Partners block promotion prospects
One in three solicitors in private practice blames their ‘stifled’ career progression on increased competition from their peers combined with fewer partners retiring, a survey has revealed.
The survey of more than 200 private practice solicitors, published today by recruiters Laurence Simons, quoted Law Society statistics showing that the number of partners in the profession has grown by two-fifths since 1990, whereas the number of non-partner solicitors has grown by more than double that figure.
In the same period there has been an almost one-third decline in the number of partners retiring or otherwise leaving the profession. The result is a ‘bottleneck’ of more candidates competing for fewer partnerships, the survey says.
The survey also refers to an analysis of 200 partner profiles from the top 28 firms in the UK, which shows that the average partner is 44 years old and has been with his or her current firm for 11 years. This indicates, the survey says, that ‘most partners have not joined their current firm at partner level, but have taken the internal route to partnership’.
Laurence Simons director Guy Adams said: ‘The decrease in retirement figures has had a negative effect on promotion opportunities at all levels. Where previously, years of tenure guaranteed a relatively quick succession up the corporate ladder, lawyers now have to consider alternative career strategies in order to achieve promotions.’
Laurence Simons surveyed 209 solicitors working in private practice between 26 July and 6 August.
Comments
Parners block promotion prspects
The situation will get worse before it gets better, as fewer partners can afford to retire.
Newly qualifieds are going to have to get used to a world where partnership opportunties are fewer. The goal of partner cannot be the only game in town. Firms are going to have to come up with some imaginative ways to motivate and retain staff without the prospect of partnership, just as happens in-house.
Partnership
if you can't get a partnership at your firm consider setting up as a sole practitioner. I was an assistant solicitor for 10 years before i was able to take the plunge and acquire the practice of a retiring SP.. Although I had one or two financial hiccups in the first 5 years I've got over those and have been doing reasonably well ever since.
Less people want to become Partners
In my experience of smaller firms it is clear that Partnership is no longer the gleaming chalice of success that it may have previously been. Many talented younger Solicitors are reluctant to take on the regulatory and management pressures associated with Partnership and are happy to increase their salaries and influence within the firm simply by doing what they qualified for, practising law.
With many Partners continuing to battle on because they cannot afford to retire and the constant legal media relating to the oppressive regulatory regime, accompanied by the economic position, did this survey even consider the prospect that fewer people want to be Partners!
Many see Partnership as a step away from Law into management with guaranteed stress and financial hardship. They're happy to concentrate on their fees and increasing their income.
Partnership? No Thanks!
I agree with the views of Matt Rowley.
I was offered a salaried partnership with a medium sized high street firm three years ago. I turned it down for several reasons. One was it was (not much) more money for more grief. I was offered a decent salary, which I happily accepted as an employed solcitior, and I would only have earned a bit more as a salaried partner. At the time I was offered a partnership, the equity partners weren't earning much more than I was as an employee. They had the added burdens of managing the firm and dealing with risk management.
The regulatory winds are blowing towards a greater burden being put on the managers of law firms collectively. Pressure will come from indemnity insurers to create ever greater risk management systems. Most lawyers are not good managers, and one potential advantage of ABSs is that they can employ proper managers, leaving the law to lawyers.
Another reason why I said no to a partnership was because the economic landscape is changing. If you look at the services that a high street firm offers, then during the next 24 months they will be affected by (1) reducing the scope of Legal Aid, (2) changes to litigation funding following the implementation of the Jackson reforms, (3) conveyancing moving ever more to conveyancing factories, and (4) probate and will writing being subjected to a tsunami of advertising from big brands such as the Co-op, who already employ heavily incentivised salesmen to seek work.
Many high street law firms are facing static or falling revenues, plus increasing costs. The days of partners earning six-figure profits are long and truly gone.
The legal profession if facing a perfect storm. Nobody knows what the outcome will be in five years time. I for one would rather have the security of being an employee, with all the consequent employment rights that go with it, than be a partner.
This is a symptom of the
This is a symptom of the increase in numbers in the profession over the last 10 years or more. The problem is that quite simply not everyone who wants to can become a partner; competition has always been intense and this has intensified. For many young lawyers who have this aspiration, they will have to accept that for many they will never make partnership. Those who have seen their desired career progression stall should consider other options - partnership is after all not always the holy grail that it is assumed to be. After 15 years of hard work I realised that I was unlikely to be made a partner, and in any event the older I became the less enamoured I was of throwing in my lot financially with a group of people that seemed to make some rather odd commercial decisions! In consequence I set up my own firm 7 years ago and whilst it has been hugely stressful and I have a monumental workload, professionally and financially it was the best thing that I ever did. If anyone does consider this route though, it is vital that they have capital behind them and are fully committed to making their practice work.
