if someone is only fluent in English? (I'm also fluent in Polish, but I guess this might not count, and I'm learning French, but there is no way I'll be fluent in 4 years time). Does such a person has a lesser chance of getting a job at a top law firm, or it's not so important?

[Arrowhead]

Gaby, on Dec 20, 2011 - 19:19, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 19, 2011 - 01:21, said:

ninety, on Dec 16, 2011 - 15:38, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 15, 2011 - 19:04, said:

Frankly I think that just might make you a little over-quaified for a career solely focussed on legal translation. First of all, most authors I've read that have used translated authorities, have either done the translations themselves or have used an official translated version. This kind of work requires you to be fluent in both languages (obviously), but it is not exactly an easily locatable profession because you need not be an accredited lawyer to be able to qualify as a legal translator. You just need to be a run-of-the-mill translator tbh.

I guess the honest answer here would be that I'm not surrounded by people who would go into this kind of field, it is highly specialised (and sounds incredibly boring, I think you haven't factored into account how deplorably uninteresting legal documents can be, especially court judgment, they're the bane of my existence).

Thanks a lot for your advice. I've asked various people the same questions and nobody has ever given me such a detailed answer.

Yeah, I was also thinking that I might be a bit over-qualified if I took that route. I asked a friend studying Law for advice, and he was convinced that I needed formal training to do translation in the legal field. I guess it is the safer path to take, but perhaps I can find another way to prove my competence in languages.

I understand what you said about legal documents being extremely uninteresting. During my work placement at a law firm I saw how tedious and unbelievably lengthy they were at first hand

I'm multilingual and I really love languages, so I really want to find a way to combine my multilingualism with my law career. I can think of so many possible ways of doing this, but I don't know whether they're realistic or not. The possibilities I've thought of are: translating legal documents, working for an international firm or becoming solicitor who can double as an unqualified translator/interpreter in my firm/company. They all sound like they could work, but at the same time it feels like they're out of reach.

And the reason I'm doing Law is because I want to secure a good and stable income, so I don't think I'll be going into human rights or pro bono work... I do want to help the needy, but not in this way.

Thank you again.

I think you've underestimated the amount of importance that a law firm, any law firm, places on multilingualism in this globalised economy. Case and point, when you apply to a Law firm, one of the sections of every application you fill in will ask you how many languages you are fluent in. Languages also play a role in determining international seats during a training contract. Someone I know at a Firm is fluent in German and French, he got to do two international seats during his contract: one in Paris and another in Düsseldorf, he's now stationed in Morocco. Languages are incredibly important in a traditional legal career, you really need not try to find further ends because this will be demanding enough of your linguistic skills. Also, you need not worry, if you indicate you're fluent in a language, written and oral, they will make you translate all the documents, to your, and more importantly, their hearts' content. Nobody wants to spend money to hire a legal translator (if there is such a thing, as opposed to an all-purpose translator), when one of their own employees could do the job within the pay check they are already receiving.

Do keep that in mind,
Arrowhead.

Ok, so if languages are so useful in Law career, what if someone is only fluent in English? (I'm also fluent in Polish, but I guess this might not count, and I'm learning French, but there is no way I'll be fluent in 4 years time). Does such a person has a lesser chance of getting a job at a top law firm, or it's not so important?

Think of knowing multiple languages as an added bonus, it can only help your cause, but by not being present, it won't hurt your application. But you're fluent in English and Polish, that alone is enough for your to stand out. Firms have a lot of work across Europe and Poland would be a hotspot I would imagine. Maybe not a central focus like England or France or Germany, but definitely considered in conjunction with emerging EU law and Competition law and not to mention the strict Polish Supreme's Court's stance on international ties via the Lisbon Treaty. Also, I've only had a few years of practice in French via the IB, I am nowhere near fluent, but I've still listed it as one of the languages I'm advanced in, as opposed to English, Hindi, Gujarathi, Punjabi and Sindi that I'm fluent in (I was gobsmacked when I found that they do in fact list the individual Indian languages as separate languages as opposed to lumping them together as dialects, which is the only reason my languages section is filled up).

[Gaby]

Arrowhead, on Dec 20, 2011 - 19:25, said:

Gaby, on Dec 20, 2011 - 19:19, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 19, 2011 - 01:21, said:

ninety, on Dec 16, 2011 - 15:38, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 15, 2011 - 19:04, said:

Frankly I think that just might make you a little over-quaified for a career solely focussed on legal translation. First of all, most authors I've read that have used translated authorities, have either done the translations themselves or have used an official translated version. This kind of work requires you to be fluent in both languages (obviously), but it is not exactly an easily locatable profession because you need not be an accredited lawyer to be able to qualify as a legal translator. You just need to be a run-of-the-mill translator tbh.

I guess the honest answer here would be that I'm not surrounded by people who would go into this kind of field, it is highly specialised (and sounds incredibly boring, I think you haven't factored into account how deplorably uninteresting legal documents can be, especially court judgment, they're the bane of my existence).

Thanks a lot for your advice. I've asked various people the same questions and nobody has ever given me such a detailed answer.

Yeah, I was also thinking that I might be a bit over-qualified if I took that route. I asked a friend studying Law for advice, and he was convinced that I needed formal training to do translation in the legal field. I guess it is the safer path to take, but perhaps I can find another way to prove my competence in languages.

I understand what you said about legal documents being extremely uninteresting. During my work placement at a law firm I saw how tedious and unbelievably lengthy they were at first hand

I'm multilingual and I really love languages, so I really want to find a way to combine my multilingualism with my law career. I can think of so many possible ways of doing this, but I don't know whether they're realistic or not. The possibilities I've thought of are: translating legal documents, working for an international firm or becoming solicitor who can double as an unqualified translator/interpreter in my firm/company. They all sound like they could work, but at the same time it feels like they're out of reach.

And the reason I'm doing Law is because I want to secure a good and stable income, so I don't think I'll be going into human rights or pro bono work... I do want to help the needy, but not in this way.

Thank you again.

I think you've underestimated the amount of importance that a law firm, any law firm, places on multilingualism in this globalised economy. Case and point, when you apply to a Law firm, one of the sections of every application you fill in will ask you how many languages you are fluent in. Languages also play a role in determining international seats during a training contract. Someone I know at a Firm is fluent in German and French, he got to do two international seats during his contract: one in Paris and another in Düsseldorf, he's now stationed in Morocco. Languages are incredibly important in a traditional legal career, you really need not try to find further ends because this will be demanding enough of your linguistic skills. Also, you need not worry, if you indicate you're fluent in a language, written and oral, they will make you translate all the documents, to your, and more importantly, their hearts' content. Nobody wants to spend money to hire a legal translator (if there is such a thing, as opposed to an all-purpose translator), when one of their own employees could do the job within the pay check they are already receiving.

Do keep that in mind,
Arrowhead.

Ok, so if languages are so useful in Law career, what if someone is only fluent in English? (I'm also fluent in Polish, but I guess this might not count, and I'm learning French, but there is no way I'll be fluent in 4 years time). Does such a person has a lesser chance of getting a job at a top law firm, or it's not so important?

Think of knowing multiple languages as an added bonus, it can only help your cause, but by not being present, it won't hurt your application. But you're fluent in English and Polish, that alone is enough for your to stand out. Firms have a lot of work across Europe and Poland would be a hotspot I would imagine. Maybe not a central focus like England or France or Germany, but definitely considered in conjunction with emerging EU law and Competition law and not to mention the strict Polish Supreme's Court's stance on international ties via the Lisbon Treaty. Also, I've only had a few years of practice in French via the IB, I am nowhere near fluent, but I've still listed it as one of the languages I'm advanced in, as opposed to English, Hindi, Gujarathi, Punjabi and Sindi that I'm fluent in (I was gobsmacked when I found that they do in fact list the individual Indian languages as separate languages as opposed to lumping them together as dialects, which is the only reason my languages section is filled up).

Wow, thank you. I study French as hard as I can but it's a lot more difficult than English to learn, at least for me. I thought that Polish would be the most useless language to know, you surprised me, really.

[Arrowhead]

Gaby, on Dec 20, 2011 - 20:29, said:

Wow, thank you. I study French as hard as I can but it's a lot more difficult than English to learn, at least for me. I thought that Polish would be the most useless language to know, you surprised me, really.

Knowing an additional language will never be useless. Ever.

[Award Winning Boss]

Arrowhead, on Dec 20, 2011 - 21:41, said:

Knowing an additional language will never be useless. Ever.

Not until technology evolves to a stage where we can implant every language into our brain by just drinking some water am i right? or am i right?

I joke, i have a serious question. What would you say a 'normal' day as a law student at LSE is like? simple? busy? or oh my i want to rip the hair off my head crazy?

Have you ever got a 1st on any of your essays? and was it very difficult to get if you have?

