[Rancorous]

(Original post by Norton1)
Because I felt you were being combative and irritating when he was being constructive?

No, you did it because you have a big ego. My post made no personal attacks and focussed on the argument. If you disagreed with what I said, you could have responded - you did not do so to avoid appearing hypocritical as you were apparently accepting nulli's 'superior experience'.

[Norton1]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
At the Scots bar, an interest in legal history has always been seen as something of a ticket to advancement. One only has to think of Lords Cooper, Clyde, Cullen, Reid, MacMillan, Rodger of Earlsferry and now Hope

None of were trying to get a traineeship in a commercial law firm in the last 30 years. Which was what I was originally specifically talking about. I would actually love it if I thought the ticket to said traineeship was lots of legal history, but - in my no doubt ill informed view - it isn't. Also, in general I would suggest that people in Scotland aren't aiming at the bar straight out of University.

(Original post by Rancorous)
No, you did it because you have a big ego. My post made no personal attacks and focussed on the argument. If you disagreed with what I said, you could have responded - you did not do so to avoid appearing hypocritical as you were apparently accepting nulli's 'superior experience'.

I don't understand why you're so upset by this? It's a rep system, sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down and never does it matter. And I did feel you were being a knob.

Nulli consistently makes intelligent and well informed posts.(with an amount of data analysis bordering on the worrying) If he says something about recruitment I would tend to trust him, especially as he's involved in recruiting.

[Rancorous]

(Original post by Norton1)
None of were trying to get a traineeship in a commercial law firm in the last 30 years. Which was what I was originally specifically talking about. I would actually love it if I thought the ticket to said traineeship was lots of legal history, but - in my no doubt ill informed view - it isn't. Also, in general I would suggest that people in Scotland aren't aiming at the bar straight out of University.

Have you ever spoken to anyone involved in the recruitment process at a major commercial law firm who would lead you to suspect that they value commercial subjects more than non commercial subjects?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Norton1)
None of were trying to get a traineeship in a commercial law firm in the last 30 years. Which was what I was originally specifically talking about. I would actually love it if I thought the ticket to said traineeship was lots of legal history, but - in my no doubt ill informed view - it isn't. Also, in general I would suggest that people in Scotland aren't aiming at the bar straight out of University.

I take your point.

The thing I don't understand, is why a firm of solicitors is willing to offer a traineeship to an intending advocate? Go back in the mists of time and it wasn't uncommon in England for an intending barrister to read in a solicitor's office but of course both in England and Scotland, they were paying for the privilege. Why are law firms willing to train people who intend to walk out on them?

[lyrical_lie]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
At the Scots bar, an interest in legal history has always been seen as something of a ticket to advancement. One only has to think of Lords Cooper, Clyde, Cullen, Reid, MacMillan, Rodger of Earlsferry and now Hope

I love Lord Hope

And don't ever expect your assignments to be marked quickly or have any decent feedback.

Spoiler:

Show

don't know if this is just my stupid law department though

[Norton1]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
I take your point.

The thing I don't understand, is why a firm of solicitors is willing to offer a traineeship to an intending advocate? Go back in the mists of time and it wasn't uncommon in England for an intending barrister to read in a solicitor's office but of course both in England and Scotland, they were paying for the privilege. Why are law firms willing to train people who intend to walk out on them?

I think in practice that solicitors generally require longer than the minimum from the trainee; if you have a look at the Regulations for Intrants from the Faculty of Advocates they say

Professional Training. The period of training may, but need not, be undertaken before presentation of the Petition. Prospective Intrants are warned that, although the Faculty may be prepared to grant partial exemption from the prescribed period of training, solicitors may be reluctant to accept trainees for a period of less than 21 months. Prospective Intrants are also advised to enter into a training contract before starting their training in order that they may, if they so wish, enter the Solicitors' rather than the Advocates' branch of the profession. It is not essential, for the purpose of qualifying for admission to the Faculty, that this training should be undertaken in any particular part of Scotland; and it is not desirable that this training should be confined to work in connection with litigation.

[Rascacielos]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
As someone who has studied both, I would disagree with this. However, what I always really value is any applicant who is a volunteer for jurisprudence.

I can't imagine any student volunteering for jurisprudence. I was forced into it and never want to see it again.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Rascacielos)
I can't imagine any student volunteering for jurisprudence. I was forced into it and never want to see it again.

Amongst the hundreds of Human Rights Laws and international Trade Laws, it is an immediate stand out on an application if it is an optional module.

[chalks]

(Original post by Rancorous)
... What really happens is that lawyers leave year on year after they are qualified to go elsewhere; on the most part they leave for in-house where they make less money in exchange for easier hours. That means a lawyer often ends up just part of the company and most likely many other members will earn more, if not just as much.

Trust me, this is a myth!

[Rascacielos]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Amongst the hundreds of Human Rights Laws and international Trade Laws, it is an immediate stand out on an application if it is an optional module.

True... I'm only a first year but I can't see how it would be valued over something like international trade law, particularly if you're going into the commercial side fo things. I'm not challenging you by the way, I'm genuinely interested to know.

What other subjects do you think stand out on an application? I won't be taking jurisprudence because I can't stand another year of it but I'm open to other suggestions.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Rascacielos)
True... I'm only a first year but I can't see how it would be valued over something like international trade law, particularly if you're going into the commercial side fo things. I'm not challenging you by the way, I'm genuinely interested to know.

What other subjects do you think stand out on an application? I won't be taking jurisprudence because I can't stand another year of it but I'm open to other suggestions.

It isn't valued for its content. I am not sure that anything is. This is all about having and conveying the right attitude and approach to law.

Anything to do with tax stands out. Restitution looks good because it is the major area in doctrinal development. Succession and personal property law are hard. Anything that is black letter law but out of the ordinary stands out. Cardiff offers a module on the comparative law of religion; other places do planning or banking law.

The sort of course that doesn't really carry credability is something like law, film and popular cuture at Srathclyde. I have no idea about its difficulty, but I immediately think that someone is trying to run away from law.

[Rascacielos]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
It isn't valued for its content. I am not sure that anything is. This is all about having and conveying the right attitude and approach to law.

Anything to do with tax stands out. Restitution looks good because it is the major area in doctrinal development. Succession and personal property law are hard. Anything that is black letter law but out of the ordinary stands out. Cardiff offers a module on the comparative law of religion; other places do planning or banking law.

The sort of course that doesn't really carry credability is something like law, film and popular cuture at Srathclyde. I have no idea about its difficulty, but I immediately think that someone is trying to run away from law.

Thanks for that. I'll bear it in mind.

Might well plump for Maritime Law then, since I think Southampton is the only university in the UK that offers it!

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Rascacielos)
Thanks for that. I'll bear it in mind.

Might well plump for Maritime Law then, since I think Southampton is the only university in the UK that offers it!

I think you are right. Southampton is world renowned for maritime law and it almost begs the question of why someone would go to Southampton and not do some aspect of maritime law (either admiralty law, carriage of goods by sea or maritime insurance).

[Rascacielos]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
I think you are right. Southampton is world renowned for maritime law and it almost begs the question of why someone would go to Southampton and not do some aspect of maritime law (either admiralty law, carriage of goods by sea or maritime insurance).

Sounds quite interesting too. Which one do you reckon will be most impressive? Obviously I plan on taking a module that I actually want to study, not just because it looks good, but just for guidance.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Rascacielos)
Sounds quite interesting too. Which one do you reckon will be most impressive? Obviously I plan on taking a module that I actually want to study, not just because it looks good, but just for guidance.

I don't think that there is any worthwhile distinction.

[Darth Vader.]

(Original post by Norton1)
4. 'If you're choosing subjects pick subjects you think you'll enjoy'. No. If you want a job in commercial law and your interests lie in Roman Law and the History of Law then put those on the back burner in your honours year(s). Or, at least, pick some subjects which suggest an interest in commercial law.

(Original post by Rancorous)
Absolutely not true at all. Directly contradicts what we were told at presentations and also directly contradicts my experience of friends who did irrelevant subjects who got TCs at MC and US firms.

(Original post by Norton1)
My own personal view remains the same (in that if I was making the choice I would personally pick commercial subjects if aiming at commercial firms), but I've bowed to Nulli's superior experience.

(Original post by Rancorous)
Have you ever spoken to anyone involved in the recruitment process at a major commercial law firm who would lead you to suspect that they value commercial subjects more than non commercial subjects?

Fortunately for traineeship applicants, the entire legal landscape is not composed of Magic Circle and US firms.

Pinsent Masons, a not insignificant law firm, has a list of common reasons for unsuccessful applications for Vacation or Training Contract places, which includes:

A trend in electives or options that demonstrate a strong focus on non-corporate/commercial areas i.e. family, criminal, constitutional law...

As good as Rancorous' anecdotal evidence is, I'm sure taking no commercial subjects or taking a whole batch of irrelevant subjects would fall within this restriction and would be a possible reason for a rejection at the application stage at Pinsent Masons.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
I think you are right. Southampton is world renowned for maritime law and it almost begs the question of why someone would go to Southampton and not do some aspect of maritime law (either admiralty law, carriage of goods by sea or maritime insurance).

I've just looked at the modules for Law and Martime Law are exactly the same. What's the difference between these courses?

I wanted to point out some postgraduate courses require you to have a Law degree (such as Oxford). So if you do want to go into Law then although going into it with another degree is absolutely fine, studying Law is probably an advantage... at least if you want to go to a top school for postgraduate Law

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
I've just looked at the modules for Law and Martime Law are exactly the same. What's the difference between these courses?

From the Southampton website:-

In your final year: All LLB (Maritime Law) students will complete a supervised legal dissertation, as part of the compulsory final year Legal Research and Writing module. This will be in the area of an approved maritime subject.

Students will also take specialised maritime modules, selecting three optional modules from the following:
Admiralty Law, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Commercial Conflicts of Law and International Litigation and Arbitration, International Commercial Sales , Public International Law.

You will have a free choice from the full range of final year LLB options for your fourth final year module.