Many young solicitors don't have the Kahoonas
I think this research is misleading. Or at least the "slant" of the article is.
Many partners are unable to retire because they can't afford to.
This is compounded by the fact that most solicitors (certainly outside the large firms, where there is at least some degree of safety in numbers) do not have the Kahoonas to take the plunge.
Most young solicitors want the "prestige" of partnership but will shy away from the obligations and liabilities and are, in my view, content to hide in the shadows and seek pay rises / bonuses etc etc. I don't know many solicitors who have an entrepreneurial bone in their body.
Anyhow, partnership isn't and shouldn't be an automatic or assumed right. All that has achieved (certainly in the large firms) over the years is a lessening standard.
The cream will always rise to the top.
Blame the baby boomers
Most young solicitors (certainly those qualified since 2000) will already have been looking at alternatives to partnership. Baby-boomer solicitors failing to prepare and failing to see the future have had a more detrimental impact on the legal industry than the Legal Services Act or the arrival of ABS ever could.
If any young solicitor wants
If any young solicitor wants to be a partner in our small long established home counties firm where you can make an income close to 6 figures they are welcome to apply. My experience is solicitors do not want to become partners in such firms and there are numbers of us wondering how we can retire.
Lunch, Drawings and Adultery
These were the professional specialisations of many of my partners when I had them until 20 years ago. Since then I don't. Just me and my Regulators (in the black uniforms with the lightning flashes)
Gus John
So, why is there no "comments" section under the news story about the Gus John review?
Because people would
Because people would comment!
To me and Anon
To be clear, the SRA oversight story allows no room for comments because commentators on the last related story included a spoof post and a series of potentially libelous comments - including people using anonymity to label one another racist.
I would love to receive letter from anyone on this important topic - which would gain far greater exposure for views than comments appearing under this story would.
We are, as past stories show, committed to balanced reporting of this issue, developments around which we have been committed to bringing to the attention of the profession.
But if readers cannot consistently manage that through the online comment boxes without sailing close to a libel, then they will need to revert to correspondence - which we are as well set up to receive as lawyers are to send.
My email address and that of the Editor in Chief are on this website, as is our address for correspondence.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Eduardo Reyes
Features Editor, The Law Society Gazette
Professor John's appointment
I'm delighted that Professor John has been appointed to do this review. There is plenty of evidence that unconscious bias against women and minorities is alive and well throughout the profession, as it is throughout society, so I applaud the SRA for asking such a well-regarded academic and educationalist to undertake the review, in the interests of openness and transparency.
Haha-an inevitable spoof
Haha-an inevitable spoof response! Brilliant!
Entertaining to read, though,
Entertaining to read, though, wasn't it?
Very!
Very!
letters on Gus John and the SRA
People, I still have a total letter/body count of zero letters on this issue.
That is a disappointing correspondence record.
You never call; you never write...
I am on 02074815550 most of tomorrow.
Eduardo
Ah, Eduardo-there's a
Ah, Eduardo-there's a wonderful invention called the net!
The practical application of the First Amendment, scourge of those who are afraid of free speech!
Out of interest, on what
Out of interest, on what basis do you conclude that writing a letter will gain far greater exposure for views than comments appearing under this story would?
And they would comment in
And they would comment in such a way that outsiders would form a dim view of the profession!!!
Well, it could hardly get
Well, it could hardly get dimmer! An unusual reason to prevent free speech however.
ABS
What about those baby boomers selling out to private investors for a one time only pay day while selling fixed share partners/members, associates and aspiring assistants down the river? They don't remember that someone gave them the opportunity 20 years ago that they will deny to the next generation. Still, shouldn't be surprised i guess given that generation's track record............
Judging by the number of High
Judging by the number of High Street practices for sale, there's plenty of scope for passed over solicitors to run their own firms.
I think the way in which some
I think the way in which some people view this is indicative of their attitude.
I am not going to make myself any more popular; but it is the same as with training contracts, the same as with ABSs and legal aid etc.
