Nisha Beerjeraz, ex-BPP LPC student
Britain's got talent
A hot topic at the moment is diversity, which appears to be winning not just Britain’s Got Talent 2009 but the Herbert Smith advocacy competition as well.
Nisha Beerjeraz
A hot topic at the moment is diversity, which appears to be winning not just Britain’s Got Talent 2009 but the Herbert Smith advocacy competition as well. Two weeks ago Marisha Singh scooped the top prize for her presentation on class ceilings. The solution to breaking this ceiling was for recruiters to shift their feet from selection based on exclusivity to excellence.
Roam the legal world and you’ll find diversity dancing on the tip of many tongues. At the end of August Eversheds was reported to have headed a group of firms and recruiters to gather diversity statistics in order to monitor whether law firms are following through with the diverse policies embedded in the CSR section of their websites. It’s a progressive step but it seems a more aggressive strategy is needed to combat a longstanding problem in law.
I watched a few of the videos that were submitted for Herbert Smith’s advocacy competition, some were amusing, some would’ve made Simon Cowell press his red buzzer but most of them highlighted an opinion that I think has always perpetuated amongst both ethnic minorities and working class law students.
‘Lip service’ is the buzz word that springs to mind and that has been communicated by many law students when asked for their opinions regarding diversity policies within law firms.
Although the position regarding ethnic minorities has improved, is this advancement overshadowed by the class ceiling and school-pooling? Regardless of racial background and culture, the poor are still the poor and although they might have more brilliance than those who scored four ‘yes’s’ from the panel, they never had the chance to even audition.
Coming from a working class background, I scraped together money from part-time work and took loans to complete my degree and LPC. I refused to let money be my downfall but like many who are still studying, or have finished with their studies, I now have to earn to pay bills and make loan repayments. Applications are hard to get through when you’re working, I’m sure many will agree and so many law graduates who are not from privileged backgrounds fall into the vicious cycle of making ends meet.
Many candidates will not be able complete unpaid vacation placements in the City because they simply can’t afford time off work or the cost of travel. They have families to feed and spend time with. They can’t spend their evenings networking at a drinks reception or go golfing at the weekend with an uncle whose best friend is a partner because they have to stay home and care for younger siblings and bring in the income.
The selection process for training contracts shouldn’t be based on contacts or money. Whilst there are arguments that LPC and BVC providers should cut down intake capacity and widen bursaries that are available, I also think that law firms should reassess their diversity policies and recruitment strategies. Forget the university name written on that application, Britain really has got talent. It just needs to be allowed through to boot camp.
And the winning numbers are…….
1 September 2009
As the pursuit for a training contract draws to an end for another year, I find that a recession brings out a certain honesty that has been amiss in a buoyant market. Every request for feedback on a rejected application has, nine out of ten times been met with an email kindly explaining that due to the large number of applications, both detailed and even skeleton feedback was not possible.
Many applicants have continued to make applications, trying in vain to fathom what to change. Too wordy? Too brief? More active verbs? It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack in the dark. The rumour that many recruiters try to play down is the national lottery draw, also known as pure luck. And of course they would, as what is more frustrating then spending hours on applications and finding out that the chances of winning the lottery and securing a training contract are evenly matched?
Instead applicants are told to have their CVs and cover letters checked by their careers department (for the fifteenth time) and to research the firm thoroughly in order to produce strong applications. I have followed such advice repeatedly, produced strong and honest applications and found myself asking the question that many lawyer’s to be ask themselves: what is wrong with my application?
It’s like driving on the M25 with no exits on which to turn off. Whilst I understand that recruiters have their work cut out sifting through thousands of applications, on the other end someone who genuinely has worked hard to produce a stronger application is trying to understand the reason behind a rejection. That is why I, for the first time felt positive about a rejection from one firm. After requesting feedback, I received an email explaining that competition for places had been tougher and that securing a training contract was very much a lottery this year.
It should not be down to luck, it creates an unfair system and leads us to question whether the firms are choosing the right candidates that will fit into and flourish within their environment. However, confirmation of the truth of the rumour has restored some confidence that at least a few of my numbers came up in the draw. The jackpot is for anyone’s taking.
