King's Inns Professional Conduct common mistakes
King's Inns Professional Conduct · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering a professional conduct scenario by stating the 'morally right' outcome rather than applying the specific rule from the Code of Conduct (for example, advising a client to settle because it seems fair, instead of identifying the barrister's duty to act on instructions and not to compromise the client's case).
Candidates prepare conduct as general ethics and rely on instinct; the King's Inns Professional Conduct examination rewards precise rule recall and application, and instinctive answers often miss the exact obligation, the correct recipient of the duty, or the permitted course of action.
What to do instead
For every scenario, first name the rule or principle engaged (e.g., duty to the court, duty to act in the client's best interests, conflict of interest, confidentiality, cab-rank rule where applicable), then state how it applies to the facts, then state the course of action. Practise writing answers in a rule-application-conclusion structure and check each answer against the Code's actual wording.
Failing to identify a conflict of interest or a duty owed to the court that overrides the client's instructions, and instead answering that the barrister should simply follow the client's wishes.
Candidates focus on the solicitor-barrister relationship and advocacy duties but under-rehearse the situations where duties pull in different directions, particularly where the court's interests or another client's interests are affected.
What to do instead
Build a checklist of conflict categories (own interest, former client, multiple clients, personal relationship, pecuniary interest) and a separate checklist of court duties (not misleading the court, disclosing adverse authority, correcting errors). Apply both checklists to every scenario before choosing an answer.
Confusing the Civil Procedure rules applicable in the Superior Courts with the District Court and Circuit Court rules, for example citing the wrong time limits, the wrong thresholds for jurisdiction, or the wrong procedure for a particular motion.
The Rules of the Superior Courts, Circuit Court Rules and District Court Rules overlap in structure but differ in detail, and candidates study one set in depth and then apply it to a scenario governed by another.
What to do instead
For each procedural topic (service, pleadings, discovery, motions, appeals, enforcement), tabulate the rule and time limit side by side across the three court jurisdictions, and practise identifying the court from the facts before selecting the rule.
Giving a procedural answer that states the correct step but omits the time limit, the form, or the person on whom service must be effected, when the question turns on those details.
Candidates know the broad procedure and assume the detail is optional; marks are lost because the question is designed to test the precise requirement, not general awareness.
What to do instead
When writing a procedural answer, always complete a short template: step, rule, time limit, form or document, method of service, and consequence of non-compliance. If any element is unknown, flag it rather than omit it.
Answering a substantive law question by reciting the general principle without applying it to the facts, and without identifying the leading Irish authority or the statutory provision.
Candidates memorise principles but under-practise issue-spotting under time pressure, so they produce textbook summaries instead of advice on the given facts.
What to do instead
Use an IRAC-style structure for every substantive answer: identify the issue raised by the facts, state the rule with the relevant Irish case or statute, apply it to the specific facts, and reach a conclusion. Practise past-style scenarios with a strict time limit.
Citing a case for a proposition it does not establish, or citing an English case where an Irish authority or Irish statutory provision governs.
Candidates learn law from secondary summaries and carry over English authorities without checking whether the point has been addressed differently in Ireland.
What to do instead
Maintain a case-and-statute table organised by topic, recording for each authority the precise proposition, the court, and the year. Where an Irish authority exists, cite it first; use English authority only where the Irish position is undeveloped, and say so.
In an advocacy or conference scenario, answering with the substantive law only and ignoring the skills elements the question is testing, such as examination-in-chief technique, objection handling, or how to manage a difficult client.
Candidates treat advocacy and conference skills as general knowledge and do not practise articulating what the advocate actually does, step by step, in the situation.
What to do instead
For skills questions, answer in terms of observable behaviour: what you would say, in what order, what you would do if the judge or client responds in a particular way, and why. Rehearse short scripts for opening, examination-in-chief, cross-examination, re-examination, objections, and client conferences.
In a conference scenario, giving advice before eliciting the facts, or failing to address the client's instructions, capacity, or the need to confirm advice in writing.
Candidates rush to demonstrate legal knowledge and skip the structure of a proper conference, which the examiner is assessing.
What to do instead
Follow a conference structure: greet and explain the purpose and confidentiality, take instructions and clarify facts, identify the legal issues, advise on options and risks, confirm instructions, explain next steps and costs, and record the advice in writing. Practise with a timed mock conference.
Ignoring the professional obligations that attach to advocacy, such as the duty not to mislead the court, the duty to disclose relevant adverse authority, and the limits on expressing personal opinion or coaching a witness.
Candidates separate advocacy technique from conduct and do not spot that a scenario is testing an ethical limit on advocacy.
What to do instead
Before answering any advocacy scenario, ask whether the proposed conduct would mislead the court, breach confidentiality, or involve improper coaching. State the limit and the permitted alternative in the answer.
Running out of time because answers are written as long essays rather than focused responses, leaving later questions unanswered or answered in note form.
Candidates draft as they think and do not allocate time per question or per mark, and the examination rewards coverage across all questions.
What to do instead
Before the examination, set a time budget per question based on marks. In the examination, spend the first minutes planning a short answer skeleton, write to the point, and move on when the allocated time expires; reserve the final minutes to complete any unfinished answer.