Major City firms are manipulating their retention rate figures by handing out short-term contracts, The Lawyer has learned.
US firms Mayer Brown and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe are among those understood to have offered trainees a short-term contract in the last year, while Travers Smith is facing a claim from pregnant trainee Katie Tantum who alleges pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal after the firm offered her a contract of just two months (15 February 2013).
In September 2012 Mayer Brown retained 70 per cent of its 20 trainees, two of whom were subsequently given short-term contracts of three and six months.
It is also understood that Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe has offered NQs fixed-term contracts over the last 12 months of varying lengths.
Travers Smith, which denies Tantum’s allegations of pregnancy discrimination, offered five NQs fixed-term contracts of between two and 12 months last summer.
Retention levels at Mayer Brown have fallen over the last year from 80 per cent in March 2012 to 62.5 per cent in March 2013, when just five of the eight trainees were offered contracts. Apart from the September intake the firm usually offers NQs fixed-term contracts of 12 months.
“I think it’s something that firms will move more towards unfortunately, especially ones making redundancies across the firm, and with more trainees qualifying than they can afford to keep on it gives them more flexibility,” said one City trainee.
“As an added incentive for the firms, the temporary contractors count in their retention statistics, but then they can free up places for the next qualifying intake by not renewing the fixed-term contracts.”
Those who had been offered short-term contracts were told it was because of “uncertainty” in work flow and a lack of finances.
Recruiters in the City said the trend for firms offering NQs short-term contracts is growing, particularly among US firms.
The same is said by recruiters outside of London, with one Midlands-based recruiter saying: “We’re seeing plenty of September qualifiers from regional firms now looking for a new job after only being offered six-month contracts. Whether that’s to fudge figures I don’t know, but it’s certainly recent.”
A Mayer Brown spokesperson said it was the first year that the firm had offered shorter contracts, adding: “It isn’t an approach we normally take.”
Orrick declined to comment on employment terms.
Have you or someone you know been offered a fixed-term contract? Email us in confidence at lucy.burton@thelawyer.com
Readers' comments (19)
Cynical or what..? | 11-Mar-2013 8:18 am
Wow, I knew the HR people at law firms were among the most cynical in the world, but this takes the biscuit. Giving a young lawyer a few months as an associate then sacking them just so you can hide the truth about your inability to retain NQs is despicable. This is something the SRA needs to look into as it appears to be misleading the market, regulators and trainees who expect a real job, and is certainly against the spirit of the trainee system in this country.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 9:14 am
This has been going on for donkey's years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 9:48 am
This is hardly new, or news. Firms have been doing this for ages.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 10:39 am
Good for the NQ too. It makes it look like they were kept on but wanted to go elsewhere.
Win-Win (except for the people who compile the statistics).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim | 11-Mar-2013 10:45 am
Perhaps these firms don't give two hoots about their retention stats and are trying to maintain flexibility, as stated, and also trying to give their former trainees a leg up and a bit of breathing room?
I'd rather be given a 6 or 12 month contract with the option of looking elsewhere in that time rather than be cut loose.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 11:21 am
Revealed: bears **** in woods
We all know this happens. What I think is far worse is when high ranking partners are about to be booted out, but instead go on the sick for years leaving the assistants and associates to slog out their guts to cover their inflated salaries.
Please could the lawyer go and shame these bad people rather than nameless HR types.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Still cynical | 11-Mar-2013 11:36 am
@Tim
a fair point and a pragmatic one, but in which case surely these firms must explain in their NQ data that x-number of NQs are not actually going to continue to work at the firm. Or, even better, only state their trainee retention figure for the nominally 'permanent' positions, which gives law grads a more honest understanding of what fate awaits them when they gamble their careers on certain law firms. Either way, firms that fudge key public data do a disservice to all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Beef Lasagne | 11-Mar-2013 12:42 pm
Bumping 6-month PQE solicitors to accommodate qualifying trainees is akin to a council laying a new road, then ripping it up and doing the work again within 6 months simply to justify their allocated budget for the year. It's simply nonsensical from an economic perspective. If law firms were that concerned about flexibility, then they would move to change the blind system of recruiting trainees 2 years in advance.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 1:43 pm
Public data?
Firms are not required to publish their retention rates, and only do so for publicity purposes. You should not be surprised to learn that the figures are inflated in a variety of ways (temporary contracts, omitting data of trainees that leave part way through their contract or early to join another firm using time to count). Like any promotional material, these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Moral ambiguity here | 11-Mar-2013 2:22 pm
@Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 1:43 pm
re. ..'data only for publicity purposes'
Are you saying that it is OK then for law firms to be dishonest and hoodwink prospective law graduates? If I say something to you as a potential employer, it may well be for 'publicity', but it doesn't mean I can lie. Likewise, if I give out data to be published it has then become 'public' and I am accountable for its accuracy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment