Open letter: trainee solicitors and the minimum salary
We are a few of the thousands of students who have passed the LPC exam and are desperately waiting for training contracts. We and many of our other friends have been applying for training contracts for over two years since passing the LPC but without success. Some of us have made more than 300 applications and very few firms invited us for interviews but we have not been successful.
The majority of us did not study in the top universities of the country to have a chance to get into large solicitors' firms or City firms and we are largely dependent on small-sized firms and sole practitioner firms. There is no doubt that a majority of us are applying to sole practitioner firms because our chances of getting a contract would be better in these firms as opposed to applying to larger firms.
Unfortunately many sole practitioner firms are currently having financial problems and are not in a position to pay the minimum salary stipulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Although the SRA permits solicitors to apply for a waiver of the minimum salary which would be granted on exceptional grounds, they do not say what these exceptional grounds are. They say that they do not accept a company’s financial situation as a reason. When one of my colleagues spoke to the SRA and asked what the exceptional circumstances are the person who spoke said she herself does not know what they are.
Some time ago one of my friends got a training contract and her employer applied for a waiver but this was refused. She then had to resign from the company and was working in a departmental store as a sales assistant. She was made redundant from there and she has been unemployed for the last six months. Certainly it would have been better for her to have secured a training contract and a salary of about £14,000 (less than the minimum but more than what the SRA has suggested for waiver of the minimum salary) rather than being unemployed and earning no income.
We understand that the SRA is in favour of scrapping the minimum salary requirement - a salary which at the moment prevents LPC-qualified people from having to work in small firms for paltry salaries, or having to do work placements in legal firms for no pay. We understand that the Law Society is opposed to the scrapping of the minimum salary but at the same time they have no scheme to help almost 80% of the LPC-qualified people who are without training contracts for more than two years. More and more solicitors are reluctant to take trainees because of the unreasonable requirements and the attitude of the Law Society and SRA (we still do not know whether it is the SRA or the Law Society who is ultimately responsible for making decisions with regard to approving training contracts).
Although there is in place a scheme for solicitors to apply for waiver of the minimum salary there is no guarantee that the applications would be accepted even if the requirements are met. Could someone from the SRA tell us what needs to be shown for the application to be approved. If they are looking for exceptional circumstances please let us know what these exceptional circumstances are. The guidance notes issued are extremely vague.
We understand that those who are qualified as barristers and accountants do not get a minimum salary during their pupilage or apprentices. There is no condition imposed upon the Barristers’ Chambers by the Bar Council or on the accountants by the controlling bodies for the accounts to pay a minimum salary; it is left entirely up to the employers. Why do trainee lawyers have to be subjected to this kind of condition? It is wrong to use the argument of exploitation of employees to impose this condition. It is up to the employer and the employee and usually most employers do not exploit trainee solicitors. Even if they do there are other remedies and one should remember the basis of employment law is the contract entered into between the employee and employer. The Law Society’s Rule is in breach of this principle.
When an employer advertises for a training contract job we understand an average of over 200 applications are received. When one succeeds and the employer applies for a waiver it takes some time for the SRA to make a decision and when it is refused the employee has to leave the office and go and sit at home without work or income. The time spent with the solicitors then becomes wasted.
We are sure that we are reflecting the feelings of thousands of LPC-qualified people without the training contract. We therefore ask the SRA and the Law Society to re-think on this and change their attitude rather than destroying the future of many of us. (Some of our friends have already given up the legal profession and gone into other fields because they could not get a training contract). Let the employers decide the salaries of the trainees. There are firms that even pay more than the minimum salary because they are big and they can afford it, and of course smaller firms pay less. What is wrong about this?
Could someone from the SRA and Law Society publish a reply to this letter in the Law Gazette for the benefit of all LPC and future graduates as to where we stand.
Yours faithfully,
Amy Johnson
Claire Peterson
Darren Atherton
Neeta Varsani
Comments
This letter has made my blood boil!
Reading this letter made my blood boil! The first line especially. You are “waiting” for training contracts?! That doesn’t sound very proactive and the bottom line is; nobody owes you a training contract.
There is nothing wrong with competition for obtaining a training contract (providing firms use fair methods of recruiting trainees etc, but that is another matter!). The fact that there are not many available is a reflection of the economic climate at present. I do not see what benefit there is to offering more training contracts while there are so many NQs finding it hard to secure a job. It would only saturate the market with NQs and move the bottle neck.
