Beleaguered law students face paralegal KO
PARALEGALS are in danger of being edged out of a shrinking jobs market as recruiters offer positions to those who have had their training contracts deferred.
Hannah Jackson, a senior recruitment consultant at Hays Legal specialising in placing paralegals said: “We’re only looking at candidates who have training contracts. It’s sad because you see so many cases of wasted talent who can’t get the experience they need on their CV.”
This will come as a blow to students who are already struggling to win training contracts in the troubled market.
Yvonne Robinson, who is studying the Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School, said: “Paralegal positions are only being offered to deferred trainees, which means there are less opportunities for LPC graduates who want to gain experience to secure a training contract.”
The news comes after exclusive research by The Lawyer’s sister magazine Lawyer 2B showed that many top City firms have slashed the number of paralegals they are hiring.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has cut its paralegal ranks by nearly 30 per cent - from 94 in 2008 down to 66 this year - while Linklaters has slashed its paralegal workforce by 23 per cent from 43 to 33.
Allen & Overy has bucked this trend, and now has 146 paralegals this year compared with 150 in 2008.
Clifford Chance, which had 110 paralegals in London last year, was unable to confirm the number it currently employs.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (50)
James O'Connell, Chief executive for the Institute | 26-May-2009 10:37 am
It's not surprising that paralegals are taking the brunt of fee-earner redundancies in firms where they are seen as support staff. This is likely to change in the next seven or so years when the number of paralegal fee-earners in the profession outstrips the number of solicitors.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-May-2009 12:42 pm
I am sure the paralegal numbers at CC will be reduced given that they intend to use indian paralegals going forward. Let's hope that CC treats the indian paralegals with some respect and doesn't use and abuse them then bully them out of the firm - which CC is very good at.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S | 26-May-2009 1:02 pm
How does this make sense? Someone who has been deferred will be with the firm for a year or a few months at best, this means that time and money is spent training somoeone who isn't going to stay. Surely it would make more sense to recruit someone who is actually going to stay with the firm and even progress to a training contract.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Current Paralegal | 26-May-2009 1:22 pm
Once again recruitment agencies have shown that they are, quite clearly, idiots who know nothing of recruitment. A candidate who has been deferred will be of no use to a firm as they're not going to stay long enough to build up any decent experience and have no commitment to the firm other than a year at maximum.
Of course let's not forget that 'being a paralegal is detrimental to your career prospects'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Naynaynay | 26-May-2009 4:32 pm
The truth is that a paralegal leaving the firm within a year is likely to be seen as a benefit rather than a detriment to most legal firms. Law firms don't want paralegals acquiring employment rights.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-May-2009 5:08 pm
I have the greatest sympathy for those who have done the LPC and require a paralegal postion in order to gain experience,.However one might question why they have not secured a training contract by the time they have finished their LPC.
Those who have been deferred obviously have the qualities that law firms are looking for, they have proven their merit (mostly without working as a paralegal). I appreciate that competition is intensely tough, but those graduating from the LPC this year should have been applying for graduate roles two years ago, before the job cuts etc. I mean no disrespect to any of the great candidates out there finishing the LPC without a tc, but if you haven't acquired a tc by now and are reliant upon gaining experience as a paralegal to get one, perhaps it is worth asking why you have not been able to get a tc thus far.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hannah Jackson, Hays legal | 27-May-2009 10:04 am
This trend only reflects the junior end of the market when candidates have limited experience. A training contract can be a differentiating factor when employers are faced with a barrage of CVs and it is inevitable that employers will rely on these factors in such a challenging economy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Metallica | 27-May-2009 12:16 pm
Whilst the news is very disturbing and everyone can pour scorn on the recruitment agencies, they are only representing their clients - the law firms. HR from law firms say what they want and the recruitment agencies abide by it. The recruitment agencies do not look out for candidates!
If you finish the LPC without a training contract, you do need paralegal work to gain experience and prove your worth. That's how I secured my training contract.
I see there's no response from BPP or College of Law who are supposed to help candidates who have not secured training contracts.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SillyJuice | 27-May-2009 12:58 pm
Most people finishing the LPC don't have training contracts already and many candidates can (gasp) improve over time and so are more attractive prospects after finishing the LPC.
I know a huge number of people who would have made average candidates two years ago but are not much better due to having gained further qualifications and experience which has improved their ability substantially.
Not everyone has the money to 'prove their merit' by looking after a horse/backpacking around the world/running from one end of Uganda to the other, which seem to be the way that many trainees prove their supposed worth. That means that a paralegal position can be a great opportunity for someone to show their actual legal ability and make them more marketable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Malta Kano | 27-May-2009 1:32 pm
In response to:
Anonymous | 26-May-2009 5:08 pm
I agree this is a fair comment.
However you should first of all remind yourself of the numbers involved. We are talking 3,000-4,000 applicants for 30 TCs sometimes in London.
The competition isn't fierce: it's insane.
Some students (like myself) studied for their undergraduate degree, full time GDL + LPC struggling with constraints of a job, perhaps living (like myself) in expensive London with the job and/or loan for only financial support, etc.
These people, despite fine time management, simply haven't got as much time and/or peace of mind as others who, still living with their parents in say Hampstead, have got nothing to worry about but their TC applications.
These people (like myself) have therefore not had the same amount of time to invest in the research, filtering, and application process - let alone having extracurricular activities and or sports to impress firms with.
They may chose to apply to many firms paying superficial attention to their words, or they may, (again, like myself) chose a smaller sample of firms and make the best applications possible. But they do not -unless by making sleep optional- end up with the same odds of getting a TC.
Although I do not disagree with your comment in itself, I think it is good to be reminded that students supporting themselves do not only end up with slimmer chances: they prove everyday that they have as much -if not more-motivation, stamina and flexibility as anyone who does have a TC on time.
Talent and employability are not the only variables! Time is always a huge factor.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment