Irish Law School Rankings 2012 - By Entering Student Credentials

Since we are in rankings season, below is a ranking of law schools in Ireland based on the entering credentials of the 2012 class. This is obviously only one measure of how good a law school is, but I think it is an important measure because student quality (to the extent that CAO points are a measure of quality) has a direct bearing on the educational experience. It might also have some predictive value for the quality of lawyers a law school produces, their ability to get jobs upon graduation, and ultimately success in the profession.

The table below lists the ranking for the main law degrees offered by all the law schools in Ireland:

Ranking		Law School			CAO Points
1		Trinity College Dublin			525
2		University College Dublin			495
3		NUI Maynooth			475
=		University College Cork			475
5		Dublin City University			410
6		NUI Galway			405
=		Limerick			405
8		Dublin Institute of Technology			350
9		IT Carlow			305
=		Griffith College			305
11		Waterford IT			295
12		Dublin Business School			230

It is my sense that while there would be movement between the top 4 if other factors like research, employment prospects, average income, peer reputation, etc., are included, there seems to be an emerging divide between these schools and the others. It remains to be seen if this two tier system survives the serious challenges facing Irish higher education.

The table below ranks the law and business programs offered by all the law schools in Ireland:

Ranking		Law School		CAO Points
1		Trinity College Dublin		565
2		University College Dublin		495
3		NUI Maynooth		460
4		Dublin Institute of Technology		400
5		IT Carlow		315
6		Athlone Institute of Technology		270
7		Griffith College		250
8		Dublin Business School		235

I have not provided a ranking for the smaller "law and X" programs offered by some law schools because the trend seems to be against such fragmented degrees.

Women and the Law Conference

Our inaugural women and the law conference will be held today. All are welcome to attend. CPD credit is available.

Trinity Law Student Colloquium

The fourth annual Law Student Colloquium will be held in Trinity College Dublin on Saturday February 4, 2012. It will be followed by the first annual Brian Lenihan memorial address to be held in the GMB. The address is in recognition of Mr Lenihan's substantial contribution to public life, his longstanding relationship with the law school as student, scholar and lecturer, and his tragic recent death. Judge Bryan McMahon will be speaking under the title of "Judging." Former AG Paul Gallagher will chair. The event will be followed by a wine reception The email address for those wishing to get in contact is law.student.colloquium@gmail.com and further information can be found at http://www.tcd.ie/Law/studentcolloquium/.

I was on a panel at this event a couple of years ago and found the student papers to be of good quality. It is certainly worthy of support.

Doctoral Teaching Scholarship in Law at NUI Maynooth

We are doing a second round of funding for this scholarship. It offer a generous eur. 16,000 in addition to full fees. Candidates must have a 1st class degree. Closing date is September 7, 2011. Feel free to contact me for details.

Irish Times: "Legal System Provides No Guarantee of Justice"

The newspaper has an opinion piece today that applies a broad tar brush to the legal system, with some wild claims. If the point is that the system needs reform - which one can readily accept - it has been undermined by some pretty bizarre argumentation. A detailed rebuttal would be too long for a blog post so I'll focus on just a few points. The piece starts off with an attack on legislative drafting followed by the assertion that many laws survive constitutional scrutiny only because people cannot afford to challenge them. This is a tall claim given the deference granted by the courts to the legislative branch in constitutional challenges. Moreover, the connection between poor drafting - I doubt if lawyers in any jurisdiction have ever come across the perfectly drafted law - and constitutionality is not substantiated. There is also no evidence offered for the success rate of constitutional challenges, when people can "afford" to bring them. If this is indeed high, it might support the point that the legal system is doing its job. One does not doubt the need for good drafting but it is overstated in this context.

Then the piece attacks "lenient sentences" awarded by the courts and claims that the community has been "demoralised" as a result. The author claims that those released early are committing violent acts and victims of serious crime are "so badly treated." Where is the data for recidivism for violent crimes to support this claim? One study between 2001-2004 found that recidivism in Ireland was highest for property crimes. Sex crimes - which typically atract the highest amount of popular outrage - had much lower recidivism rates. Popular opinion is typically in favour of draconian sentences but what is the evidence that Irish judges typically impose lenient sentences for violent crimes? Lenient compared to UK judges? US judges? One would have expected some evidence to support these sorts of claims, but once again all we get is a bald assertion. Jail is extremely expensive and the evidence indicates that Irish prisons are overcrowded. If violent criminals are indeed being treated leniently, evidence must be collected and resources ought to be directed at remedying the problem. Knee-jerk statements unsupported by evidence are not very helpful.

Next is an attack on wigs and gowns - valid. And an attack on the DPP's lack of accountability. These are sound criticisms but again there is no real substance beyond two statements buried in the middle of the piece. 

The piece also shows inefficiencies in the civil justice system caused by the separation between Solicitors and Barristers with a putative client "Shiela." There is little doubt that the separation of the profession imposes unnecessary transaction costs and is inefficient. That point could have been made more effectively without the examples provided in the piece. Many of those examples - tardiness by barristers taking silk, etc - do not do much for the argument as they only speak to individual instances of lack of professionalism.

In conclusion, yet another opportunity to make the case for reforming the legal system goes to waste.

All-nighters at Law Firms

The Guardian has a piece about all nighters at London law firms with a photo of a Japanese capsule hotel - supposedly similar to emergency sleeping arrangements at some firms. A quote from the article:

"One Sunday morning as I was eating breakfast I got a call from my boss asking me to come in immediately. I worked that day until 1am, then went home for some sleep. I was back in at 7am on Monday, working through until 6am on Tuesday. At that point I got three hours' sleep at the office, before starting work again at midday and continuing right through until 7am on Wednesday – when, thank God, the deal closed."

This looks like pretty pedestrian stuff. I remember tougher days from my stint on Wall Street. While many thrive on this sort of machismo, I would be surprised if repeated all-nighters didn't impose a significant cost in the form of reduced quality.

What Domino's is for Pizzas, "LawyerUp" is for Lawyers

Many claim that there is an oversupply problem for lawyers in Ireland. Others argue that legal services are too expensive and that those really needing legal help are unable to afford it. Yet no one is claiming that these problems are bedeviling the pizza market in Ireland. Conversely, I recall reading that Dominos experienced dramatic growth in Ireland over the last couple of years despite the dreadful financial climate. Irishmen and women have plenty of choice when it comes to pizza at competitive rates whether they want to dine in or take away. In sum, the pizza market is the very picture of good financial health.

Is there a lesson in this for lawyers? Yes, according to a new company in the U.S. called LawyerUp which promises to provide a lawyer within 15 minutes. As reported by the New York Times, "[t]he service’s personal plan, aimed at young people, costs $4.95 a month. Those who do not have a subscription can pay a flat fee of $100 for the first call, which the company calls its “pay-in-a-pinch plan.” For all clients, an operator checks contact information and processes the lawyer’s initial fee of $250 on a credit card for the first hour of service." And what's even better, lawyers do not have to pay anything to be on the company's list. There's even an app on Android for this service.

One wonders if Irish lawyers will take innovation to these lengths. And if Irish professional ethics rules permit these sorts of practices. Whatever the case, few things beat the joys of 15-minute pizza, but I am less convinced about the merits of a 15-minute lawyer.

Partnerships for Barristers

An opinion piece in the Irish Times argues that the abolition of the current sole trader system at the Bar would "damage rather than improve both the public interest and consumer choice."
There is virtually no evidence offered for that claim. One would have thought that the efficiencies of scale offered by the law firm model would offer better returns. In any case, I doubt anyone wants to do away with sole practitioners - the objective of the reform is to allow for the creation of firms of barristers. Those who cannot find jobs in firms or prefer to practice on their own could do so.
The author also claims that the current system offers learning, efficiency and network benefits for younger barristers. A poll of barristers who have enrolled in the last 7-10 years might yield interesting results on these supposed benefits. It would also provide valuable evidence for the reform agenda.

I am also a bit bemused about this claim: "In the alternative scenario there will be a consequent squeezing out of the role of the individual independent barrister in advancing the public interest through taking unpopular pro bono or financially unrewarding cases."
Based on anecdotal evidence, it was my understanding that there is very little pro bono work done in Ireland. Far from squeezing out pro bono, the law firm model in the US has actually managed to contribute more to that cause than any other jurisdiction I am aware of.

The legal profession is in flux in many jurisdictions and the days of bar councils controlling entry into the profession and the vehicles for delivery of legal services appear to be numbered. In any case, the opinion piece is an early salvo in the debate on reform here and one hopes that the profession is serious in its objectives of reducing cost, promoting competition and advancing consumer welfare.