The focus should be on the amount of people who do the LPC and do not get a training contract. It is a waste of money and is not transferrable to any other career. Should an LPC graduate decide to give up the hunt for a training contract and pursue another career the fact that they studied the LPC at all makes them look like a failed solicitor.
However, those that undertake the LPC without first obtaining a training contract are taking a risk and therefore they should take some responsibility for it. It was your choice to study the LPC, the statistics are there to show you what academics are preferred, how many training contracts there are and the types of people you are up against. Even if you secured a training contract on £14k a year who is to say you will be kept on at the end of it and then you are in the same situation all over again…no job and up against others with better qualifications.
And before you presume I am some kind of public school educated magic circle solicitor who has sailed through…I am not. I am not from a legal background; I went to a state school, worked hard, got good grades and went to a Russell Group University. I then applied for training contracts in my third year, got one at a regional firm and then did my LPC. Only then was I prepared to fork out money and take the risk of doing the LPC. I knew the competition I was up against.
It is wrong to compare training as a solicitor to training as an accountant as they undertake their professional studies on the job. Perhaps if this were the case with solicitors the minimum wage could be scrapped.
In summary, scrapping the minimum wage is not your answer to obtaining a training contract. It is there to ensure people who are not funded by the bank of mum and dad can still afford to enter the profession.
I agree with Grace,
I agree with Grace, absolutely. Knowing her as I do, though the work of the JLD we can say with confidence that we have canvassed our members who include LPC students and the overwhelming majority do not want to see the minimum salary scrapped. Just one of the reasons for that is that it helps to promote diversity in the profession by enabling those who are not already well off to train to become a solicitor and still pay off their student loans.
Amy, Claire, Darren and Neeta; who exactly are the "thousands" of LPC students you represent? They haven't engaged with the JLD, whoever they are. I would advise you all to do your research before writing any more ill-informed and unrepresentative open letters like this one. It's indicative of the lack of research you have done when you don't know that it's the SRA that sets and regulates the minimum salary. If you're serious about becoming lawyers you need to do better than that.
For a start you do not
For a start you do not represent the thousands of students who have not secured a training contact and you certainly don’t represent the many students who have responded to the SRA’s survey saying that they could not afford to train as a solicitor if the minimum salary was scrapped.
Your desperation is understandable and the current situation where many students cannot obtain a training contract is a serious issue that needs addressing. But this is not going to be resolved by scrapping the minimum salary. It is a problem that could hopefully be partially addressed by the current Legal Education and Training Review. Further, the SRA have not stated that more training contracts would definitely result from scrapping the minimum salary but that a few ‘could’ result but they will be paid less than the minimum salary.
What also comes across from your letter is that you are not looking for a training contract at high street and legal aid firms because that is where you want to work but because you haven’t got a training contract at a city firm. “There is no doubt that a majority of us are applying to sole practitioner firms because our chances of getting a contract would be better in these firms as opposed to applying to larger firms.” You fail to recognise that there are many students who are solely motivated by the desire to work in legal aid because they want to work in areas concerning access to justice and upholding people’s rights. Many of these students could not afford to work in legal aid if the minimum salary were scrapped because of the financial burden of University and law school fees. This will be detrimental to the legal profession and to the clients who seek the advice of passionate and committed solicitors every day whose motivation is other than financial reward.
It is unfortunate that you have not read the many responses to the SRA consultation including that of Junior Lawyers Division, Young Legal Aid Lawyers and The Law Society. It is unclear why they SRA have not clarified the position on fee waivers. As I understand it if a firm wants to employ you they apply for a fee waiver, not you. What happened to your friend is awful but scrapping the minimum salary will have wide reaching and negative impacts on diversity and access to the profession. It will lead to a greater level of exploitation of trainees, such as yourselves, who will work for next to nothing just to get a training contract. Have you, however, thought about what you would do after this? Would the firm keep you on? What will your employment prospects be if you have worked at a firm which doesn’t appear to value you your work beyond minimum wage? What standard of supervision are you going to get?
You say that the Law Society has no scheme to help almost 80% of the LPC-qualified people who are without training contracts for more than two years. You might be right. But I suggest that you should focus your energies on the Legal Education and Training Review which will hopefully provide alternative routes into the profession and could open up more training contracts or perhaps address the problem of students paying for two years of legal education and having no job at the end of it.
