Government Legal Service

I will be starting in the GLS next year as a trainee, I didn't however do the vac scheme or open day.

It is true that the salaries are lower than in the big commercial firms, but the work life balance is much better, and the type of work done is certainly more down my street than the commercial stuff. It certainly is as competitive to get into as the major commercial law firms, therefore the idea that going into the GLS is a cop out is certainly not true in terms of the academics required.

Lots of lawyers do move over after qualification, but from what I have heard people don't tend to leave because they enjoy the work and the lifestyle. Although pay is left it is still nothing to sneeze at and well over the minimum required by the SRA.

Yeh, what attracts me most about the GLS is the work. I'm interested in Human Rights law and it seems like I just wouldn't be able to do the same kind of work in a commercial firm. It's a toss up between really enjoying the work and not getting paid as well or doing a boring high-pressured job and earning a hell of a lot more. It just seems as if the work would seem shallow and meaningless in a commercial firm. Looks like I know I want to work in the GLS after all, but whether I get there or not is another question...:P

This is something I see/hear quite often and it worries me a little bit - most GLS lawyers deal with human rights in terms of denying breaches etc.

In fairness, people who say they want to do human rights at the bar and go to a place like Blackstone will be instructed by the Treasury as well as by applicants. I think a lot of people don't realise that you can end up working both sides. (I don't have an issue with this--everyone is entitled to competent legal counsel--but if someone is dead set on only appearing for applicants/claimants, the bar is not necessarily going to suit them. My impression is that, at least at first, you need to take the work you're given while you establish a practice.)

I did a litigation workshop at a university and I ran across this problem - there were masters students who were convinced they wanted to enter one of the branches of the profession and yet were openly stating they didnt want to run arguments they didn't agree with morally. !

My point with the GLS thing is that I've heard so many times - "I want to advance/enhance human rights, I'll apply to the GLS" without really considering what the GLS is likely to do.

Yes--barristers will at least occasionally be instructed for claimants. The GLS is always going to be trying to argue that the government's actions are legal.

I heard a law student at a dinner ask a criminal qc how he defended people whom he knew to be guilty. I cringed a little inside... It's one thing for members of the public to ask that question, but law students really ought to know how many problems there are with such a question.

This is something I see/hear quite often and it worries me a little bit - most GLS lawyers deal with human rights in terms of denying breaches etc.

Surely it depends what department you are in and what type of work you are doing. Something like ensuring legislation or policy complies with the Human Rights Act or other international obligations would be more in line with supporting human rights in the UK. Surely that is what at least some GLS lawyers get to do, for example some of the ones in the MOJ?

Obviously you are always there to support the governments position, and so the likelihood of being asked to sit on the other side of the table is definitely something everyone looking to start in the GLS should be aware of.

This is something I see/hear quite often and it worries me a little bit - most GLS lawyers deal with human rights in terms of denying breaches etc.

In fairness, people who say they want to do human rights at the bar and go to a place like Blackstone will be instructed by the Treasury as well as by applicants. I think a lot of people don't realise that you can end up working both sides. (I don't have an issue with this--everyone is entitled to competent legal counsel--but if someone is dead set on only appearing for applicants/claimants, the bar is not necessarily going to suit them. My impression is that, at least at first, you need to take the work you're given while you establish a practice.)

Although there are sets like Tooks where you would mainly be saving the world if that's your thing.

Why does it worry you? It's still an opportunity to deal with human rights law. That would be interesting to me, whichever side I'd be on...