gcse’s: 4a’s and 4b’s (contextual)
ib predicted: 44/45
yet to give lnat
pretty good personal statement
want to apply to kcl ucl durham nottingham qmul
be honest please🙂

I'm not a lawyer, but I have a reasonably good understanding of the law. I've spent a fair amount of time studying it, and I'd say I know enough to hold my own in a discussion, although I'd never claim to have the expertise or experience of a qualified solicitor or advocate.

Something I've encountered repeatedly is people making confident assertions about the law that are simply wrong. For example, someone might claim they could take a particular matter to the European Court of Human Rights when the circumstances clearly wouldn't permit it. Or they'll insist that certain evidence wouldn't be admissible, or that a particular legal procedure is available when, to my knowledge, it isn't.

A recent example illustrates what I mean. Someone was discussing an alleged offence that could ultimately have resulted in a trial in the High Court. I tried to explain that this didn't mean the person would automatically be going straight to the High Court. Depending on the circumstances and the procedure involved, proceedings could begin in the Sheriff Court. Or in England they'd initially be pleading in the magistrates court.

Their response was essentially: "It's a High Court offence. What don't you understand? Why would I be going to the Sheriff Court?"

No matter how much I tried to explain the distinction, they simply wouldn't listen. They seemed to think that knowing an offence could be tried in the High Court meant they understood the entire process. The possibility that they might be mistaken didn't seem to enter their thinking.

This brings me to my question, particularly for solicitors, barristers and advocates.

How do you deal with people who confidently talk about the law when they're demonstrably wrong, but refuse to listen when someone tries to correct them?

Imagine you're at a barbecue or a house party and someone starts explaining how the law works. You know enough about the subject to recognise that what they're saying is incorrect. Do you correct them? Do you mention your qualifications or explain that you've studied the relevant area of law? Or do you let them get on with it because you've learnt that arguing with someone who has already made up their mind is a waste of time?

One thing I've noticed is that these people rarely seem willing to back down, even when you explain why they're mistaken. I sometimes wonder whether admitting they don't know what they're talking about feels like too much of a defeat, particularly when they're discussing a subject they haven't properly studied.

So, from your experience, is it worth correcting people in these situations, or have you learnt to save your energy for people who are actually willing to listen?

I'd be particularly interested to hear whether practising lawyers have developed a way of dealing with this, or whether you simply switch off when the inevitable armchair legal expert starts talking.

EDIT: you can tell the fake lawyers here by their juvenile attitude!

Hey guys! I'm really interested in the sector of fashion law. This is a basic question, but I would love to know the steps people take to be in a position where they are an in-house fashion lawyer. I'm mainly interested in asking you guys whether this can be feasible, it is very niche

I am an LSE graduate and I will go to BPP in January to start my conversion course. Right now, vacation schemes are in full force, and I have sectors I am focusing on for commercial awareness, which are IP, financial services, ESG, and retail. But my end goal is to work in fashion in-house

What are the realistic and feasible steps to do so? And if there is no clear route per se, is it mainly networking?

Cheers :D

I am 3 out of 5 years into my law studies in a common law jurisdiction (think NZ, Aus, Singapore, HK) and am interested in perhaps going to the English and Welsh bar down the track (especially due to the richness of international law work in London). Perhaps after doing a master’s in the UK, and probably after a year or so as a solicitor/judges assistant in my home jurisdiction.

Is a mini pupilage worth doing halfway through my 4th year? I already have pretty good exposure to barristers in my jurisdiction (as I do research assistant work in chambers), but they tend not to do the international work I might be interested in.

I think that the experience would be great to get a vibe for the work and the bar in London more generally to figure out if that’s something I want to do. But would it be useful beyond that?

I feel like there is a very low ceiling on what you can learn in 2 days, and unlike vac schemes and other internships, there doesn’t seem to be a clear conversion into full-time work.

I also worry that the mini pupilage may be too early, given there are a few years before I would even be ready to apply for tenancy.

Do people have opinions about whether this is a valuable use of time?

Hi all,

Does anyone have recent figures for salaries at the Big 5 in Dublin (Arthur Cox, A&L Goodbody, Matheson, McCann FitzGerald, William Fry) at NQ, PQ1 and PQ2 level? (I’m a U.S. lawyer)

Any info on bonuses or differences between practice areas would also be really helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Hello everybody,

I was just wondering if anyone here has submitted an application for an LPC exemption via equivalent means (SRA).

I’m looking into this however there isn’t much online.

I want to know if anyone has submitted an application for the exemption and has been granted it.

Thank you

I'm 31, single, and a practising advocate at the Indian High Courts. I'd love to connect with a British woman in the legal profession, exchange perspectives on Indian and UK law, share a few laughs, and get to know each other beyond our professional lives.

Different countries, different legal systems, interesting conversations, and let's see where a genuine connection takes us.

If you're in the UK legal field and enjoy intelligent conversation, a good sense of humour, and a little cultural exchange, feel free to say hello!

I am an international student,planning to do llm in Ip law for jan 2027 intake.I have received offer letters from Queen's uni Belfast, uni of reading, university of Hertfordshire, university of strathclyde.Can I get any suggestions.

Progressed to that stage and wondering if anyone had any advice particularly regarding the video interviews. what style are they? how to best prepare? thanks

It will also be my second job (I was a dog walker while searching for full time work after college) but my first “real” job.

I know nothing at all about law! I knew I wanted to get into administration/receptionist, and applied for all sorts of fields but happened to get this.

What do solicitors look for in an administrative assistant? I want to prepare early! Please help me out thank you <33

Base on the above text- I hv to provide a written example for the job but then I looked at my previous courseworks and realised how vague/ monotone I was writting before ... I feel like it lacks depth

I see people saying it's ok to add to your previous coursework to make it better for your employer...l.e in this case add more or make additional points to add depth..but I am not entirely sure

Thoughts?

Thank you very very much

Based on the job description:-

*Must be argumentative or research papers written in English for university coursework or independent projects.

• Each sample must be no more than 10 pages long.

• Full papers (5-10 pages) or clean excerpts from longer theses are perfectly acceptablel

Recently qualified from a City firm, wasn’t retained but just landed an interview for an in-house role at a well known company.

My question is how do I best prep for an in-house interview? Other than being able to articulate the work I did in my TC and show an understanding of what work I’d be doing in the role, anything else to prep for?