You ask why trainee lawyers have to be subject to the minimum salary. There are many justifications but a clear one is the enormous financial burden of the vocational stage. This is different to any other profession which allows you to work whilst obtaining your qualification.
You are not reflecting the views of thousands of LPC qualified people, as you put it. This certainly was not reflected in the response to the SRA survey in any event nor in responses to the Junior Lawyers Division call for views on the minimum salary. In fact the opposite is true. Students want the protection of a minimum salary and your view is the view of the minority.
I empathise with the
I empathise with the difficulty that signatories to the letter have suffered, but I must point out that several of their comments are incorrect.
It may be that some firms do not want to pay the minimum salary but there is no evidence that abolition of the minimum salary will actually result in more training contracts being offered. More commonly small firms find the barriers to offering contracts are regulatory requirements which are unrelated to the minimum wage.
The criticisms made of the SRA relate to the decision making process and waiver procedure rather than the current minimum salary. A better way to tackle this would be to consider ways of making the decision making process more transparent and publishing clearer guidance notes of when a waiver will be granted. This is not relevant to the current proposed abolition of the trainee minimum wage.
Apart from the minimum salary, the SRA does not regulate salaries paid and it will be up to the firm employing the trainee to decide whether to offer a sum at or above the minimum. The free market is not dictated to under the current regime and in fact there is a wide variation in salaries.
While the writers are lucky enough to have not experienced exploitation themselves, unfortunately exploitation of trainees does happen. Myself and several others have been offered salaries below the national minimum wage (or even nothing at all). In theory it is possible to pursue employment claims against a former or current employer, but practically this is impossible as you cannot pursue another job when the relationship with your first (and in some cases only) referee is so damaged by litigation.
Answers to some questions raised in the letter regarding the SRA’s regulatory role are available on the SRA website http://www.sra.org.uk/students/students.page and more help is available at the JLD website http://juniorlawyers.lawsociety.org.uk/
Nothing New
The situation, although much worse in recnet years, is nothing new. I graduated from a middle ranking university in 1998 and, as has been suggested by many respondents here, did my homework. I realised that there was very little prospect of my obtaining a training contract if I were to put myself through the LPC at that point and set about finding alternative routes into my chosen profession.
Eventually I found work as a Legal Secretary (also now a dying breed) with a local firm who promised to fund me to qualify as a Legal Executive - fast-tracked because of my law degree! I was quickly moved to a low-paying, fee earning role as I studied and qualified as a Legal Exec in 2003. Following this, and a period of 'proving myself' as a fee earner, the Firm agreed to fund a part-time LPC with a view to me finally qualifying as a solicitor. A very long way round but well worth it and earning money rather than sitting waiting for the rejection letters (if these are even sent) to arrive!
One note of caution, however, even this circuitous route is no guarantee of future happiness - the day after my Supervising Partner signed my application for admission to the roll I received a redundancy notice...
Minimum salaries
First, it is refreshing to see that people posting comments here are prepared to provide their names and I think that has made the comments more considered than elswhere.
I am a retired solicitor and do have sympathy for anyone wishing nowadays to embark on a career in the law. However, entering the profession has always involved committment, both financial and otherwise.
When I went for my first interview for articles, as they were then called, in the mid 70's, I asked what the salary would be. The response was that I would not be paid a salary but just some pocket money. I applied elsewhere and stuck out for £15 per week.
The abolition of the minimum salary would be a retrograde step and would encourage the condescending attitudes dsplayed towards trainees by past generations of principals.
For Amy and the other signatories to the open letter, please maintain your self respect and keep trying.
Completely misguided
Your dashed hopes are not the fault of the minimum wage; the fault lies with privately owned law schools charging a fortune for the LPC while not giving students a realistic overview of the profession and the difficulties of entering into it. Universities, particularly those which don’t have good reputations, are guilty of similar behaviour, but at least a law degree offers some transferable skills.
If you ask the SRA to scrap the minimum wage and get what you ask for, you will not be more likely to get a job. No firms have said they WILL offer more training contracts, simply that they MIGHT. I can think of a few unscrupulous firms who would answer in the affirmative simply so they could pay their trainees less, but would not, in fact, take any more on. Also, what's the point of working for £10k a year as a trainee for 2 years, qualifying and then finding that you're unemployed because there are no NQ posts? There are many more people studying to become solicitors than there are solicitors and unfortunately that means some will never qualify. That is not caused by the minimum salary.
