Links in radical move to reject over-specialisation
Promotion to be contingent on associate versatility. Senior managers at Linklaters have kicked off discussions over a radical shake-up of the firm’s training programme as it seeks to usher in a new breed of generalist associates.
Jill King
Sources at Linklaters said that in a bid to counter damaging over-specialisation the firm is looking to introduce a number of schemes whereby juniors will spend time in different practice areas in the first few years post-qualification. This will form the core part of each lawyer’s career path. Moving from associate to managing associate would require time spent in other departments, according to sources familiar with the thinking. Corporate associates would therefore have to spend time in finance, and vice versa.
London head of HR Caroline Rawes said: “We’re keen to explore ways of introducing greater flexibility in the experience that our lawyers gain.”
Discussions are currently taking place at board level, with global head of HR Jill King and managing partner Simon Davies said to be driving the move forward.
Although the plans are at an early stage, it is said that one possibility would see junior associates given the opportunity to work across a number of practice areas.
“There was an awareness that people are specialising too early and there’s a desire to see people get a more rounded experience in their early years,” said a senior partner at the firm.
The Linklaters source added that the move should not be seen as a reaction to the economic climate and subsequent shrinking headcount at top firms.
“Big law firms have become more specialised,” he said. “That’s why there are efforts to make sure that doesn’t happen again.”
Earlier this year, fellow magic circle firm Allen & Overy also examined a less specialised training method for its associates, according to sources close to the firm.
Slaughter and May already operates a system whereby associates in a given practice area spend time in a variety of groups.
Paul Olney, practice partner at Slaughters, said the shift towards more flexible training regimes among the magic circle was inevitable given the changing internal make-up of the firms.
“It wouldn’t surprise me that the emphasis on specialisation, which comes from the over-reliance of firms on certain products, is reduced,” he said.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (26)
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2009 9:20 am
About time. But let's wait and see if it actually happens in reality...headline grabbing is all well and good.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2009 10:09 am
So firms get associates that are easier to move into other departments when things get quieter, and associates get greater flexibility at the cost of expertise....
So who loses out as these associates get more expensive but not all that more experienced in any one area? Clients...
And who wins?... the partners, since they don't have to get rid of so many people, and can move people around when departments get busy. Oh, and the partners don't hand so much of the client relationship to the associates, so less risk of them becoming chummy with the clients and stealing them.
If they are going to create an army of generalists then there really is no reason to stay with the big firms unless you need a massive amount of people on a piece of work (and even then the smaller firms may be able to mobilise an army of contracted lawyers)... clients go to the massive firms FOR specialisation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Birmingham law student | 7-Dec-2009 10:24 am
I know loads of people that haven't been offered a NQ job in the seat that they wanted and have ended up working in an area of law they are not very interested in. I think this idea will give NQs much greater flexibility when they qualify. But there is always the worry that you can be good at lots of different areas of law but an expert at nothing......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Magic Circle associate | 7-Dec-2009 11:03 am
This sort of idea has been floating about for ages. I think its great because as an associate you can quickly specialise in one very specific area of law but then if you want to change jobs or are made redundant you can find it difficult. The idea also mirrors what happens in America.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Britomart | 7-Dec-2009 11:08 am
This has got to be a rotational training scheme rather than creating hundreds of generalists. Having been on the other side of the table as a client, I wouldn't be happy to pay for some associate to get up to speed on an unfamiliar area of law, but equally I would rather have lawyers who are all-rounders and can take a commercial view.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2009 11:14 am
Taking a commercial view is not inconsistent with being a specialist, nor is being a bit of a generalist consistent with being commercial...
If that is what people want then I would try and get associates more secondments...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City victim | 7-Dec-2009 12:14 pm
LOL Are Linklaters admitting that Slaughter & May's approach is best?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2009 1:10 pm
jack of all trades, master of none.
would clients pay 2 yr pqe rates for someone who's got 6 months' relevant experience?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2009 2:48 pm
This is not as easy as it sounds. From PQE2 onwards clients will expect a certain competency level in the area that the associate is providing them services in. I was in this situation at a big US law firm in London and was challenging to say the least, to have advanced skills in derivatives but little or no experience in eg eurobond offerings.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Dec-2009 4:20 pm
The rush to specialise is much too early these days and in order to give a the best service to a client a breadth of experience is invaluable so that you can at least recognise there is an issue even if you do not know the answer and it makes life more interesting for the lawyer
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment