Trainee solicitors 'exploited' after qualification
Trainee solicitors are being ‘exploited’ by firms offering them a Hobson’s choice between a paralegal role or the dole when they qualify, the Gazette has learned.
The Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) said firms’ financial problems meant they were attempting to avoid paying newly qualified lawyers’ salaries and to save on practising certificate fees.
JLD committee member Kevin Poulter said some newly qualified lawyers are being told that they will only be taken on as paralegals, while law graduates seeking training contracts are being expected to work without pay.
The JLD warned that the profession ‘runs the risk of becoming elitist’ if the trend continues.
Poulter said: ‘The newly qualified jobs market has been hit over the past 12 months and the general feeling is that any position within the profession is better than nothing. Unfortunately this… gives firms the upper hand [over trainees] and the opportunity to exploit their predicament. The profession runs the risk of once again becoming elitist, where only those with sufficient means are able to progress.
‘It’s one of our key issues, and we need to clarify how and where junior lawyers are being exploited. We recognise the current economic difficulties for the profession, but junior lawyers should not disproportionately suffer as a result.’
Poulter said that junior lawyers are being hit hardest in small and medium-sized firms, although the issue has also surfaced at one large firm. He also expressed concern that some trainees are not being told far enough in advance whether they will be kept on by their firm when their training contract expires.
The JLD will shortly canvass its members on the treatment of trainees through an internet poll and through its local networks.
The number of available law firm traineeships fell by nearly 8% in the year ended 31 July 2009, during which 5,809 new traineeships were registered with the Society, down from 6,303 in the year to 31 July 2008.
A spokesman for the SRA said that taking on newly qualified lawyers as paralegals, or taking on interns for no pay, would not breach SRA rules. The SRA sets a minimum salary level for trainees but will decide in the spring whether or not to continue to do so.
Last year a report by the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, chaired by former cabinet minister Alan Milburn, raised concerns over unpaid internships being a barrier to fair access to the legal profession.
Comments
Scrooge
Welcome to the world of oversupply of qualified lawyers.
You have trained for years and spent a fortune trying to qualify, only to find that you are a paralegal.
You are being badly exploited if you are in this position and I suggest you get out of the profession fast and go into something where you are valued and where you can build a sustainable career.
As for our Lords and Masters in the SRA and our representatives in the Law Society, I say this.
No profession can survive which destroys the morale of the next generation. Such destruction is not in the public interest. If this means staunching the supply of newly qualified lawyers, by restricting entrants, then such restrictions must be put in place.
I am fed up with great trumpeting about the public interest and the fact that solicitors must come up to standards which no one else must meet,whilst all the while this sort of disgraceful situation continues.
Revolting Victorian Dickensian hypocritical morality has no place in this profession. Yet it is absolutely prevalent in the dealings described in this article.
PS. I have not even mentioned the also rans who failed to get a training contract in the first place and who wasted thousands of pounds in doing so.
I am a Solicitor, not a Baboon brandishing a stick...
This so called exploitation was and still is common practice within the profession.
Small and medium size law firms have been exploiting the loophole for many years with their 'stick'...
"...please Sir can I have some more..." and you bore the brunt truth of your paymaster 'general'.
...A spokesman for the SRA said that taking on newly qualified lawyers as paralegals, or taking on interns for no pay, would not breach SRA rules. The SRA sets a minimum salary level for trainees but will decide in the spring whether or not to continue to do so...
What a load of 'gobbledeygook'. The SRA should have certainly been aware of the flaws within their own rules, as they expect solicitors to certainly consider of all the possible consequences/repercussions in not handling client files instructions with their stringent rules and regulations.
The SRA/Law Society have in place the set minimum salary for a trainee solicitor, however on the other hand they also have a waiver for firms (Form TC5) to be exempt from paying the minimum salary, (applications are considered before a panel of adjudicators - A LOAD OF NONSENSE!).
Wishing you all a happy new year, before you are shown the door.
We need to close down all law
We need to close down all law schools for at least 2 years and let graduates have a decent chance at finding training contracts and qualifying. Why on earth the Law Society is happy to let people train in law schools when THEY KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT ONLY A MINORITY WILL FIND A TRAINING CONTRACT amounts to greed, or cruelty. I'm not sure which one it is.
NAME AND SHAME!
Name and Shame all solicitors and legal practices which resort to such 'underhand' tactics in 'grabbing you by the balls!'
They seem to have the money for their lavish lifestyles!
This has just happened to me.
This has just happened to me. Qualified and now i am jobless. only to find that i am over qualified to do secretarial, paralegal, fee earners but not qualifed enough to do solicitor (even though i am qualified). This is stupid. I am so annoyed at the way that this works and i have worked so hard to get where i am today.
something needs to change in the law world. the same is happening to barristers too. it is disgusting.
I also blame the tertiary
I also blame the tertiary education system. Law students are nothing but a "cash cow" for the universities. What do you need to teach law? Pretty much a room, some seats, a lecturer... This compared to all the costly equipment needed when educating engineers, doctors etc. It is no wonder universities just churn law students out.
We need the JLD to bust the whole sorry mess wide open so that young people do not start out on a career which will bring them no reward. Here's hoping the JLD has the backbone to do whats needed.
Shouldn't qualification actually mean something?
The qualification bar is set at the wrong time in the career progression - essentially training contract interviews determine who qualifies. If a student is accepted onto a training contract they are virtually guaranteed to be qualified in three or four years time as long as they complete their degree, irrespective of whether they show any aptitude for studying or practising law. The LPC is hardly a challenge, and then its into the strange world of the over-protected trainee. The upshot is that graduate-HR departments are setting the quantity and quality of "qualified solicitors". Qualification is handed out in advance to those with good A'Level results!
Perhaps the solution to the numbers of NQs is that there should be an actual challenge to qualification, instead of simply serving 2 years in a firm? Maybe firms should be able to take on greater numbers of trainees and be able to ditch the incapable ones, or more importantly be forced to ditch the incapable ones, as would happen in any real business scenario? An incompetent trainee shouldn't just face no-job after qualification - they shouldn't qualify.
Complete shamble
From universities, to LPC providers, to Law firms, SRA and the Parliament are to blamed!..
They are all turning a blind eye...It was always like from the very beginning.. No experience, ,,then no job...unless you are ready to do modern slavery...and then slowly they would notice your dedication if they are in a good mood and will then give you a bit from their sundry expenses ,,just enough to cover the commute and the lunch..and nothing else.. and then when they get used to you, they forget about you and you stay there wondering what your destiny is going to be...you finally quit....and then start looking for a paralegal role. But guess what??? The one who was recruited had 5 years experience of paralegal experience..!!
Your debt is increasing and you got to do something....you then get a job in retail to keep you going and keep dreaming the dream...by that time it;s been 2 years as time flies.
The LPC providers are still getting loads of applications (and making loads of money)..and your chances are decreasing...
What a load of wasted energy....!
The people running the SRA should quit because they have failed clearly.!
They are are not regulating the profession. They are in fact hindering the profession and depriving the society (except the wealthy) from their chances of securing a better living... Very capitalist approch.
Oh by the way, their biggest excuse is ,,,we did inform you that there is no guarantee that you will get a training contract,,but we will still take your hard-earned 10K,,ish for the 9 months course...
The barrister profession is even worse...Hypocritical and shameful..
Not just trainees/NQs!
I'm a 15 year pqe assistant solicitor and I haven't had a pay rise for 6 years and have been told that there will be a pay freeze for the foreseeable future. Pay rises will not be awarded in accordance even with inflation and one must demonstrate that they "deserve" a pay rise, although what is "deserving" remains to be defined! It's about time that this urban myth that we lawyers are all over-paid was busted. Might also put a few more off the idea of entering the profession on the basis that they will earn a high salary, which is a load of bunk in my experience.
This is nothing new
The exploitation of trainee solicitors and NQ's is nothing new. Ultimately, people will put up with whatever is thrown at them if it pays the bills, which is a sad reality. I was asked in my interview whether I planned on having babies any time soon. Yes this is totally discriminatory but I was desperate for a job, replied 'no' and got the job. They have since made me redundant..... I won't say much more.
I agree entirely that there
I agree entirely that there should be much firmer career guidance as to people's suitability for the job. I know several people who were totally miserable trying to make it in the profession and several who really don't enjoy it at all but are now caught in the difficult position of having to start at the bottom again to do something new. It's rather difficult to change tack and do something else when you have not only spent a large amount of money to get there but have also had to go through all the stress and hard work of studying too (I took the old LSF!)
Also, I think it is time these dinosaur firms were taken to task. It is appalling that women are still being asked if they intend to have babies. I suffered the same line of questioning many years ago but didn't like to complain about it. However, I'm older and braver these days and successfully sued an ex-employer for unfair dismissal. I am now working happily for the firm who advised me in relation to my employment issues!
Born to be Proud
I for one am genuinely pleased for you. Your present employers seem very 'likeable!'
Ever considered nominating them for an award?
My employers are fantastic (NOT!)
Trainees - Investing in the next generation
I was disturbed to read this article and to note that many firms are dodging their responsibilities towards newly qualified lawyers (something which happened all to frequently in the last recession in the early 1990s).
We at Manches have had many brilliant trainees over these past few years and notwithstanding the fact that the last year has been tough for all law firms, we have tried our very best to accommodate the majority on qualification.
In my department (Family and Private Client), we were able to take on three newly qualified lawyers in Sept 2009. The fact that Manches and many other law firms understand their responsibilities towards the next generation of lawyers and have actively invested in new talent throughout the global financial crisis should not be underestimated or down-played.
I would respectfully suggest, that many firms should be looking at the management under-performing partners, the cutting back of other unnecessary expenditures and salaries before consideration is given towards scrapping the newly qualified, who if properly employed can be a firms most profitable group of fee earners.
Supply and demand
Unfortunately nothing can change the laws of supply and demand.
The truth is there are far far too many law students. The market does not need them.
However I find it hard to have any sympathy for law students. They know the risks and if they are not aware of the risks then they should accept responsibility for not properly researching the likelyhood of success in law.
Also, you can't blame the college of law etc for making money out of the ignorance of students. The college is not forcing anyone to study the LPC. The student should take responsibility for his/her choice.
Frankly, I find it amazing that anyone would commit such huge sums of money to enter the legal profession when quite clearly the opportunities are very limited even for newly qualified solicitors.
Trainees
When I was looking for a training contract during the 1994 recession I was happy to take a paralegal job in a London law firm with only one partner at an initial wage of £30.00 per week. I walked to worked and lived on benefits for the first six months until my wage was increased. The firm could not give me a training contract as they only had one partner. I eventually moved to a firm that could two years later and for my time at the previous firm the SRA allowed me one year off my training contract under the TC8 scheme so in effect it took me three years to qualify.
If you get the chance in this current job market to be a paralegal then take it and stop moaning, you're lucky to have it in the current circumstances when many fully qualified and experienced solicitors are out of work. Perhaps if only people who undertook law degrees were allowed to do the LPC it would help reduce the number of graduates looking for training. I struggled to get a training contract as I had a 2.2 Law Degree and was competing against people who had 2.1 in History and English degrees which frankly are not the same and did not show the commitment to want to enter the law from the start.
Life is not fair so get used to it.
Please thank me for paying for your training.
This is a very interesting posting.
The SRA didn’t exist in 1996 and a one man firm is run by a principal not a partner.
You say there was a recession in 1994. I seem to remember it being in 1990 to 1991 and you had a Law Degree but had to work as a para-legal from 1994 to 1996. Unusual.
You lived on £30.00 a week and benefits in London. So, you accepted the disregard as wages and presumably lived on income support. Is that correct? So, this period of your life was funded by the taxpayer. No doubt you got housing benefit as well.
Your Law Degree was part funded by the tax payer as well. You might have had a student loan but would pay no tuition fees and not pay the loan back until you achieved £15,000.00 wages per annum.
Yet, you moan about people with 2:1 History Degrees and English Degrees converting to Law. I am sure that those who found training contracts stopped being a net drain on the taxpayer and became a net contributor much more quickly than you..
By 1994, I was a qualified solicitor with a 2:1 History Degree. I had stopped being a drain on the public finances and had become a net contributor.
Now, I understand that I was subsiding the firm you worked for because they were too mean to pay you and you were too gullible to ask for a proper wage. Life certainly isn’t fair. I was subsiding the competition.
I want people to succeed without subsidy. I don’t them to slave away in a dying profession, all the while missing opportunities elsewhere.
I do not want to encourage freeloading solicitors firms who conjure up chimeras of future wealth, in exchange for slavery or near slavery now.
I wanted happy contented well paid people and I want a profession that plans for that outcome, rather than a profession of greedy selfish shysters ready to exploit anyone and anything.
Am I asking for the impossible? If so, why is anyone contemplating a career as a solicitor?
No thank you for your taxes
Thank you for your comments and corrections. You are correct that by 1994 we were officially out of the recession of 1990-1991 but it was still pretty bad. You are also correct that a one man firm is run by a principal not a partner. By the time I took the paralegal job I had actually completed the LPC the cost of which I funded from my own resources having worked since graduation (no training contract and paid LPC) so apologies if this was not clear. My income support was reduced to take account of my small wage and yes I did receive housing benefit. Any subsidy which I received in six months from the state has more than been paid back by my contributions since qualification to which of course I have no objection as I would hope it would help someone else do the same. My firm was not too mean rather the fact is that they were very small and were still struggling to recover from the recession themselves and fulfilled their promises as soon as they were able. I hardly think they were a competition to you.
My point is that people have forgotten what it was like in recession and unfortunately being a paralegal for a while may be the best option. At least you can gain experience that will count towards qualification. Not all law firms can afford training contracts at the moment and the idea that they are all trying to exploit trainees is simply not true. Its the economy stupid as the man said
Being a paralegal for a while may not be perfect but surely its better than sitting on the dole being paid by you to watch day time television.