If you really want to get training contracts, work as paralegals and prove yourselves. Don’t write letters to bolster a dishonest and insincere argument that will simply reduce the living standards for all, especially for those who, unlike you, genuinely want to work for legal aid clients.
Keep on trying! I worked for
Keep on trying!
I worked for 3 years post LPC and whilst I appreciate how hard it is to secure a training contract, the more work experience you do, the easier you will find it to secure an interview. I think the common mistake most law graduates make is to assume you have to find a legal job in order to secure a training contract. Apply for anything commercial or challenging and it will get you a foot onto the job ladder. You may even find an alternative career! For instance if employment law interests you, why not try the recruitment industry? If you are interested in legal aid why not volunteer on an ad hoc basis within a charity? You will gain lots of transferable skills and insight into the market. It's also far easier to be motivated to apply whilst working than it is whilst unemployed.
I agree that the LPC providers should be more honest in their marketing material before offering infinate places but I think graduates need to take some responsibility too. I took the risk of not having a training contract in place before signing up to the LPC but it made me more motivated and determined to succeed.
I do not share your view that abolishing the minimum salary will solve this problem. Living on the minimum trainee salary is extremely difficult and the work we do should not be underestimated.
This drips with entitlement.
This drips with entitlement. A training contract like any placement is earned on merit and if you cannot get a training contract long before your 300th application you need to move on...
So the world owes you a favour? Erm, no.
This argument is as old as the hills. It is a simple fact that there is (and should be) tough competition for training contracts; they are very hard to get but it is not the fault of the minimum salary and if you do enough to stand out from the crowd, you will get one.
The writers of this open letter suggest that some of them, having made more than 300 applications with no resulting TC, are hard done to. No, that is life. I applied to 473 different firms before I got anywhere - so what, it is the nature of the beast.
The minimum salary however is not right for everyone and the SRA ought to be pushed regarding the waiver. Firms who are unable to afford to pay that salary yet may otherwise be willing to take a trainee are prevented from doing so to the detriment of the potential trainee.
I am particularly thinking of the situation where there is a genuine desire to work in the not-for-profit sector - not many law centres, for example, could afford to pay a trainee salary at the moment but may be able to provide training. Equally it is likely that those wishing to work in that sector may be willing to claim top-up benefits to enhance a lower wage or even no wage. For a waiver to be granted in this type of situation would benefit everyone and the SRA must get its act together - it would be nice to see the JLD pushing them.
Agree with sentiment but not proposals
It is not surprising that Amy, Claire, Darren and Neeta feel exasperated at the position in which they find themselves - being part of an ever growing group competing for a limited number of training contracts.
I have been involved in the trainee minimum salary consultation both on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Junior Lawyers Division (JLD). I cannot agree that removing the minimum salary at this time is the right course of action.
Salary is a small part of the overall cost of providing a training contract; assessed as between £100,000 and £250,000. Removing the minimum salary requirement is not the answer to the concerns that Amy, Claire, Darren and Neeta have.
I and the JLD want to see the situation improve. It is hoped that this will be achieved by the profession wide Legal Education and Training Review (LETR), which is currently taking place. This will examine everything from undergraduate study to post-graduate training to ensure that it better meets the needs those with the desire and aptitude for a career in law.
Until the LETR is completed and the role of the future ‘trainee’ is established the minimum salary requirement is essential to ensure that law is open to all and not just those who can afford to subsidise their entry to the profession.
I wish Amy, Claire, Darren and Neeta well with their training contract applications and urge them to contact their local JLD to voice their concerns and become involved in the LETR.
How can you have the audacity
How can you have the audacity to make such ill-informed public statements and claim to speak for 1000's of others when you can't even be bothered to do the most basic of research into who regulates the minimum wage?? This suggests to me that your opinions are also based on a lack of research into the implications of removing the minimum wage.
LPC £10000 trainee wage £2.60
It is probably high time when we have elected representatives of the profession or perhaps we also need to do away with law degree not to mention the LPC, a qualification that is not recognised anywhere else. Only then we can talk of the A Level apprentice at £2.60 an hour. It’s a shame to see talented young people getting worsted.
Minimum salaries
I made a comment earlier that entering the profession has always involved committment, both financial and otherwise. The difference to when I and others started our training contracts (or Articles) in the 70's was that we had not incurred tuition fees to gain our Law degrees nor was it actually necessary to go to Guildford, Lancaster Gate or wherever in order to sit the Law Society Finals.