There are a certain sector of the profession, content to sit there and wait for what is "theirs". Whether that be LPC graduates who demand training contracts at guaranteed minimum rates, or practitioners who demand the legal aid system be kept in a certain way, or barristers who demand that they be entitled to be instructed in cases, or solicitors who demand to be made partner because of the number of years they have been in practice.
I have sympathy and understanding for the above views, and agree with most of the sentiments. Legal aid shouldn't be cut; aspiring students should be able to become solicitors; skilled advocates should be paid a decent rate for their work.
But the world doesn't work like that. Sit back into your office waiting for things to go your way. They probably will, eventually - things in life do have a habit of working out OK in the end.
Or grasp the nettle and deal with it yourself. Two and a half years ago, I was at a firm at which I was unhappy. I wasn't getting paid enough, my talents weren't recognised, etc., etc.
I thought about leaving or staying. They asked me to stay, they said in a few years I could be considered for partnership. Then I thought about this firm (since rebranded as "Quality" solicitor), about the fact that although a small firm, they employer three HR / Admin managers, three IT managers, they had outstanding leases and rent payments on empty former offices, and spent hours of time in endless meetings at which nothing of moment was ever decided, but flowcharts were created and boxes were ticked.
So I set up on my own. And then I got approached by other people who wanted to become partners of mine! And although it is by no means easy, the future looks bright from where I am sitting.
If you want partnership, it is incumbent upon you to have the convesation with the partners. Put your case, and why you would be an asset. If you would in fact be an asset, then they will accept this - who would turn down the chance to increase their profits?
If they don't accept the case you put, go and make the profits yourself! If in fact you can't / won't do the above, then I would question whether you ought to be a partner in the first place! And I don't think you have to wait until you're a certain age - you just wait until you are good enough. I am in my early 30s.
The downside of going alone is our beloved Law Society and its various offshoots who want to destroy the small firm sector of the profession. But I wouldn't let that worry anybody, because as sure as fish are fish and useless idiots work for the SRA, the next target will be middle sized non-ABS firms.
(NB For partners I obviously include Director, shareholder, LLP Member, or whatever. It's the same principle, and I must confess I don't understand observer's post above about alternatives to partnership and ABSs)
But the problem with the
But the problem with the solicitors profession has always been that the employed solicitor is just selling his labour/skill.
The "con" has been that if you work really hard (a moveable feast at the best of times) you "might get a partnership"-in other words flog your backside off to benefit us and we might be nice to you-but probably not.
The idea that an employee should also "get work in" is akin to a mine owner telling the miners to find the coal, dig it out, sell it and give the money to the mine-owner. Why on earth would anyone do that? Better by far to set up yourself-but the SRA will preclude this, like as not.
Oh I absolutely agree. In
Oh I absolutely agree.
In fact when you look at it (or when I looked at it), it was work your backside off to benefit us, and in the future - if we feel like it - we might let you take on board personal liability for astronomical overheads, and a poorly managed firm with no strategy (proven since by become quality solicitors) and little prospect.
No thanks!
Setting up on your own is not as hard as you may think (not that anybody wants to let the secret out). The biggest hassle is indemnity insurance, but if you are good (whatever area of law you are in) you will have acquired some loyal clients, and they should tide you over while you actively acquire more.
Hear hear. I agree
Hear hear. I agree wholehartedly.
Many posters on this site seem pre-occupied with whinging and have an unwarranted attitude of self-entitlement. As you say, it seems many legal professionals need to grasp the nettle and deal with it!!
Swings and roundabouts
Like many of those who have commented on this story, I started in the profession at a time when a good lawyer would expect partnership somewhere or other in return for years of hard work and learning the business. I ended up with a fixed share partnership wondering why the equity partners were taking so much more out of the business than I was for the same amount of work.
I took the plunge and set up on my own. Like the others who have commented on this as the solution for blocked partnership prospects, I have enjoyed being my own boss and getting rewarded directly for the work that I do. That said, I have no guaranteed income, and I have serious financial risk. If I do not get work in, my family has to go short. I also have to deal with the regulatory side of things, and will spend this evening doing my accounts to backup my PI renewal application - and I do my own typing.
If you want to practise law with a degree of security, stay as an employed solicitor. If you want a chance at making more money, but the risk of losing everything, are willing to take the commercial risk and the extra pressure and responsibility of owning the business, set up on your own or with some like-minded peers.The days when you got to be a partner just by sticking around have gone for good - don't complain, but decide what you want out of life and then do what it takes to get what you want.
There is no degree of
There is no degree of security whatsoever in being employed. When things get tough, you're the first out of the door.
Law v the commercial sector
In the commercial world, many employees are expected to generate increased client income unless they are admin staff. In the big scheme of things, a "rising tide raises all ships" so some people may help the tide rise more than other but all ships rise.
Increasingly, employed solicitors are being expected to mirror this commercial model rather than simply process client matters. However, it is increasingly apparent that equity partners may be expecting this change but not manage the reward and remuneration elements. It is understandable that those who believe they are ready for partnership may resent the behaviour of some equity partners. But there is a choice for these ambitious solicitors.
It is fascinating to see so many laudably entrepreneurial solicitors commenting on here to essentially say, if I understand correctly : "if you think you deserve partnership - go and start one". I have started several business (none in the legal sector) and some failed, some succeeded, but I never regretted taking control of my own destiny.
Being a partner (certainly of the equity flavour) means taking a bigger risk in return for a bigger reward. However, there is a huge lack of control compared to starting one's own firm (yes, going it alone I believe gives a lot more control). Becoming partner in an established firm means a lack of control in terms of risk but also in terms of reward. Frankly, I often wonder why prospective partners keep trying to push on the partnership door. Possibly, if they looked closer, the door said "pull"...
"In the commercial
"In the commercial world............"-I expect you are talking about the sales and marketing world.
That is considerably different to the professional world. The sales department is selling a product which the salesmen personally do not actually have to make, or a service they do not personally have to supply. Hence the massive amounts of mis-selling (or as it used to called-lying or dishonesty) which has happened during the past number of years. But the salesmen hit their targets-and moved on. The poor gas-fitter, tradesman, or other person actually doing th job is then left to tell the customer that effectively he has been sold a pup.
It is entirely akin to me selling your service to a client knowing perfectly well that you cannot actually deliver it-but I've got my commission by the time its found out.
This will, of course, happen in law with the ABS's and factory firms (e.g one of the reports by a Gazette writer)-but it is not what professionalism was about.
However professionalism is now dead.
I believe the "rising tide"
I believe the "rising tide" epithet is a JFKism. Personally, I much prefer the Sage of Omaha's "when the tide goes out, we see who's been swimming without their their shorts on"
We certainly have!
Prof John
I am sure Revered Leaderene Lucy is right to welcome Prof John. Will his remit include discrimination against 'the elderly'? Not sure if they qualify as an ethnic minority but ther are an Endangered Species. I was in-house and my employers were taken over when i was 55 and the buyers did what they are famous for: strip assets and sack all over about 50 who may suddenly become a financial pension drain. Took a lot of sorthing and I cannot afford to retire.Oddly, even though the trade that was once a profession is served badly by those supposed to help us, I enjoy my work, my clients and my new colleagues as a consultant.
You aren't serious are you?
You aren't serious are you? Please tell us you don't really think that post was actually from Lucy Scott-Moncrieff!
It was another spoof-in response to the whinge that someone had dared to post a spoof response to a previous article, and thereby close down discussion. A brilliant riposte to a whinge-what else was likely to happen?
Not as good as the one from "Antony Townsend" which linked back to the SRA website-but still good.
Is it worth pursuing a career in law?????
Coming from a non law degree, I have just been reading various articles written by people in the legal profession. I want to do my GDL so that I train as a solicitor, but after reading some of the articles, I was wondering if its worth obtaining a training contract. Is it that really bad as it is being potrayed. Will I be paid a decent income when I qualify as a solicitor? Is the job very stressful?? I just have so many questions and would not mind hearing what those in the profession ahve to say. i have a construction and health background maybe just specialise in employment law, clinical negligence etc.
It is perfectly possible to
It is perfectly possible to work in some areas of law without being subject to the appalling SRA. Being a solicitor is not worthwhile-if you can do so, avoid it.
Sorry....
The answer to your questions are:
1. Yes it is that bad.
2. You will be paid less than you think. Once you factor in costs of training and pension provision, you will probably earn less than most teachers for a significant period.
3. Yes it is that stressful. It's a career that wrecks marriages (although so does teaching) and leads to a remarkable number of drunks and addicts.
