Categories:UK

Norton Rose trainees offered £10k to defer

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • -

    Not a bad idea considering the current difficulties but would a better solution not be to just take less trainees or not recruit so far in advance?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Essay Contest

    I wonder how they will 'grade' each Trainee's essay on how best they will develop their skills.




























    Bettery yet, how about a Talent Contest? Bring all of the future Trainees into the head office, parade them around and vote them into categories. Worthy of working at the required times; worthy of a payment up to the £10K; and worthless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not practical

    Trainees are recruited two years ahead for a number of practical reasons. The biggest issue for most graduates is the payment of fees. If you left recruitment to the last minute or even looked for people a year ahead, candidates would be in a much less secure financial position.

    What you seem to have overlooked is that it is not in any trainee's best interest to go to a firm that cannot give it the best training experience.

    I don't work for NR, but it seems emminently sensible to defer people if there simply isn't the work in the market.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Postman Pat's Black & White Cat

    Norton Rose, and indeed every other firm, should consider whether they should pay trainees' LPC fees at all.

    If trainees had to pay their own LPC fees it would make them consider much more seriously if law is the right career for them and if it is worth the financial commitment. It would also save the firm a vast amount of money, especially if they have a high trainee intake.

    Paying a trainee's fees shouldn't be seen as a necessary incentive for any firm to offer, the training contract itself should be enough of an incentive.

    Funding the LPC is a huge commitment but given that trainees outside the city generally pay their own fees and receive a considerably lower salary there's no reason why their city counterparts shouldn't do the same.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • yet more hoops

    Sooo...after having successfully demonstrated that they were worthy enough to be chosen for a training contract, these prospective trainees (who I am guessing have signed a legally binding contract), are now expected to further demonstrate why they should receive the £10,000 for deferring their contract.

    Hmmm...does this sound strange to anyone else? It seems a bit of a cheek to demand that they spend their time- when they are now going to be searching for a job to pay off their LPC fees/student loans if the firms didn't pay for their LPC/other commitments- also proving that they will be spending the year improving themselves (any self-respecting prospective trainee would only use his/her time wisely in any event).

    Not only that- they were of course expecting to be starting on a salary of £37,000 I imagine, possibly more. This seems a small sum in compensation for this.

    Credit to the law firms for offering work experience but I think this whole scenario is absolutely ludicrous.

    Perhaps these large law firms shouldn't be paying their partners so much and free up the market to young talent- who at the moment, do not seem to be getting a fair look in at all in the legal profession. More than that, perhaps they should be paying more attention to clients- they should have seen this coming as soon as they started getting more debt recovery/ corporate insolvency work. They are after all always harping on about commercial awareness.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The LPC should remain funded

    It is simply not true that firms outside London are unwilling to pay students LPC fees. A fair number of firms in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool all pay LPC fees. Look on 'chambers & Partners' and you'll see that, to date, this even includes regional firms. Law students in the rest of Europe, generally, don't do an LPC style course before they start practice which would explain why they are not paying for one. It's unfair to suggest that law students embark on this career lightly. Securing a training contract is extremely difficult and, particularly for those struggling financially, it is only fair that the course is funded by their firm. Partners should take a pay-cut before the trainees and students are penalised further.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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 (6)