I now see that the Law Society's website says the following:
"It is estimated that the overall cost of a degree could be as much as £26,000. Add to this the fees for the Common Professional Examination and/or the Legal Practice Course, it is estimated that an individual could be carrying a total debt of £25,000 - £50,000 at the beginning of the training contract. Therefore, careful thought and extensive research is required before you embark on your legal path".
Some people, who have high academic qualifications and the ability to impress recruiters at large commercial practices, will get their LPCs paid for them. They will then have the expectation of a highly lucrative career in commercial law. For the rest, who are more attracted by the idea of High Street Practice or what is left of publicly funded work, there is no similar expectation. For those people, it is very difficult to rationalise a decision to embark on a legal career at present.
Perhaps they would be best advised on graduation to defer a career in the law, get whatever experience they can, hopefully, reasonably paid and see how the practice of law changes with everything else that is happening surrounding the development of the ABS model.
I'm afraid that doesn't help Amy and others who have already incurred the cost of the LPC and are now finding it difficult to find training contracts in what is a very difficult and uncertain time in general practice.
High Street Trainees - Reality check needed!
I am a trainee in a high street practice because that is where I wanted to be - it was not a default choice because the City firms rejected me. The massive challenges facing high street practices means that if they are to succeed they have to recruit people who are resourceful, and can already stand on their own two feet. Certainly they will be looking for people with relevant commercial skills, IT skills, marketing skills and who have had previous customer facing experience. With so many people applying for TCs they can also expect and demand good academic grades.
High Street firms will more likely employ you as a paralegal first on the minimum wage, test you, train you, and then offer you a TC. You will be expected to start earning fees as soon as you start TC, and even as a trainee you will have to cover reception when the receptionist phones in sick! Only senior fee earners will have the luxury of secretary so you will also be expected to open your own files, type all your own correspondence, and close files.
I get the impression that the writers of the open letter have no idea of the reality of high stree practice nor the aptitude to succeed in that arena. Rather than dilute my minimum salary which I believe is well deserved, they ought to think about getting jobs as paralegals where they can be tested to see if they really have got what it takes to success as high street solicitors.
Training Contract
I am a Solicitor 5 years post qualified. I did not attend private school as I'm from a fairly low income family. I struggeld to pay Law degree course fees ( my parents' income was sufficient for us to qualify to pay our way) and my whole family scrimped and saved to fund the LPC fees and associated costs. I was lucky to get a training contract after the LPC at a high street Practice. I had no intention of working for a big firm. The minimum wage was a god send. Aboloshing the minimum wage would not create extra training contracts. How can it be argued that it would? In order for training contracts to be offered there are a number of practical requirements, caseload, suitable supervisor, office space, time to review policies to meet the Law Society's criteria etc etc. How would abolishing the minimum wage suddenly enable a high street firm to overcome all of those hurdles? The answer is, it simply wouldn't. The salary saved would be swallowed up somewhere along the line, it would not create extra jobs and it is foolish to believe otherwise.
Every person who signs up to the LPC without having secured a training contract is taking a risk. As they already have a law degree and are aspiring to join one of the best profressions around, they should be aware that they may face difficulty if a training contract is not secured. It is unfair to lash out at these protective measures (the minimum salary) as a result of your personal failure to achieve a training contract- you knew you were taking a risk. The minimum wage salary protects people like me from exploitation who have a genuine desire to work in small high street practices. In the absence of the minumum wage, I was at risk of being paid next to nothing. There was no reason why I should have worked for next to nothing as I worked hard and earned good fees and so on.
Having said that, the minimum salary for a trainee solicitor is still far less than for someone working as a graduate (with no post-graduate qualifications) so it is not as if trainees are overpaid or don't do a lot of work or have mcuh responsibility. The comments made above "High Street Trainees relality check needed" ring very true from my days as a trainee and I am sure it is the same case for most high street firm trainees.
It is also unfair to blame LPC providers for lack of training contracts- nowhere does it say that LPC graduates are guaranteed a training contract. I am aware that some LPC students feel that a training contract is a natural progression from the LPC. It is not and if you are signing upto something you should consider all matters including how you would feel should a training contract not materialsie for, you those that don't consider these points are probably best kept out of the profession.