The question that you don't ask and should:
Are there any jobs and what is the competition like? The answer is that, last time we advertised, my firm got 250 applications/place and there are somewhere over 100,000 people looking for a training contract.
Oh, and when you get that training contract you could be paid less than you would be if you worked in Tesco.
Before anyone gets uppity:
I am a solicitor and I took a pro-rata pay cut to get my training contact (even taking into account the minimum salary). What did I do? I worked in a call centre.
Also: I love my job and wouldn't change it but innocents should go into the Law with their eyes open.
stop whining
The number of lawyers who think because they show up and do their work that they are entitled to partnership astounds me.
Either contribute something of real merit to your firm or open up on your own if you think you can do it.
Why shouldn't they get work in to justify partnership? Maybe not all of your work but at least a significant contribution otherwise what are you really adding that another competent lawyer couldn't?
I set up on my own five years ago and often meet employed solicitors who say they want this, that and the other but who in fact simply don't have the drive to actually do it. Nor are they prepared for the reality of what you have to do to get where you want to be. Leaving at 5, not prepared to get their hands dirty and deal with staffing issues, downright deluded.
A lot of it is just basic snobbery and wanting "partner" on their business card. A load of showy rubbish. Means nothing at a lot of firms - you're just a patsy to share the liability with.
Make your role what you want it to be then irrespective of what it says on your business card, you will go home happy every night.
A lot of this profession expect things on a silver platter and it makes my blood boil. Either work your nuts off and get somewhere or shut up, take a salary and let the rest of us get on with the business stuff.
So doing the work doesn't
So doing the work doesn't have real merit? An interesting point of view.
Most assistants would be more than happy to let the partners get on with the business-but that isn't what happens is it? They are expected to "contribute" on the false promise of a partnership. The system is little short of fraudulent.
Partnership?
I am not a solicitor but a Legal Exec. Until fairly recently I wasn't able to be a partner in a law firm yet I did the same work as my solicitor colleagues, got in the work, only I did it all better then some, in my view.
I wanted more so set up my own practice and now earn a very healthy salary which exceeds that of those ex-solicitor colleagues I used to share an office with. I love the challenge and am expanding year on year.
Those who take the plunge and go it alone were always going to be good partnership material, whether or not it was spotted in time. Those who decide to sit tight and take the easier route of employment perhaps are just not cut out for the commitment that partnership brings.
Doing the work does have real
Doing the work does have real merit and I didn't mean to say it didn't, what I meant was merit in relation to grounds for a share of the business.
If you do your job well and look after your clients that helps the business succeed but quite frankly there are lots of lawyers out there who can do that so what makes you different? What can you offer that someone else can't? Unless you're in a niche area that very few people can do and which is essential to the firm then you need to show that you can bring in the clients and develop the business to justify partnership.
I don't work goodness knows how many hours or risked my house to set up this firm just to have someone expect part of it because they turn up and do the job they were contracted to do.
Purlease, how naive.
And most of the time any lawyer worth their salt will sniff out an empty promise or a useless partnership tag on offer. I did.
So in short, you do actually
So in short, you do actually expect the employed solicitor to "do more" than actually do the work.
Presumably this means "get work in" and all that stuff. And what is their reward? From the sound of it, the privilege of a job where they are expected to do more than "just the work".
This type of thing really is appalling and is precisely why trade unions were formed.
What many employed solicitors want is quite simply to do the work and get properly paid. Simples-no fraudulent "promises" or nonsense like that.
Legal Beagle ?
In my job as a solicitor over 20 years, partnership looked like a plausible goal for a few years, then like the proverbial end of the rainbow, it proved non-existent. If I was ever looking for a legal "career" as such I have well and truly blown it despite making respectable money for the firm (s) (which once earned me a bonus of 1.5% of the additional profit-woohooh,that was sooo motivational !), never attracting a single negligence claim in all the 20 years I have practised, and being instrumental in securing a change in the law to favour ordinary people through single-handed donkeywork preparing a House of Lords case ... Believe me, if I was desperate to get rich through law, I`d have slashed my wrists by now !
...I`m certainly no legal eagle but prefer to see myself as a legal beagle with its feet on the ground and its tirelessness in stalking the fox of unaccountable authority.
I also comfort myself with the fact that I enjoy my work and have always been able to work to live and not the other way round, which causes so many to lose their perspectives..and their good health-but maybe they`ve gained a partnership, it`s true.