Chambers overtake law firms in pay battle for junior talent

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Readers' comments (11)

  • BarCrawl - if the "art of being a lawyer" involves reading precisely, does it not also involve persuading others of one's point of view without adopting a patronising tone? I admit that other interpretations are possible of what was written, however i would submit that mine is the correct one.
    In the context of Barrister v Solicitor's post, the post i quoted can easily be construed as having the meaning i took it to have. B v S made the point that "If anything, a premium on pupillage wage is well overdue as a counter to the £15k+ BVC debt (given that the LPC debt is covered by many law firms)."
    The poster i quoted replied to this with the statement "However, the £15k+ debt of the BVC is offset by those who gain pupillage prior to the BVC,as they will be awarded a certain amount of money by chambers for this year." For this to have any force as a reply to B v S's point, rather than just a re-statement of the same point (which it cannot be given the poster purported to disagree with B v S), it must be a suggestion that those with pupillage in advance of the BVC are offered additional money. B v S was making the point that £60k is reasonable as it helps to offset the £15k debt. The post in reply suggested that B v S had "fail(ed) to take account of" the money offered by chambers in advance of the BVC year. Whereas this is precisely what B v S was taking into account. The poster was seeking to suggest that those with pupillage before the BVC were better off in some way that B v S had not taken into account. Whereas of course they are not, other than perhaps having the money in advance. Whichever way you look at it, of course it does help to offset the fees - which was B v S's original point - and one with which i agree.
    If the post has the meaning i say it has, then it is factually incorrect. If the post does not have the meaning i say it has, then it is valueless as a counter-argument to B v S's post, as it is simply a re-statement of the same point (albeit a fair point in my view).
    Finally, the post i quoted was not credited to BVCer. The poster described themselves as "Re:Barristers v Solicitor & Mary J". I admit that this could be the same individual, but it is just as likely that it is not. Perhaps i'm closer to mastering this art than you imply. Also, you make the assumption that i'm a lawyer. Other than the fact i was reading this esteemed rag, i see no other evidence to suggest that i am. "I would suggest you do not make such assertions lightly, especially as a lawyer."
    All that said, your point about training contracts is a fair one on reflection.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)