Without the minimum salary for 2 years, I may not have qualified as I did not have other funds/means of support- I really needed that miminum salary to be in place. The minimum wage has led to diversity in the profession, as I am not from a rich background it enabled me to access this profession. Please don't abolish the minimum wage. We wouldn't contemplate/talk about abolishing the national minimum wage- that would be viewed as going two steps backwards - the same principle applies here.
I always think that when
I always think that when people mention how many hundreds of applications they have made, they may be doing themselves a disservice in those applications.
I cannot see how you can tailor each application individually if you apply for hundreds of training contracts. When I sent off my 30 or so applications I spent hours researching each firm and the area in which they are based and made each CV and covering letter individual to that firm. I was applying in 2006 and out of those 30 applications had about 5 interviews and 2 offers.
Perhaps a better way forward would be to focus on the type of firm you want to work for and the type of work you want to do and make bespoke applications to firms that meet your criteria rather than have blanket applications which could be sent to any firm.
What it means to be a solicitor is being diluted every day and there just isn't the same amount of work for solicitors that there was even a few years ago. The amount of solicitors the market can sustain is only going to go down and I agree that it is a massive risk to do the LPC without having a training contract in place. If it is a risk you are willing to take then you are gambling on not being able to get a training contract afterwards - you would have known this before doing the LPC.
Somewhat amusing
I am myself still seeking an elusive TC. I can’t say that over the past twelve months I have been as proactive in applying for trainee positions as maybe I should have been but I’ve been busy working. Chances of me gaining a TC are slim – I got a mediocre 2:2 at undergraduate level and a Commendation on my LPC.
I think the qualified members of the audience are, maybe not as aware as what, if marketed correctly, the completion of the LPC can show a prospective employer. I am in my current position for a large, international company working on commercial bids and contract negotiations because of my post graduate education. Like with everything you need to read between the lines and highlight those transferable skills you have honed in the educational environment.
Ideally, I would love a TC but these days it would have to be the right offer. One thing working in industry has taught me is salaries are better and career opportunities greater outside the bright lights of the legal world. A friend of mine, whom secured a TC, has already told me he intends to pack it all in as soon as he finishes, in favour of the salaries available to the average graduate.
The one thing that changing the minimum salary to an apprentices’ wage means for me are even if I was offered a TC the chances of me accepting are slim to none. At minimum, you leave the University system at 22 – who at this age can afford to live of £96p/w. I don’t regret my decision to complete the LPC – but I don’t envy those whom are looking to take the course with the prospect of such dip in wage
trainess minimum wage
As an employer I can't afford traineee solicitors. When we left college we only had to do one half day course that our employer paid for. Now the law schools expect us to foot the bill for longer courses if we take on trainees. We have a very good paralegal working for us. When he is eventually trained up we can then start to make money from him. Only at that stage will he be offered a training contract. If the minimum wage were abolished and if I didn't have to fork out extra sums of money for college courses then we would reach that stage a lot sooner. He would have his training contract a lot sooner. A qualified solicitor is worth a lot more to a firm than a trainee.Once qualified no one can take that from you, you will become more employable. You can all say what you wish about the minimum wage, those of us with our homes on the line in the current economic climate will continue to vote with our feet.
But Michael, wouldn't you
But Michael, wouldn't you prefer to test a paralegal to see that they have what it takes to make you money first? You could take on a trainee on the minimum wage, with no commercial acumen or client skills and be stuck with them for two years. Then with their qualified status you would palm them off on to another unsuspecting firm!
I am a paralegal working for
I am a paralegal working for a sole practitioner specialising in charity law. Our fees are reflected in the fact that our clients are charities and so are much lower than the norm. I know (and have just had the conversation in relation to this thread) that my boss would love to offer me a training contract but isn't in the position to pay me the minimum salary plus the training costs whilst at the same time I am less productive due to being out of the office to carry out the training requirements.
She is also of the very strong opinion that the structure of the training contract needs to be reviewed in light of the new business structures. More firms are likely to be set up that specialise in niche areas. My work is very varied and covers lots of areas such as IP, employment and commercial. However I could not do an employment "seat" as the work varies on a daily basis. I think small firms have a lot to offer trainees, as from my own experience I know that the training is very much hands on as my boss doesn't have to manage lots of other employees and so can dedicate more time to training me.
But unless there are changes, I will have no option but to go elsewhere if I want to qualify which is a shame.
