Back to basics

Large firms might be spending less on training, but it is not all bad news for aspiring lawyers.

In a competitive market, sharpening skills makes sound business sense, reports Jacky Lewis

It seems that law firms are still not prepared to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to investing in ongoing training for their staff.The latest research by the Legal Education and Training Group found that, while firms are recruiting more trainers to work in-house, training budgets per fee-earner have fallen (see [2002] Gazette, 4 January, 5).This is the second annual survey carried out by the LETG - which has more that 140 members among the larger law firms and acts as a think-tank and pressure group on training and development issues - to measure the level of investment in training in the law.The first benchmarking survey in 2000 found that respondent firms had 112 fee-earners to each trainer; last year, that figure had shrunk to only 73 per trainer.Moreover, it found that the actual amount spent by firms on training per head had fallen from 1,056 to 947.

However, this may in part be explained by an increase in the number of fee-earners at firms: whereas in 2000, fee-earners made up 48% of firms' total workforce, in 2001 the figure had risen to 52% (though this could also be down to a reduction in non-legal staff).Nonetheless, as an overall figure, training budgets fell slightly from 0.67% of annual fees to 0.64%.

Perhaps the most pertinent statistic was that the total training hours undertaken per fee-earner fell from 31 to 25.Melissa Hardee, who was re-elected as chairman by the LETG last October, and is training partner at City firm CMS Cameron McKenna, maintains that training should be regarded as an investment and not 'an overhead'.She considers that good training makes 'good business sense' and leads to confident and competent young lawyers who are 'profitable sooner rather than later'.

As most investments in firms are carefully measured, the LETG holds that the investment in training and know-how should follow this trend.

She hopes that this benchmarking exercise will encourage more firms to invest in this way.Stephen Madge, deputy director of professional courses at BPP Law School in London and a founder member of Training Direct, a nationwide training consultancy, says training has seen a 'radical rethink' in the law in the past ten years.He says: 'Many firms used to spend more of their budget on cleaning than they did on training.' However, he suggests that the training culture within firms has become more sophisticated.

They nowadays give more consideration to how they actually spend their training budgets, and it seems they are less likely merely to send their fee-earners on external courses and then tick the appropriate box at the end of the practising certificate year, relieved that it is over.The survey shows that large firms have slightly increased the amount of external training provision they use, rising from 9% of all training to 12% in 2001.

The rest is made up of internal speakers (62%) and external speakers on internal courses (25%).Lawyers are looking far more carefully at providing a balanced, integrated and cost-effective training programme.

Mr Madge has found that many firms would rather use the cheaper option of video or on-line learning for standard technical training, rather than using chunks of their training budget on external course attendance.

Firms like Clifford Chance and Denton Wilde Sapte last year made commitments to on-line, desk-bound training for their fee-earners.Sue Wright, head of professional development at Herbert Smith, is keen on keeping legal and soft-skills training in-house.

'We look for value for money and in-house training gives us far more hours of training for the same cost,' she says.

The firm looks at 'targeting' its training budget, covering such soft-skills areas as presentation skills and 'train the trainer' internally.

'We feel that having the best lawyers with the right skills and motivation will always be key...

there definitely is not less training going on here'.

What is becoming clear in today's legal climate is that firms are starting to make training a key issue, and furthermore they are not just looking at technical training but are responding to the Law Society's rules that highlight the importance of acknowledging and enhancing client-care.Popular new courses stress people-skills training - 27% of external courses used by the firms surveyed were skills training - and while firms are spending more carefully, they are placing emphasis on more value per spend.Yet Mr Madge contends that law firms could do even better in terms of planning their training.

'Lots of firms still need help in re-designing and implementing their own integrated training programme...

a more cost-effective programme for firms would be one that would reach right across the board.'He would like to see a training programme that would involve partners, assistants, trainees and support staff, and which would be planned to link up with the appraisal system.

'This would be truly cost-effective,' he says.Ms Hardee says firms are quick to slash overheads if an economic downturn looks possible, but suggests that to do so with training budgets is 'short-sighted'.

The market for good staff is competitive and lawyers are attracted to firms that are keen on training, 'they expect to be trained and developed'.An acknowledged reason for staff leaving firms is lack of training and the opportunity to develop their potential.

'One attraction to CMS Cameron McKenna is the training promised in the firm from trainees up to fee-earners,' she argues.At Baker & McKenzie, Colin Dworkin, director of training, recognises the importance of professional development at all levels.

Despite the general downturn in the economy, he believes it would be 'unwise' for any successful firm to abandon its training initiatives.

'Training is an investment,' he says.

The firm uses both in-house and external presenters and are careful to match the presenter to the particular learning objectives of each course.

'This ensures a maximum return on the investment of the time and money involved.' The firm is careful to evaluate each course so as to maintain the highest standards.Ms Hardee considers there to be a strand of altruism in training; many firms do care about the people they employ and will do the things that are necessary to retain their staff: 'Lawyers who are sympathetic and well-trained will be more likely to help the firm achieve its business objectives than untrained ones'.

Firms have to decide what they want to offer their clients in terms of service and client-centred skills.

'We need to be able to offer good training and bring staff up to their full potential as soon as possible,' she says.

Of course, under-trained staff will eventually cost a firm money.

By the time trainees get to a firm like CMS Cameron McKenna, they will have experienced many different types of training.

On applying for a job, a good degree is taken for granted.

'We are not looking at applicants in terms of their academic ability - everyone applying here will have that - but rather in terms of their development potential,' Ms Hardee explains.'If we want people who are "up to speed", we have to ensure they have developed the skills they will need in practice...

We can't rely on people learning purely by osmosis.'The acquisition of good interpersonal skills has become essential and must be quickly mastered.

Presentation, stress management, supervisory skills and the ability to deal with difficult clients are all firmly on the agenda at law schools and are being taught in-house at larger law firms.

So, while the LETG survey might show less spending on training, the emphasis has to be on quality spending, drawn from budgets that are responsive to the needs of today's market-place.

And this particular market-place is now firmly customer-led.

There is no more room for slack and pressure is mounting to streamline the operation.Jacky Lewis is a freelance journalist