Elite Academic Credentials = Top Jobs

CNN has an article based on a new study by a professor at Northwestern showing the chokehold of those with elite academic credentials on elite jobs at Wall Street banks, law firms, and management consultancies: "elite professional service employers" rely more on academic pedigree than any other factor. For recruiters, it's prestige that counts, rather than "content" like grades, courses, internships, or other actual performance. That's because if you got into a "super-elite" school -- which essentially means Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Wharton (University of Pennsylvania), and Stanford -- you must be smart. Plus, time spent at those bastions in turn will make you "polished" and attractive to corporate clients. It is, according to Rivera, a largely self-perpetuating hiring process that prizes efficiency: Why spend effort looking for "that one needle in the haystack" at a "safety school" like the University of Michigan or, heavens forfend, Bowling Green, when the run-of-the-mill Yalie's still a prince. Even "second-tier" Ivies like Brown, according to Rivera, are suspect for the top firms.

This conforms with my own experience. Legal academia, at least in the US, is also very focussed on elite credentials. This does not happen as much in the UK probably because there isn't a large enough supply of candidates with elite credentials for jobs in law schools. Anecdotally, many candidates with doctoral degrees from Oxford and Cambridge - which have small cohorts in any case - seem to seek jobs in law firms, international organizations, etc.

Minister Shatter on Judges' Memo

I've blogged previously about the judges' memo and the reported conflict between the Minister and the courts service. The Irish Times contains some interesting quotes from the Minister today seeking to allay concerns that the judiciary is being targeted:
“I think it’s regrettable that the matter is on the website, but to some extent it’s a side issue," he said. “I think it’s very unfortunate that an unnecessary controversy has arisen over the commitment in the programme for government to hold a constitutional referendum to deal with the issue of judicial pay, and essentially to facilitate applying to the judiciary in a manner that’s constitutionally appropriate and protects their independence the same public sector wage decreases that have impacted right across everyone who is in receipt of public pay.”

“There can be never any question of the judiciary being as a group or individually targeted for pay reduction,” Mr Shatter said.
“The Government believes this is hugely important to ensure that public respect for the judiciary is maintained and there isn’t a public perception that they’re immune from the financial and economic cataclysm that has hit the State and has affected so many people.”

Perhaps this whole controversy could have been avoided by better communication and drafting of the text. If it were to be tightly drafted to allow for pay reductions only in emergent circumstances when the pay cut was imposed across the board to all public servants, the judges' fears would be allayed. They have repeatedly asserted that they are not opposed to a pay cut.

Chief Justice Roberts on Legal Scholarship

The American Constitution Society's blog quotes the Chief: “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.”

The C-Span video is here.
 
The Chief's views are not new. Legal scholarship has moved away considerably from doctrinal case-crunching and the primary audience that law professors write for is other academics. To be sure, some legal academics do write case reviews and other valuable doctrinal material. This is especially the case in jurisdictions like Ireland, where legal scholarship is still evolving. But the implicit assumption in Justice Roberts' view - that legal scholarship has to be "relevant" to legal practice - runs counter to the objectives of contemporary legal academia.

Conflict between Minister and Judges over Publication of Memo on Pay

There is allegedly a conflict brewing between Mr. Shatter and the courts service over the latter's decision to post a memorandum prepared by judges in response to the proposed referendum over pay. The minister is reported to be upset about its publication on the courts website.
I must admit that it is a bit unusual for judges to publish such a document on the courts' website. However, given the kinds of shots being taken against them by politicians in the media and their reluctance to engage in unseemly public spats, publication of the memorandum sets out their position in public in a dignified manner. And, it allows both sides of the debate to engage with principled arguments rather than rhetoric.

Some key points from the memo (my comments are in blue):

• ... judges of the High Court and Supreme Court are effectively debarred by the Rules of the Bar Council from returning to legal practice following resignation or retirement. If ... the constitutional principle that there be no reduction in judicial remuneration is altered, then the basis for the permanent abandonment by a judge of the practice of his profession is undermined. ... no one would be prepared to give up the right to practice a profession permanently if they did not have the assurance of fixity of salary and tenure of office. There are good reasons for debarring a judge from practicing before an equal or lower court. But does this mean that a former judge is permanently abandoning the profession? Much legal work has nothing to do with the courts. Former judges could join law firms and get paid a lot of money? They could become arbitrators and mediators. Or legal academics. Or practice in a proximate foreign jurisdiction? So, to say that there is a permanent abandonment of the profession is a bit of a stretch.
• Why, then, should this rule [against earning other income] be maintained in such circumstances if the quid pro quo - no reduction in pay - is being abandoned? Many continental judges (including, for example, judges of the Court of Justice and the German Constitutional Court) hold offices of emolument for example as Professors in universities. I've posted on this subject before. There are veryt strict rules in the US and other jurisdictions on the earning of outside income. It cannot exceed 10% of the total remuneration and can only come from certain sources that do not pose conflicts of interest. So, this point must not be overstated because even if we adopt the US rule and allow 10% outside income it will not make that much of a difference when the pay cut is much larger.
• Could, for example, a judge who engaged in part-time arbitration work continue to hear arbitration cases in his or her judicial capacity? Absolutely not, this would not be allowed in the US, and I doubt it would be in most jurisdictions.
• ... the language [of the proposed text] is extremely loose. It would provide no limitation on the circumstances in which a reduction should be made; the government’s view of the "public interest" (as reflected in the legislation enacted by the Oireachtas) would suffice. There is no method of calculating the reduction identified. The only figure by reference to which such a reduction should be effected is contained in a phrase of very broad potential application, namely, "in the public interest". Good point, the text is unnecessarily loose and overbroad.
• ... the bodies which are to be charged with deciding the reduction, both as to whether it is required and by reference to what comparator such reduction should be calculated, are the other branches of government, i.e., the Executive and Legislative branches. Isn't that the whole point behind the separation of powers? These organs are given the task of setting pay in similar legal systems.
• There would be furthermore nothing to stop the Oireachtas enacting legislation cutting the pay of any other office holder(s) and applying that particular pay cut to the judiciary. There is nothing in the suggested wording of the proposed amendment to prevent a series of "tactical" cuts being applied to different classes of public servants, but each of whom can be applied to the judiciary. I've blogged about this before. The wording in the proposed draft is capable of mischief and needs to be improved. It must rule out pay cuts unless there are emergent circumstances and unless all public servants are being hit with a similar cut.
• The principles of judicial independence require that any decision regarding judicial remuneration and the reduction in judicial pay must be taken by an independent body. Not necessary under traditional separation of powers doctrine.
• A finding by a reputable international court or observations by an international organisation that these fundamental guarantees of constitutional independence had been - even unwittingly - compromised, were the suggested wording for the amendment to be adopted, would have huge reputational implications for Ireland and for confidence in our legal system. Doubtful. Besides, who cares?
• That confidence [independence of judiciary] is not only a bulwark of the Constitution’s freedoms which we as citizens enjoy in a free society, but is an essential bedrock of economic confidence on which our recovery from the ordeal to which the State is at present subject is completely premised. Bit of a stretch.

In conclusion, the memo is strongest when it sticks to critiquing the drafting of the text and it is weakened by several unnecessary arguments [like economic confidence, international reputation etc] that are not supported by any evidence. Will the government improve the wording of the draft and end this unseemly controversy?

"Panto Lifestyle" of Judges

An article in today's Indo quotes Fine Gael's Derek Keating as asking Mr Shatter to "get rid of the wigs, gowns and tipstaff from a bygone day" and stating "we cannot afford the panto lifestyle of our senior judges."
The article also shines light on some of the perks of judicial office:
Circuit, High and Supreme Court judges still enjoy the services of tipstaffs to tend to their every need (they are paid assistants who perform backroom tasks such as admin and paper shuffling and introduce the judge to the court) and they collect their own €30,000-a-year booty.
Judges also benefit from a substantial array of expenses, ranging from allowances for wigs of €2,195 and €745 a year to buy 18th century-style 'frock coats'. They also enjoy 36 days paid holidays a year.

Isn't it time to get rid of these trappings of a colonial past? This is about much more than the expenditure involved. What is the purpose of a wig and frock coat? Aside from the discomfort caused by wearing these things, a legal system that looks out of touch with the modern world is not likely to receive much public support (it is hard enough for lawyers to be liked even without these accoutrements - just ask attorneys in the US!).

Loopy Lawyers on TV

Prof. Thane Rosenbaum has an interesting piece in the WSJ on the changed depiction of lawyers on TV:
In these new shows [Harry's Law, Franklin &Bash, and Suits], ambulance chasers mainly chase skirts, and the street-smart lawyer is more like a street performer. Even the book-lined law office has become optional. The firm in "Harry's Law" also sells fine shoes. And the titular lawyers in "Franklin & Bash" initially practice out of a home office that is more "Animal House" than "The Paper Chase." In the recent film "The Lincoln Lawyer," the character played by Matthew McConaughey conducts business from the backseat of a Lincoln Town Car.

It wasn't always this way. In the 1960s, attorneys were portrayed in movies and on TV as austere and serious men who practiced law with great moral conviction. Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck in the film version of "To Kill a Mockingbird," remains the paradigm of that lawyerly vision, taking on an unwinnable case in a courtroom contaminated by prejudice.