Aldi shelf stackers pay more
Aldi shelf stackers pay more than the minimum wage. If a firm really can't afford to pay a trainee (fee-earner) more than the minimum wage, and it's not much more, then you have to question its viability. Perhaps it's time for such firms to exit the market and their owners to find more lucrative ways to exist.
Minimum salaries
Carl says that if a firm really can't afford to pay a trainee more than the minimum wage, perhaps it's time to exit the market.
Whist I am a supporter of the minimum salary for trainees, it may not be quite as easy to exit as Carl suggests. Cessation of practice carries substantial costs including perhaps repaying loans, making redundancy payments and certainly run off PI cover. Where is the money to come from to do this?
Traditionally, partners might have looked to their younger colleagues to succeed them, relieving them of liabilities and perhaps even paying something for goodwill.
It is very difficult to imagine many young solicitors being prepared to pay, or being able to pay, anything for goodwill these days. As Viv Williams in his blog of 1 May (“How much is your practice worth”) said:
“Having completed some 60 mergers to date we have failed to realise hardly any value in the practices involved. Our success has been in ensuring the firms, generally distressed, have been able to repay their bank borrowings and that the existing partners minimise their personal liability. Goodwill has simply not been on the agenda”.
Change the LPC system - not the minimum wage for trainees
I have read the various exchanges, following the initial open letter from the (clearly desperate) LPC graduates.
The issue, from my perspective, is not the minimum wage applicable to Trainee Solicitors, but moreover the lack of Training Contracts compared with the number of "qualifying" LPC graduates.
I was one of the first students to take the "new" LPC (as it was then), and the cost at the time was prohibitive but necessary - if you wanted to pursue your chosen career in the law, you paid the fee, whether you could really afford it or not (and no - I couldn't, but borrowed the money).
However, at the time when I finally obtained a training contract (after 32 handwritten applications), the competition was tough, but not as tough as it is now.
I am now the Senior Partner of my own firm, and we have been in the fortunate position of being able to offer one or two training contracts every other year (with a view to keeping on our trainees once they qualify). For each post that we advertise, we receive well in excess of 200 applications - as well as tentative applications on a weekly basis.
I do not believe that the current system is fair - in what other profession would you see thousands of young graduates every year paying thousands of pounds for a specific postgraduate qualification, with less than a 1 in 5 chance of actually getting the job they want?
In my view, the only fair way of dealing with this anomaly is to change the system itself - offer three-year professional apprenticeships to law graduates, at an appropriate salary level, and require them to undertake an equivalent LPC/PSC during the course of their apprenticeship (which the employer would pay for). On this basis, no law graduate would have to enrol for the course unless and until they had secured the relevant employment.
The only losers from this perspective would be the LPC course providers - but they would still be offering a paid-for postgraduate course based on natural demand.
"Simples", as the meerkat might say....
Change the LPC system
I think that the suggestion made by Ed Foster (no relation) should be considered.
There is a Legal Education and Training Review taking place at present with an online survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LETR_Online_Survey.
It doesn't take too long to complete.
No min salary = more training contracts?
After having thought long and hard about this issue, I have come to the conclusion that there may be scope for more training contracts should the minimum salary be scrapped. Employers may be more likely to take on trainees should a minimum wage be payable. Whether this would give rise to more unemployed qualified solicitors would remain to be seen.
Alternatively, as Mr Foster has pointed out, a change to the LPC system may be called for.
The system, as it stands, is somewhat of a shambles. It seems to be purely money making.
Boo hoo!
Oh my god! Are these people for real? Waiting for a training contract! Amy, Claire, Darren and Nita sine when did you four become a spokesperson for all LPC graduates? Who appointed you as our representatives and how dare you speak on behalf of the rest of us? Well you got your wish in fact it was your stupid letter that the SRA spent 20 minutes discussing they must have been over the moon. So one of your friend did not get the waiver so what why do the rest of us have to suffer? All my friends targeted small firms and the majority who got TC had no problem getting the minimum wage most had to work as paralegas for 1-3 years but that is the norm with high street practice some worked for free during their legal studies. Reading your letter it sounds us if the only reason you can't get a TC is because of the minimum salary well I assume that you will wait until August 2014 when the minimum salary is scraped and all four will have a nice shiny TC! As for two of my friends they are to start there TC in July 2012 on the minimum wage on the High Street.