[Arrowhead]

AHiddenName, on Dec 20, 2011 - 21:48, said:

Arrowhead, on Dec 20, 2011 - 21:41, said:

Knowing an additional language will never be useless. Ever.

Not until technology evolves to a stage where we can implant every language into our brain by just drinking some water am i right? or am i right?

I joke, i have a serious question. What would you say a 'normal' day as a law student at LSE is like? simple? busy? or oh my i want to rip the hair off my head crazy?

Have you ever got a 1st on any of your essays? and was it very difficult to get if you have?

Normal day at LSE, eh? Well, for me it's different because I try (note the emphasis) to do my readings before classes in the mornings when I can concentrate. So on any general day, I wake up 4-5 hours before my first class and read for the rest of the day. Every one has a different schedule for classes, so they have different schedules for handling their workloads.

Mondays and Tuesdays go something like this:
4-4.30-ish AM: Wake up.
4-4.30ish - 6: Read
6-7.30ish: Gym
8-9: Get ready and get to Uni
9-11: Classes and lectures
11-12: Lunch
12-3: Classes and lectures
3-5: Catch up with my mates, b!tch about life in general, attend Society meetings, it varies.
5-7: Classes and lectures
7-9: Library research for Mooting and Debating/ Evening events with Law Firms/ Special guest lectures that I want to attend/ the like
9-10: Chill with my flatmates
10-4-4.30ish: Dead to the world.

Wednesdays and Fridays go something like this:
6-6.30ish: Wake up
6.30ish - 7.30: Yoga
7.30-9.30: Read, get ready, annoy my sleepy/sleep-deprived flatmates
10 - 6: Work
6 - 7: Catch up with Uni friends, b!tch about work, unwind
7 - 9: Read (a) for mooting (on Wednesdays) (b) for classes (Fridays - if I'm not going out, which I rarely do in second-year)
9-11: Bug my flatmates/ Watch a movie/ Give up on cooking and order a pizza
11: Dead to the World

Thursdays:
6-7: Wake Up
7-9: Gym and Yoga
9-10: Get ready for Uni
10-3: Lectures
3-7: Read for the next week/ catch up on work emails/ Read for mooting and debating/ edit articles/ any and all pending work from the week.
7-9: Pretend to keep working but really procrastinate
9 - Go home and really try to stay awake, but in fact die a little on the inside.

Saturday and Sunday:
8: Wake up
9-12: Tutor GCSE kid (Saturday) or do laundry (Sunday)
12-2: Meet with friends for Lunch at Brunswick or Covent Gardens
2-10: Read
10: Watch a movie/ Go to sleep.

That's how my week typically plays out. There are variations, sometimes I wake up earlier, other times later, sometimes I sleep later/earlier if I have too much/little to do (Ironically the 'little to do' never seems to happen)

Now I'm sure you didn't want such a detailed laundry list, but it is exhaustive and pretty much sums up what my (an average LSE Law student's) week looks like. Others' vary depending on their individually provided timetables. Mine is particularly hectic because I work on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Have I ever gotten a first on one of my essays? Well, yes, I have. Twice in my first year: one for a Public Law essay and one for a Contract Law essay. I have had no Firsts in my second-year so far, but I have my fingers crossed. Ironically, all my essay grades this term have been consistent 66s. Not a mark up, not a mark down, a 66 no matter what.

My honest suggestion? Everyone starts Uni thinking they're going to get Firsts through and through. That doesn't happen, at all. There's this one kid I know who does get Firsts most of the time, he's Singaporean, works with single-minded determination that is bordering on psychopathic, is perpetually found in the Library, and went to the School for Gifted kids in Singapore where he got a perfect 45 in the IB (and in his esteemed opinion, the IB was a joke in terms of difficulty, but nevertheless interesting sometimes). This kid is a certified genius with an IQ that is off the charts (my flatmate and he went to school together, yeah I know, but she's nowhere near as smart as him, no one is).

Point I'm trying to make is: aim for a First, definitely do that, and put effort into your essays (if you have the time), but if you don't get a First despite putting your heart and soul into your essays, don't let that get you down. More often than not, no matter how hard you work, you won't get the First. You may have written a phenomenal essay, but that phenomenal essay will take you to the threshold of a 69, but never cross it unless it appeals to the teacher in a way that no other essay has. You not only have to have the best essays, but your essays have to be outstandingly brilliant in comparison to all the other essays, which is a tall order when everyone is brilliant.

I hope that made sense,
Arrowhead.

[sarahlouise]

Wow, that sounds like an insanely hectic schedule. Scary!