How to put recruits through their paces

How to put recruits through their paces

Is a traditional rotational system the best form of on-the-job training? asks Julie Eldred

Is the training contract the best way to ease young lawyers into the solicitors' profession? It would seem to be an immovable part of the education process, but there is now talk that it could be abolished.

It is significant that for many firms, this would not make much difference.

Latest figures show that almost half of the 4,911 trainees who began their contracts in private practice in 2000 did so in the 130 firms that have 26 or more partners.

They make up 1.5% of all firms.

By contrast, just 6% of trainees work under sole principals.

Most small firms would say that they cannot afford trainees, and the difficult finances of the high street, especially in publicly funded work, recently led the Legal Services Commission to introduce a funding scheme which helps legal aid firms take on trainees.

About a year ago, Professor Nigel Savage, chief executive of the College of Law, suggested scrapping the training contract (see [2001] Gazette, 8 November, 14).

He said it was a professional anachronism and that full qualification should be granted once students have passed the legal practice course.

Prof Savage argued that in a post-Enron environment, there was a chance to make the solicitor qualification the foremost in the professional services field.

The Law Society's training framework review group is reviewing the status of the training contract.

The Society sets down strict criteria to ensure that trainees receive broad experience across contentious and non-contentious subjects, but the prescription is not always popular or practical with firms.

For niche firms, such as ten-partner London-based construction practice Fenwick Elliott, taking on trainees is rarely an option.

There have been two there since 1986.

In December 2001, senior partner Simon Tolson committed the firm to another for the first time in more than 12 years.

'We didn't qualify for a long time because we were so specialist,' says Mr Tolson.

'We can now cover the criteria set by the Law Society and provide seats in civil litigation, advocacy, international and domestic arbitration work, skills and negotiation, mediation, ADR, and advice in relation to commercial transactions.'

Although Fenwicks can now take on more trainees, Mr Tolson prefers to employ two-year qualified solicitors with that extra bit of experience.

'It is more difficult because we are so specialist and we have less slack in the partnership to take on the additional time burden,' he says.

From his perspective, it may not be a good thing that so many are trained by the largest firms.

'If they are that green from law school, then it involves that much more training,' he says.

'I would rather they were trained elsewhere but I do have views on how well trained they are coming from the larger City firms.

Very often they don't get hands-on experience and when the terror hits of running a file, they can be next to useless for a few weeks.'

An exception was made at Fenwicks for the current trainee because of her experience in Australian law firms and her construction background.

Mr Tolson says: 'I am effectively her principal.

She is under my wing and we meet every two weeks and I make sure that she gets involved in running a variety of files.

Our approach isn't a strict rotational approach, but rather more like allowing the trainees to learn through practice and see projects through, rather than being yanked out just when things hot up.

'The trainee chooses how much time he spends in certain areas of practice, giving him the maximum control over his own direction.

Monthly reviews ensure each trainee is fulfilling the Law Society criteria and there is a training manager available for advice, but on the whole they are on their own.'

Mr Tolson tries to allow the trainee to work with an experienced partner, executing tasks in tandem which are compared later.

It may be nerve-wracking but at least the trainee is trying things out for herself.

Mr Tolson says: 'We have someone here who was a barrister in a former life who was proofing witnesses for a major arbitration.

He asked the trainee to go away and prepare a questionnaire on the legal issues and the evidential issues that this witness might find useful to address.

She was then able to see how the partner put these questions to the witness and how to get them to open up - definitely something that cannot be learnt in the classroom.'

Larger firms obviously have an easier time of it when it comes to coping with the pressure of training.

That does not mean that all of them sit back and put their trainees through the typical six-monthly rotational system.

City firm Gouldens is renowned among law students for the unique way it tests its trainees.

Rather than rotating around four departments and sitting with experienced lawyers, they have their own offices and are responsible for finding their own work from across the firm.

Trainees are able to run their own files and bill for them with strict supervision from a partner.

Thus they get hands-on experience.

Gouldens' joint managing partner, Russell Carmedy, is confident that the benefits outweigh any potential pitfalls.

'The system has been in place for around 20 years and is intended to deal with the limitation of the rotational system.

It avoids the problem of trainees doing little more than photocopying for the first and last weeks of a seat.

Trainees are able to build skills in different areas of work at the same time.

It does mean that we have to be much more proactive about monitoring.'

However, it is up to the individual trainee to say enough is enough when the workload mounts.

Needless to say that only a certain type of graduate would feel able to withstand that kind of stress.

Flexible it may be, but it is likewise certainly a case of sink or swim.

As far as hoping for changes to the Society training system is concerned, the consensus is that an overhaul is definitely needed.

'This system enables you to have a degree of flexibility,' says Gouldens trainee Conrad Davies.

'You are not locked in to one thing for six months.

I get to learn from several people at the same time.

The disadvantage of the non-rotational seat system that we have here is that there is an added obligation on you to ensure that you are getting the type of work you want, that you are getting the supervision that you need, and you are not getting trapped into working on matters for longer than you should.

There is also the same obligation on the firm.

The mechanisms are in place to ensure these issues are overcome.'

Linklaters operates a more traditional six-monthly rotational system across four seats.

However, because of its size, the firm is able to accommodate trainees' individual preferences.

The breadth and depth of practice within each area allows a trainee to double up in a seat so long as it is within Society guidelines.

'Seats are not fixed in stone from the outset and changes can be made so long as it makes business sense,' says Linklaters' associate director of training and development, Ann-Marie Cooper.

'It is a fine balance between real-life experience and effective training.

We also have to match business needs.

As far as the future is concerned, we will watch with interest.

We do come across constraints.

Clearly we ensure trainees get enough contentious experience, but it is a constant challenge to achieve because it doesn't represent a large proportion of our work.'

Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners' Group, who also sits on the review group, says the conditions of training can be obstacles for legal aid practices wanting to take on trainees.

He says: 'With legal aid firms becoming more niche and specialist - in order to qualify for panel approval and to cut down on overheads - the conditions for trainees to do contentious and non-contentious work, and to cover at least three seats, are difficult.'

He would like to see the contentious/non-contentious rule relaxed, with trainees being compelled to cover two rather than three areas of work during the training contract.

But he admits that the subject is controversial: 'There is definitely a debate to be had about the benefits trainees get from a broader as opposed to a more in-depth training.'

Former Law Society President Michael Mathews, chairman of the training framework review group, says there are no plans to scrap the training contract.

'I couldn't predict what the final recommendation will be.

If you want my personal view, then I would like to see a process that was more flexible.

As the profession gets more diverse then it is possible that the common core will become less.'

Mr Mathews says the group is first looking at the training and education process of solicitors and considering what a newly qualified solicitor in the 21st century should be able to do.

How much should he know, what skills should he have and what core foundations are required for every solicitor? He says: 'One suggestion made to me was an improved level of English.

Horrified? Well, somewhere along the way the art of writing a simple, clear and professional client letter has been lost and surely needs to be mastered before a trainee gets adorned with the banner "qualified".'

Many niche firms and high- street practices have a remote perspective on the whole issue of training.

Many niche firms are excluded from the debate and only recruit qualified solicitors, because their work is too focused to qualify for the training criteria.

The real test for the review body will be finding solutions that answer the differing training needs of niche, City and high- street firms.

Flexibility seems to be the only option.

Julie Eldred is a freelance journalist