Ok so the SRA have now scrapped the minimum salary but I do not see every small firm advertising for a TC small firms will still pay between £14-16 for a TC in any event an employer is not interested that the minimum salary has been scrapped they still need a competent trainee who will bring value to the from over their TC period. High street paralegals get paid £13-15 at present so a firm does not have to turn that into a TC and pay the same in fact it's not going to change much competition will still be fierce and the high street tend to give their TC in house to people who worked there a paralegal and or and a work exp basis during their legal studies.
As for the four clowns who are waiting for a TC you will now have to wait until august 2012 because there will be 4 TC waiting for you all on a nice low wage. While the rest of us instead of making 300 applications for TC we get a foot in the door with a small firm work unpaid, admin assistance or paralegal prove ourself and get rewarded with a TC yes it's tough but its still all relevant work experience or we can do what you do and wait for TC!
So the minimum wage has been scrapped so what! firms are not simply going to give TC to any Tom Dick and Harry.
Reality Check.
A change in the LPC system is not needed no one is forcing you to do it so get over it.
No one who has done the LPC is entitled to a TC.
Not every LPC graduate is cut out for a career in law.
Scrapping the minimum wage will not increase training contracts employers are not going to give out training contracts just because they can pay minimum wage they need proven committed careers focused trainees.
The high street firms run a tight ship and reward there paralegals after they have proven themselves.
If you don't have a TC upon completion of the LPC it is the norm you have to do work placements and gain paralegal experience unless you are a exceptional candidate.
That stupid letter:
- they say they are WAITING for a TC, need I say more.
- 300 Applications for a TC? no effort in getting legal experience? High street firms never directly take on trainees without a paralegal role. Maybe after 300 Applications it's time to say maybe you are not cut out for law.
-High street firms want to see a strong commitment to high street practice just because larger firms will not give you a TC don't think the high street owe you anything or need your services they want applicants who will hit the ground running and ones who will roll their sleeves up.
- you do not represent thousands of LPC graduates you four are very stupid to make such a bold statement
- go and read the 50 page document the JLD published to see why your letter is a joke.
- you four remind me of clowns go join a circus
- I assume you four will wait until 1 August 2014 when the minimum salary is scrapped and a TC will now fall from the sky for you all.
- when you do get your TC and you have to bill 6 hours a day and then you find out you are making your firm in excess of approx 5k a month and approx 60k a year and your being paid a minimum wage please do not complain.
- when as a NQ you are not kept on because your firm can employ a shiny young fresh LPC graduate for minimum wage please do not complain.
- For your information the Law Society was against scrapping the minimum salary and they promote the rights of solicitors the SRA regulate the profession maybe you need to brush up on your research skills you don't even know who regulates your profession yet you want a TC?
- how can a barrister get a minimum salary? They are self employed!
- why mention accountants? Pointless.
- you have been trying for two years? I know people who have trying for five years and are now being rewarded
- if you give up that's your problem if your friends gave up that's tier problem as Oscar Wilde once said... We are all in the gutter... But some of us are reaching for the stars
- I REPEAT after completion of the LPC if you have nothing on your CV and keep blindly only apply for TC you will not get nowhere where is your continued professional development? Where is your relevant experience? Where is your commitment to your chosen area of law? where is your commitment to high street practice? should I continue?
- I know one person who completed the LPC in 2005 and is due to start their TC in September 2012 7 years of hard work they made it all their friends gave up they didn't that is what the difference was but in those 7 years they gained relevant experience and continued to develop and master their craft.
- you don't need a TC to master your craft the TC will come in it's own good time
- no one cares about your stupid friend so what is the big deal she was unemployed for 6 months? I know one person who instead of sending out 300 applications went and worked unpaid for a firm for 8 months doing clerking etc gained valuable exp and got a paralegal job and after 7 months got a TC we have all been there
YOU FOUR ARE THE WEAKEST LINK... GOODBYE.
A Balance?
Wouldn't a happy medium be scrapping the minimum salary for very small firms- eg under 5 partners but retaining it for everyone else? I do see it as being logical that this may encourage some firms to offer training contracts when they would not have done so previously.
I would also say that the vitriol unleashed upon these graduates who are struggling to obtain training contracts in a recession by those who are qualified leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
For more opinion see
For more opinion see http://www.thebuddinglawyer.co.uk/2012/05/trainee-solicitors-minimum-rage.html