Don’t be afraid to take a walk
As the Law Society warns law students off a legal career and law firms defer their trainees and cut the recruitment process, it is important to pull out your economic textbooks for a little refresher in the peaks and troughs of an economy. In short, it’s not going to be like this forever.
As the Law Society warns law students off a legal career and law firms defer their trainees and cut the recruitment process, it is important to pull out your economic textbooks for a little refresher in the peaks and troughs of an economy. In short, it’s not going to be like this forever.
Whilst many are seeking paralegal work to no avail just to keep a foot in the door, this is a perfect time to bravely consider the unthinkable for a young, aspiring lawyer: take a step into another room and look at other career opportunities.
This shouldn’t be regarded as hanging up the fight for your dream in the changing rooms, nor is it a sign of non commitment to the training contract search. Think of it as a way to utilise your business acumen and build your commercial experience. You may even find that you actually enjoy it.
Many may worry about the grilling law firms could dish out at interviews regarding the sudden career switch. Yet I have a feeling that they will welcome a well-seasoned candidate, who instead of spending two years photocopying and taking notes (even though it was for a really high profile case), had the courage and self belief to walk away from the legal sector for now and broaden their horizons a little.
Not to be mistaken, in no way are current paralegals acting to their own detriment by staying with firms for long periods. In fact, it is commendable and shows much staying power, a necessary quality that an instable economy needs to see more of. However as recruitment agencies turn away new graduates from university and law school, saying the water in the paralegal well has run dry, you may want to take a detour and seek out the opportunities that lay in wait somewhere upstream.
Too little, too late
Hands up: who has wracked up the estimated £30,000 debt in order to pursue a career as a solicitor? Hands up: who is still unemployed, with little hope of a training contract in the foreseeable future?
Only after the majority of law firms have deferred their graduate recruitment to next year has the Law Society decided to speak up and warn students to think twice about aspiring to be a lawyer.
I, for one, have been acutely aware of this even before starting the LPC last September. Why, then did I continue on a crumbling path? Because I thought that only the strongest would realise that crumbling blocks can still be stacked to make a rather rocky yet workable road. However, in the recession, even the strongest law student has been left vulnerable by the increase in competition.
The collapse of the financial sector led to a migration of financiers, who suddenly decided that they would make good lawyers and so infiltrated law firms, taking valuable legal opportunities. Now, I am all for competition in the work place provided that it is healthy. But in a plagued economy, competition has turned nasty and attacked with brutal force.
This might be a selfish opinion but it is one that many law students harbour, some in secret. Where does this leave those who have dreamt of a law career and taken all the right steps to achieve this? Those who did not make a pit stop at investment banking but instead committed themselves to low wage paralegalling and used their savings to attend law school?
I now find that my LPC qualification is useless, all it has become is a burden of debt, rather than an asset. It is the current generation of would-be lawyers that the Law Society needs to help. Those undergraduates that they hope to warn off are already running a mile, having seen the rest of us suffer the humiliation of working as secretaries, retail assistants and call-centre workers to salvage our livelihood and weather the storm that has hit this year’s law school graduates.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (33)
anon | 29-Jul-2009 3:52 pm
Well said!
I have done work experience at 7 law firms, niche, regional & in- house. I have done pro- bono, I have written for several websites, I have a stong 2:1, my place confirmed for the LPC yet still no training contract......the reasons stated by the rejections are 'i am sorry but we have taken the decision not to recruit this year'.
For others, like me, who have undertaken unpaid work experience, got into serious debt to pursue a dream career as a lawyer are being replaced by the (I would argue....upper class) who just happen to 'fall into' the profession through family, friends and contacts.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Inglourious Bar Stewards | 29-Jul-2009 4:38 pm
This blogger's attitude towards the profession is frankly pitiful.
If I may hazard a guess at why she wrote her own epitaph:
For one, in the hope that one of the firms to whom she has applied will read this and think: "Here is someone we must save from the recession". She is deluded as is demonstrated by this:
“Why, then did I continue on a crumbling path? Because I thought that only the strongest would realise that crumbling blocks can still be stacked to make a rather rocky yet workable road”.
