The relationship between trainees and law firms is heavily biased in favour of the latter

As someone who has gone straight from the Legal Practice Course to unemployment, I was angered when I read Elaine Emmington’s comments in ‘Early Days’ (see [2008] Gazette, 17 July 2008, 12). Apparently, people of my generation are unique in expecting something other than working hard in life. Did people in the past enjoy working 80 hours a week? Most solicitors in the past managed to find time to get married and raise families, but how many young solicitors can now afford this with their long hours and huge workloads?

Ms Emmington makes it sound as if Charles Russell is struggling to recruit new trainees. The relationship between trainees and law firms could not be more unequal in favour of the latter. The only offer I have had since leaving the College of Law demanded me to work unpaid in Wembley (I am from Yorkshire) for at least six weeks. I am not unique.

Law colleges never publish how many of their students receive training contracts because the figures would be low enough to put off potential students. I would guess that the figure is around one in ten. Firms such as Charles Russell can demand anything of their applicants and they will get it. It is guaranteed that there will always be one law graduate who is so desperate to earn back their LPC fee that they will say yes to a request.

I shall retain the ‘Early Days’ article. In ten years’ time I can imagine it raising much laughter when I present it to my friends who actually made it into the legal profession.