Norton Rose hunts for Indian trainees

  • Print
  • Comments (26)

Readers' comments (26)

  • Outrageous!

    How is it that Norton Rose is able to go outside of the EU to recruit trainees/lawyers. I thought the new government policy meant that this was illegal unless the firm is unable to locate suitable lawyers from within the EU. Given the huge competition for training contracts within the UK, and the diverse talent available within the EU, surely Norton Rose can find enough suitable candidates from the EU. Why look outside? What is the motivation here??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • they are above all

    Yeah but they are lawyers i'n it? they can recruit out of jurisdiction and send them here for secondment

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not outrageous

    Norton Rose is perfectly right in recruiting newly qualified indian lawyers. If they are looking to advise on Indian laws and understand better the Indian Market, who do you think they will recruit: Italian Lawyers?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Cost Savings!!

    I heard they can post them anywhere and that they are more willing to re-locate to the places that UK Solicitors are not willing to go.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another Tick

    Another tick in the diversity box - whilst pushing out UK born ethnic minorities... doesn't make sense!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • doent matter

    the firm only has to show that the people they are looking fro are not awailable in the eu by putting up ads n all...if they put up an ad for an indian lawyer + newly qualified....ur not gonna get them in the EU are you ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not fair!

    As if there is a shortage of hard-working trainees here! Isn't Eastwood saying UK educated trainees aren't hard working enough? there is a wide pool of potential talent here, and from ethnic minorities. Is this just to save costs?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have you read the article?

    Mathew, have you actually read this article? it says nothing about recruiting Indian solicitors to work on Indian law, they are being recruited because Norton Rose doesn't seem to think UK/EU solicitors are good enough, i.e they don't know about hard work, and are in law because their parents told them to go into it (see quote from their recruitment partner).

    In reality Norton Rose probably want people who are less likely to complain about long hours and a lack of work life balance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What's wrong with this firm?

    Haven't they HEARD of Poland?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • no surprise

    is tht really a surprise??
    norton rose is probably even late. CC, Links, A&O, Simmons, SJ Berwin and CMS hav all been recruiting trainees directly from india for years now.
    and this is all meant to tap the burgeoning indian market..simple!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not outrageous

    Norton Rose is perfectly right..they cannot spend money on lazy Uk associates. Indian lawyers are always hardworking and in this financial crisis the least thing you want to do is to recruit lazy lawyers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re Mathew

    Mathew, if you are who you say your are, you are extemely lazy (and extremely slimy on top of that) and have no right to comment on 'lazy UK associates'. Grow up or go back home.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • foot in his mouth

    you would have thought that Sam would have put his brain into gear before giving such a sweeping and offensive statement, which lets face it, is insulting to the majority of laywers in his firm (who one would assume "do not know the meaning of hard work"). Unbelievable. Firms should stop attributing particular qualities to groups of lawyers with particular ethnic backgrounds.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not outrageous

    Those outrageous and careless comments against Norton Rose are unfair. Indian lawyers have been trained on tough and complex Indian State legal system. UK Solicitors are trained on easy course such as LPC in which almost everyone can get an outstanding or very competent grade.

    Sometimes Non-EU national lawyers working in London have a better grasp of the UK corporate law than the Brit lawyers. There is no doubt in the fact that India and China will surpass the US economy. Norton Rose is aiming strategically for its future and carefully selecting lawyers who will have no difficulty in adapting to the Indian environment should they need to open an Indian Office in say Mumbai.

    Unfortunately, these days there are so many UK solicitors who have either been made redundant or simply didnt make it to the Training contract stage. It is quite unfortunate that they are not in demand because law firms are looking for lawyers with good Asian expertise, offshore structuring and easily adaptable to new environment. So please do send me comments that makes sense !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • not outrageous

    Matthew has clearly never worked with an Indian law firm! Stop insulting UK lawyers.Uk law firms and UK lawyers are world beaters, that is why the Indian graduates are keen to work for them.They would not be world beating firms if their lawyers were all the useless lazy idiots.

    Matthew seems to think they are, trained on courses which are easy and if they were not willing to "adapt to new environments"(so how did they become global then Matt,hey?).

    Most Indian lawyers I have interviewed say they want to work for a good UK firm precisely because they want to do the "offshore structuring" you mention.

    There are plenty of lawyers with different cultural and ethnic backgrounds working in law firms, quite rightly so. But it is wrong to say that you "want more Indian lawyers", the ethnic background is irrelevant, what matters is how good the lawyer isand how suited he or she is to the role available. So I agree with Paul, the guy from Norton Rose has put his foot in his mouth.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not outrageous

    How come the so-called "world beaters" are recruiting Indian lawyers? The comments of Paul are none of my business, my point is STOP getting frustrated by the fact that Indian lawyers are surpassing their UK counterparts. Its US law firm who are mostly global and as usual UK law firm are copying on them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Outrageous

    Matthew - do you work for NR? Is that why you are being so defensive? As a hard working Norton Rose lawyer I find the comments of Eastwood offensive. NR are clearly only doing this because it is cheaper for them to recruit Indian trainees. Why not admit that instead of dressing it up

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • how

    Its anything but cheaper for firms like NR to recruit Indian trainees. Do you know how many visits these firms make to Indian law school campuses to recruit from there, not to mention the valuable time that is lost in the whole process. UK firms have to compete against top US, Indian and Singapore firms and amongst themselves to do that.

    Also, its not as if Indian trainees would be paid less, none of the firms do that and NR certainly would not do it.

    Its all about being global and servicing global clients, which evidently can't be done unless you have global work force.

    And yes, i agree that this NR guy's comments are in bad taste and definitely not the reason why Indian trainees have suddenly come into limelight.

    Welcome to the new world mates.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Indian Graduate Recruitment

    Eastwood has made a massive error here. To make sweeping generalisations about UK Law Graduates is nothing but antogonising and is something that will cloud judgement on the rest of the content of his statement.
    It's definitely fair to say Indian students are hard working but there's nothing to say that some UK students are not equally so.

    Graduate recruitment should be pursued primarily based on Merit before anything else.

    The concept of the article holds some validity but the way in which it has been adressed by Eastwood needs refining to say the least.
    The real outrage is his inability to articulate his opinion in the apppropriate way, not necessarily the content of the article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • facts wrong again Matt

    Matthew, the US firms are not more global than the UKfirms, it is the other way around. Read the latest report in the American Lawyer magazine, the three biggest global law firms are all British. The British law firms are far bigger in Asia, the Gulf and Europe in particular than the US firms.

    And what on earth makes you say that "Indian lawyers are beating their UK counterparts"? How does the fact that some of the best Indian graduates want to work for UK law firms show that UK lawyers are falling behind? It is quite the opposite. Do your research Matt before you comment, you are just like that guy from Norton Rose (maybe you are that guy from Norton Rose?)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • nature v nurture?

    It does appear that Mr Eastwood's comments leave a lot out for speculation. It is perfectly viable for a firm to want to recruit people that best fit its needs in terms of education, skills, diversity etc. However, it is incorrect to state that one nation works better (ie. is more hand-working or has a better ethic) than another and to stage a recruitment policy on those grounds. If Mr Eastwood has resolved the 'nature v nurture' debate then maybe he should be interviewed by a scientific journal and not The Lawyer.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Indian lawyers

    First of all, anyone who says the LPC is easy can't have done it in the best places. The reason people do well is they're committed to a career in law or they've secured a training contract which they would forfeit should they not pass on first attempt. In my school, there was still a 16% failure rate, way higher than at most top UK universities.

    Secondly, I've had some exposure to Indian lawyers from a UK top 20 firm. Can't say I've been all that impressed. Supposedly final version contracts repeatedly came back with typos. Unacceptable when you pay £400/hour.

    I suspect the real reason they're coming over to the UK is because (1) the pay is way better than back home and (2) it's where the cutting-edge work is, and the legal system actually works, and with very low levels of corruption. It's no different than any other economic migrancy. As someone else put it, if Indian lawyers were so much better trained, why is it that, with its comparatively small demographics, UK firms dominate the global legal scene?

    Lastly, I would say to anyone working at NR - get out while you can. When a partner begins to utter such stupidities without being censured by the rest of the partnership, there's something very wrong going on in that firm...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • reasons

    I would accept the below cited reasons for migration of indian lawyers to UK firms except for one - better pay. Top Indian firms may pay less if you compare that to what UK firms pay. but purchasing power parity really sways it in favor of indian firms. so clearly money is not the consideration here, its work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • NR

    “Foreign lawyers can be very dynamic when put against UK students only studying law because their fathers told them to...“

    “...and they also know the meaning of hard work...”

    As a mature student who gave up a lot of time, money and life to pursue a career in law only to be discriminated against once here, I find both of those statements deeply insulting but not surprising.

    If that's the attitude of recruiters at NR to *all* UK recruits (who are clearly all only here because dear daddy told them so), then it's no wonder they're looking abroad. And quite frankly after that, NR and their Indian recruits are welcome to each other.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Get a life!

    The reality of the situation is that India is a growing economy with a lot to offer in terms of the quality of law graduates. So, its an economy and system that's flawed - but show me one system and economy that isn't.

    So to all Indian law graduates, I say upwards and onwards! To all non-Indian law graduates and lawyers, I say, life is tough and so is competition. If you don't like the rules or lack of them, suck it up or get out of the game.

    To Simon Eastwood and his ilk, I say, think before you speak and maybe even practice a bit, before making sweeping statements that embarass your organisation and irritate your colleagues and peers!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • world class

    I think it is high time law firms in the UK and the US realised that Indian qualified lawyers are truly world class and can compete with the best legal brains in the world.

    An average Indian qualified lawyer undergoes exactly the same amount of pre qualification training periods as their counterparts in the UK or the US. At the end of the day, the legal profession is very individualistic, apart from studying law seriously, it really depends on how interested an individual himself is in working on international transactions and how well he develops his personality to gain international recognition.

    Norton Rose, way to go. They will probably be able to have a foot hold in South Asia much earlier than their contemporary law firms who are still very archaic in their recruitment policies.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


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 (26)