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)
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 3:08 pm
Seems worrying when you're due to train at one of the firms stated...feel sick in my stomach that I've made the wrong choice :(
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 3:17 pm
Does anyone know if this happens at other US firms not specifically named in the article? If so, which ones... ?
(Concerned future trainee going to a US firm).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 3:37 pm
Why do people find this so very surprising? I qualified in 1993 and was offered a fixed-term contract as my firm's largest client had just gone into administration. It made me focus on whether I really wanted to stay with the firm I trained at. 14 or so months after qualifying, I moved into a City firm specialising in an area which I practise today as a partner.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2013 4:02 pm
Ask the UK top 50 how many short term contracts they offered last year.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 11-Mar-2013 5:17 pm
The Training Contract system is just awful. This is the tip of the iceberg.
For example, I trained at one of the top 3 Nottingham law firms and it was a total shambles. A colleague only got an NQ job by sleeping with one of the partners. She then promptly told a girl she didn't like that she wouldn't get an NQ job (she promptly found another job before the end of her TC). Likewise another trainee accidentally let slip that she didn't have to interview because her Dad was an important client and had been guaranteed an NQ job before she had even visited the firm. It's no surprise that almost all the trainees (other than the one sleeping with the partner) had fled the firm six months after qualification.
It puts offering a few NQ jobs into perspective!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jason | 11-Mar-2013 5:28 pm
I am a coal mining apprentice, my mine has just been closed at the end of my apprenticeship. I watch the media and government spokespeople and they tell me that market forces have accounted for my job. I shouldn't grumble i should get on my bike and either go to Poland (where i understand there are mines) or think myself lucky that i live in a fair and democratic market econony where most are winners and some are not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2013 8:31 am
In a country where there are far too many lawyers for market demand I'm surprised firms even offer training contracts. This is simply commercial forces at work. Firms can only afford to keep the best - the also rans might be lucky and get offered contracts if their firm is particularly busy and they should look upon that as real world experience they wouldn't have otherwise had.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2013 9:07 am
Anyone who thinks that they are guaranteed an NQ job at the end of their training contract based on figures released 2-3 years before they will be qualifying is rather naive.
And who's to say you'll want to stay anyway.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymouse | 12-Mar-2013 2:23 pm
'This is something the SRA needs to look into...'
Why would they? The SRA have never looked into anything to do with Trainees/NQs employment or retention in the past, so they're not going to suddenly start now...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment