158 / 462
GAZETTE
I
M
N
A
GEM N
JUNE 1993
though, that "there may now be
some slippage, a side effect of the
pressure on numbers."
He concedes, too, that the quality of
apprenticeship can vary from one
master to another, and thinks that
apprentices should seek to change
masters if they feel that they are not
getting sufficient attention and
experience, though he recognises that
it is not an easy thing to do in a
climate where apprenticeships are not
that easy to come by. He rejects
criticism that the system is too
lengthy. "We are not particularly out
of line here with the length it takes
in other countries to become a
qualified professional. In the EFTA
States, for example, the average is 11
years, in Finland and Iceland it is
eight."
One aspect which he thinks is
extremely difficult for apprentices is
the lack of state assistance for third
and fourth level students. "At least
at third level the cost is less because
the State intervenes and subsidises
the fees' charged by third-level
colleges" but he is "acutely
conscious" of the lack of grant
funding for students in the Law
School and says that the Society is
lobbying for a change in criteria for
grants.
Pat O'Connor says he is aware of a
view that the Law School is not
doing enough to train young
professionals in how to manage the
business sides of their practices, and
accepts that, perhaps, more needs to
be done in this area - but it would
inevitably mean an increase in
expense to students, as more
teaching hours and more course
materials would have to be paid for.
There is another remedy he thinks:
"Masters must allow apprentices
more exposure to the management
side of the practice, masters
traditionally have not (maybe for
good reason!) let apprentices see this
aspect of the practice." Continuing
Legal Education also has a role to
play and he welcomes the plans to
place increased emphasis on
providing management courses for
practitioners.
Pat O'Connor is unenthusiastic
about alternative models to the
current apprenticeship system. The
suggestion, for example, of an
intensive one year long course in the
Law School, would, he believes,
merely defer the essential gaining of
practical experience until after
admission "You cannot just bring
someone in and grill them in an
intensive but purely theoretical way.
Practical experience is essential
during the training period; otherwise,
you would have to allow for a period
after being admitted to the Roll."
"You cannot just bring someone
in and grill them in an intensive
but purely theoretical way.
Practical experience is essential."
In the current climate he is aware
that commenting on the right of
newly qualified solicitors to set up in
sole practice is a sensitive matter,
and prefaces his comments by saying
that the sole practitioner is the
'heart and soul' of the profession.
But, given the enormous increase in
numbers in the profession and the
need to maintain standards, "the
Society must be vigilant about whom
it licenses to practise, and must,
subsequent to admission to the Roll,
enquire whether someone wishing to
set up on their own has sufficient
skills to run the business side of a
practice. This might be by requiring
a mandatory amount of CLE on
these matters, or, perhaps, requiring
that someone would have acquired a
certain amount of experience in a
firm after admission before they
could practise on their own.
However, I would be totally opposed
to a general prohibition, because
that would militate against many
good, newly qualified solicitors who
would be perfectly well able to
manage on their own from day one."
Irish
He pleads, as a lover of the Irish
language, to be given space to air his
deep conviction that it is wrong in
principle for the Government to
insist that solicitors should be
competent and proficient in the Irish
language. Under S 40 of the 1954
(Solicitors) Act, students are obliged
to sit two Irish examinations yet the
numbers who fail them are neglible.
It is, he believes, a symptom of the
"horrendous hypocrisy" about the
(Continued on p. 139)
136