He makes several good points so read the piece in full. Two omissions in the article:
1. The growth in the number of TV shows devoted to legal "analysis" - like the unbearable Nancy Grace - featuring a bevy of lawyers, former judges, jurors etc., dishing out sanctimonious opinions about the latest high profile case. It has been virtually impossible to find anything on the news channels in the US other than interminable analysis of the Casey Anthony trial for the last 10 days.
2. The rise of a special species of "celebrity" lawyers - think of the Anna Nicole Smith custody battle - who seem to be lifestyle coaches/personal managers/shrinks/pastors all rolled into one. They shed copious tears at the drop of a hat and behave more like reality TV actors than lawyers. They qualify as loopy lawyers?

NUI Maynooth LLB Accredited by King's Inns

Report in the Irish Times is here.

This should add to student choice. We've designed the degree with careers in large law firms, international NGOs and regulatory agencies in mind so students ought to have a good chance of being successful in the job market on completion.

Reminder: Deadline for Maynooth Law Doctoral Teaching Scholarship is Today

The application form is available here.

NUI Maynooth Law Ph.D. Scholarship

We are offering a very generous - full fees and a stipend of 16,000 per annum - doctoral teaching scholarship in law starting this year. The application form is here.

Applications close on June 3rd. Feel free to email me for details. More information about the Department of Law at http://law.nuim.ie/

NUI Maynooth accepting applications for new LL.M. degree

We are still accepting applications for our new LL.M. degree. It is a very hands-on programme and is designed to offer significant value addition. Please spread the word. More details here.

Internship with UNHCR's Protection Unit - Dublin

Students might be interested in this opportunity:

Main function: Providing support to the Protection Unit
Period: From 7 June 2010 to 6 December 2010
Duration: Six months; Monday to Friday (9.00 – 5.30) full time
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Remuneration: The internship is unpaid

More details here.

Wanna Get Rich? Become a Lawyer!

That's the lesson from a couple of articles in the Irish Independent today:

Exhibit no. 1: 'Legal fees still among highest in world':
IRISH lawyers are still able to charge some of the highest legal fees in the world simply "because they can".

This is despite the fact that there are large numbers of recently graduated barristers and solicitors out of work.
A Competition Authority board member told the Dail Public Accounts committee there had been no end to the restrictive practices, such as lack of fee information, restricted entry to the profession and limited competition between lawyers. Mr Purcell also said solicitors had the right to hold on to their clients' files, even if that client decided to transfer to another solicitor.
"There's no other profession in the world I know of where that is the case. That's inevitably going to lead to higher costs for the person paying the piper," he added.
A report by the World Bank last year found that legal fees in Ireland were among the highest in the developed world.

The article also discusses the government's proposal to appoint a Legal Services Ombudsman funded by the legal profession. But this person will have no powers to investigate complaints, only to tell the Law Society and Bar Council to speed up their inquiries or to review their decisions again.

I'm not making this up. Monty Python couldn't have scripted it better. An Ombudsman to tell the professional bodies to "speed up their inquiries or to review their decsions again"?!

Exhibit no. 2: 'State fails to pursue €1m paid to lawyers in error':  THE State has taken no action to recover €1m which was overpaid to two tribunal lawyers due to a typing error.

The PAC's chairman, Fine Gael TD Bernard Allen, said taxpayers had been "milked on this one". He contrasted the failure to recover the overpayment of €1m with what would happen to someone on social welfare who was overpaid €20.

The typing error was discovered shortly after a fax was sent to the lawyers agreeing the fee.

Although the Department of Finance sought to fix the mistake, the Attorney General's office informed them that the higher rate would have to apply.
Both Mr Coughlan and Mr Healy have earned more than €8.5m in fees each for their work with the tribunal, which was set up in 1997 to investigate payments to former Taoiseach Charles Haughey, as well as the awarding of the second mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone.
Mr Coughlan, for example, was paid for working 304 days in 2008 even though the tribunal has only held an average of 20 days of public sittings for each of the last three years.
Fine Gael TD Padraic McCormack requested a copy of the advice on maintaining the €2,500-a-day fees from the director general of the Attorney General's office, Liam O'Daly, but was told it was confidential.

I wonder what legal theory allows the lawyers to retain excess fees clearly paid in error. This would have probably violated ethics rules in jurisdictions like the U.S. Perhaps Irish professional responsibility rules are more generous.