Any reputable firm's graduate recruitment department reading this will settle on the opinion that she doesn't want the job enough. No-one likes a whinger. In any case, failing to display the tenacity and persistence that is required of a working solicitor is reason enough to not invite someone for interview. I know the marketplace is tough right now, but you must see this as an opportunity to be stronger and wiser than your peers. This blog has not in any way demonstrated that.
Alternatively, she has failed to realise that perhaps the reason why she is not successful in securing a training contract is her own problem, and not brought on by the recession or increased competition form would-be bankers. The increased competition for TC's is from better qualified candidates who have more experience in business than this blogger may have. Anyone worth a damn in this profession knows that the top firms are looking for candidates who have displayed business acumen, not an ability to get a 2:1 and pass the un-failable LPC. Law firms are client-focused businesses. A failure to realise that the profession is becoming more and more about business and the client and less about the black-letter law is the quickest route to rejection.
My advice: Stop whining, get some non-legal experience if you really want something and you work hard enough at it, you will eventually succeed.
And shame on you for describing working as a secretary, retail assistant or call centre worker as "humiliating". No person has the right to make such a disgraceful and patronising comment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Metallica | 29-Jul-2009 5:16 pm
While I do sympathise with you, I do think you need to change your attitude.
Your thinking that working as secretaries, retail assistants and call-centre workers is humiliating is awful. Remove that huge chip on your shoulder.
Competition for TCs has always been tough. No-one owes you anything. Just because you have a law degree and have legal experience does not automatically give you the right to have a TC. You got to fight hard for it.
At a guess your applications probably come across as bitter and trying too hard to impress. Do you have the qualities to be a trainee? You probably do. Are you getting that across in these applications? Probably not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 29-Jul-2009 8:04 pm
One solution: abolish the GDL! lol
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anonymous | 29-Jul-2009 10:17 pm
RE: Inglourious Bar steward
'here is someone we must save from the recession'............I highly doubt that the blogger is launching a campaign of this nature- she is simply illustrating her frustration at the current trainee climate
'she doesnt want the job enough'........as the comment by 'anon' demonstrated......what more can some people do? Even with a wealth of experience candidates are still unable to gain t.contracts
'better qualified, more experience'.......I am sure that some t.contracts are going to the more qualified candidates.....however...I wonder what percentage are going to those from a private education, well spoken with mummy and daddy's money to fund their mind blowing CV's? I know of many that did one or two vacation schemes and got the t.contract!
'humiliating/patronising'......I hardly think the blogger intended for this portrayal.....rather she is simply stating that having completed a law degree and passed the LPC....she expects a wider range of opportunity than work as a secretary or in retail....not that there is anything wrong about these jobs at all......but on a parallel, you wouldnt spend the time and effort and money doing two degrees to then work stacking shelves.....this is in no way patronising!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
posh chap | 30-Jul-2009 0:07 am
Abolish the GDL? Err, nice one. It's there for a reason - because legal recruiters want well rounded candidates and not just an intake of one dimensional law students with zero experience in any other commercial area that can be utilised and used to the firm's advantage.
I do sympathise with students who have just completed undergraduate degrees in law and who are finding it difficult, but to blame those who have turned to the profession late and converted is an incredibly flawed argument since training contracts (on the whole) are awarded on merit and to those who demonstrate that they will make great trainees and show signs of becoming excellent commercial lawyers. Jobs in any field have never gone to the person who has ‘dreamt and wanted it for the longest’ - that would just be silly. Likewise with banking, the graduate jobs at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan did not go to those who had taken more ‘right steps’ towards that career – they went to the best candidates.
I graduated with an Economics degree from a top university in 2007. I then started on a graduate scheme at an Investment Bank which taught me a tremendous amount about the city and in particular about corporate finance and the markets. After spending just over a year there I grew tired of getting into the office each day for 6:30 and doing 15/16 hour days regularly. So I jumped ship and signed up to the GDL having heard good things about it from my peers. I thought law would be an interesting career that would offer me flexibility and security as well as prestige. During my GDL I applied for training contracts, naturally targeting my applications to the city firms who would be attracted to my experience. Fortunately I secured a number of assessment centres and interviews which I performed well in. Why did I do so well? Because I had solid commercial experience and knowledge which as a result meant that I was an excellent candidate for a commercial training contract and in my opinion would make a far more suitable trainee than someone who has only studied law. I accepted a training contract at a magic circle firm which I am due to start at next year.
I have never worked in a law firm however I have many, many friends who do and there overall impression is that there is actually comparatively little ‘law’ required in their day to day jobs – it is far more about commercial knowledge, skills and precedents which is why law firms and their clients prefer trainees / lawyers with business acumen and an awareness of the competitive marketplace in which they operate in. Quite frankly, those “who did not make a pit stop at investment banking” I would argue are weaker candidates when competing with former financiers to get corporate training contracts at the top firms. I am fed up of so many comments and articles on numerous boards bleating on about how I somehow will not make as good a lawyer as them because I didn’t study law at undergraduate level. Utter rubbish – I am a better candidate, which is why I got the job.
My advice to law students who are struggling to get training contracts is not to moan about it but actually ask yourselves why you are not getting them and examine why other people (i.e. newbies to law who would normally consider banking as a career) are getting them. The answer nine times out of ten is their commercial experience and business outlook. The training market is extremely tough at the moment and so if you do not get one this time round, try and get some solid commercial experience so that you can come back raring to go this time next year and can actually offer something useful to firms rather than a dry knowledge of law, all of the important parts which can be taught to converters quickly. It would be a far advantageous to you than moaning.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jul-2009 9:59 am
So it appears that all the bankers, having ruined the financial industry and the economy are now moving over to dominate the legal profession!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Inglourius Bar Stewards | 30-Jul-2009 11:33 am
RE: Anon @ 10.17pm yesterday:
First and foremost, your post reads like it was written by the blogger herself, who should know better than to veil herself in anonymity. I will accordingly address this post to the blogger.
Stop “illustrating your frustration at the current trainee climate” and take a look in the mirror. Is it not in any way possible that your bitterness and contempt for the profession has seeped into your applications and interviews? Of course it is. Sort your head out and vent your feelings towards the profession privately, not on highly popular legal news outlets, and certainly not in interviews.
“I wonder what percentage are going to those from a private education, well spoken with mummy and daddy's money to fund their mind blowing CV's? I know of many that did one or two vacation schemes and got the t.contract!” - I know of people that did not even one vacation scheme and got a TC. Those are rare cases of exceptional candidates who are snapped up by a firm that does not want to miss out. Once again, your bitterness towards others who may have had a little help from parents is disgraceful. I can’t think of a single law firm who would employ someone in any capacity who had your jealous streak. There are examples throughout the world of people from less privileged backgrounds getting to the top – one of them has a name that rhymes with “Osama”. I suggest you take a look at his book.
As for the rebuttal of “humiliating/patronising” – I am not the only person on this forum to read the blogger’s comment in this fashion. She has failed to master the most important of legal skills – CLARITY! In any case, beggars can’t be choosers, and as it stands right now, this blogger is most certainly classified as a training contract beggar.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jul-2009 1:41 pm
RE:
Veiling myself in anonymity.....sorry correct me if im mistaken but I highly doubt Inglourious bar steward is your actual name!!!
Your example of people rising to the top, 'Osama'....it shouldnt be the case that people from less privileged backgrounds who rise to the top are seen special examples or illustrations....it should be the norm! It is because of the class dominance that anyone from a particularly tough background is celebrated just for doing what should be readily achievable!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Seb | 30-Jul-2009 2:27 pm
I think it is apparent by the wealth of acrimonious comments here that the recession is biting hard, and is affecting everyone. I do have to agree with 'posh chap' regarding his statement regarding the relevance of commercial experience, but I strongly believe people shouldn't move to law because they fancy a change. I believe committed law graduates deserve a TC far more than someone who has just done it off the cuff because they 'got tired' of their previous job in investment banking.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment