Firms braced for flood of applicants in 2010

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Readers' comments (11)

  • I would imagine the number of applicants in 2010 will be the same as it ever was, the predicted rised in applications in 2009 didn't happen and neither will this one.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And yet some candidates spout forth on Roll on Friday against firms on the nature of the selection and interview process.

    Do they really not think that firms will check ROF and trace candidates and their comments? If they don't then they show a particular lack of judgement and I certainly wouldn't give them house room in my firm.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. I can't believe you're allowed on the internet.
    (1) Do you really think a firm is going to waste the time and money to trace posts on the RoF forums?
    (2) By what magic would they trace a comment which is effectively anonymous anyway? Most people aren't so stupid as to publicly display their email addresses. Do you really think RoF would hand them over to any inquisitive law firm. Sweet jebus.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I just find it laughable that a top 10 law firm thinks that introducing a verbal reasoning screening test to their online application process will weed out anybody. Most people with a reasonably competent grasp of English breeze through such tests, for example, the largely indistinguishable candidates with 2.1's from top universities.

    There is far too much reliance on penultimate year students. Personally I've had to "drop down the leagues" as it were to gain experience with a small firm which enabled me to talk the talk far better at Training Contract interviews. This ultimately helped me to secure one. I would have been far too arrogant had I switched straight from a top university to a top law firm. Humility and experience plus commitment to the profession exemplified by somebody going somewhere that many would not go, to me, displays a clear distinguishable feature in any applicant.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • OMG LMFAO

    Some people ...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • heh

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • the notion that anyone who reads roll on friday should even be considered for employment at a law firm is absurd in the first place. Kudos to the guy who invented roll on friday he gets advertising money from the big firms, yet he supplies no content whatsoever save for 2 paragraphs of drivel once a week, firm reviews that are completely out of date if they were ever correct, and forums whose main purpose it seems is for qualified associates to either discuss matters wholly unrelated to law or to give them an opportunity to look down on aspiring trainees

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 15-Dec-2009 3:06 pm -

    Are we to assume with your knowledge of the content of roll on friday that you were never considered for employment at a law firm?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wow human resource departments at the top law firms must be running at no capacity for the the last two years i hope these new measures give them some breathing room for that morning catch up coffee with friends.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think the comment that there will be a flood of applications in 2010 is wrong. As someone who graduated in 2008, who then worked as a legal secretary for 16 months before being promoted to a trainee position, I was on the verge of giving up, and I know many of my other friends have.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)