NQs face dole queue as retention rates drop
Newly qualified (NQ) retention rates for September 2009 qualifiers at a number of leading law firms have plummeted as worsening economic conditions hit the employment market.
Karen Potts
Clifford Chance has become the latest magic circle firm to report a slump in its trainee solicitor retention rate.
The firm has confirmed that it has 70 trainees qualifying in September and plans to retain at least 49, giving it a retention rate of around 70 per cent.
This would put the firm’s retention rate on par with fellow magic circle firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s.
Clifford Chance’s retention rate for September 2008 NQs stood at around 95 per cent, while Freshfields held on to 39 out of 40 NQs last year, giving
it a retention rate of 97 per cent.
Allen & Overy (A&O) and Linklaters have not finalised their qualification processes yet, but A&O has already warned final-seat trainees that its retention rate is also likely to be around the 70 per cent mark.
One magic circle NQ said: “I think the class of 2009 have had it really bad. It’s really tough because there are less jobs and those who are qualifying are working for less money; and on top of that there are far fewer career opportunities for those not kept on.”
Slaughter and May plans to keep on 47 of the 50 NQs due to qualify in September 2009 - a slight improvement on last year’s figure of 92 per cent.
Further down the pecking order, Farrer & Co has joined Bird & Bird and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in the 100 per cent club after offering jobs to all 10 of its September 2009 qualifiers.
Meanwhile, Norton Rose has reported a retention rate of 83 per cent after offering jobs to 20 out of 24 NQs. This is a slight drop from last September’s figure of 90 per cent.
The firm’s HR manager for trainees and recruitment Karen Potts said: “In comparison with last year, it’s going to be much more difficult for NQs who haven’t been retained to find a position elsewhere, because the jobs market is even tougher.”
In a bid to combat the difficult market conditions many firms are offering outplacement services to NQs who are not retained.
Mark Allsup, director of outplacement specialist DBM, said: “People will start to realise there are choices outside the legal sector and maybe start to look at other things like corporate advisory roles in the financial sector.”
Denton Wilde Sapte has reported a retention rate of only 48 per cent after offering jobs to 15 out of 31 NQs. Last year it retained a healthier 81 per cent.
Graduate recruitment partner Jeremy Cape said the firm had told all leavers to keep in contact for future opportunities.
“Although the market is pretty horrendous at the moment, I do hope that many will decide to stay with the law,” said Cape. “Who knows, we may need to expand in the future and we would of course look to former trainees who know our culture and business needs.”
Blake Lapthorn has so far confirmed the lowest retention rate after offering NQ positions to just two out of 14 trainees. The firm’s retention rate of 14 per cent is in stark contrast to last September, when it kept hold of 11 out of 15 NQs.
Elsewhere, Bircham Dyson Bell’s retention rate also plummeted to 40 per cent after it offered jobs to just four out of 10 NQs.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (42)
Anonymous | 29-Jun-2009 12:15 pm
What exactly are these 'corporate advisory roles in the financial sector' that Mark Allsup recommends for NQs who can't find a job?
I would have thought corporate advisory roles would be affected just as much as NQ roles and even if they were not, NQs would not be considered viable candidates for them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Jun-2009 3:48 pm
The situation is even bleaker in the Scottish market. Firms here are announcing some truly disturbing numbers:
McGrigors - 50%
Dundas & Wilson - 45%
Maclay Murray Spens - 10%(!)
I imagine some of the English regions might also be seeing figures worse still than London. There's a very strong feeling brewing among 2009 qualifiers (rightly or wrongly) that the City is 'looking after its own' to the detriment of perfectly competent and promising young lawyers who happen to be working in other offices.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jun-2009 5:46 am
"It’s really tough because there are less jobs and those who are qualifying are working for less money...". Anyone who doesn't understand that there are "fewer jobs", not "less jobs", shouldn't be allowed to qualify anyway. I certainly wouldn't let that NQ draft a memo for me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jun-2009 1:47 pm
Some commentators ability to comes across as ridiculous pedants is quite remarkable. Well done, it must feel good to belittle people.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jun-2009 3:03 pm
I must agree with the above comment. The pathetic individual who sent that comment in (at 5.46am no less) is clearly very sad.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jun-2009 3:49 pm
While I agree that the 5.46am comment is sad, it does serve as a reminder to those, like me, who are yet to secure a TC, the level of accuracy and eye for detail all recruiters expect in these especially competitive times.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jun-2009 4:08 pm
He or she should get a life!!! Getting back to the point 'less jobs' doesn't mean no jobs so good luck to all of those back on the market!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Jul-2009 7:50 am
I am afraid you may consider the comment pathetic but he/she does have a point.....illiterate and sloppy NQs are working whereas promising NQs are being left by the side. It is all about luck and timing, not who and what you are. Now is the opportunity however for NQs to discover that there is more to life out there than City law firms, which, no matter what anyone says, are in most cases highly overated... Good luck.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HootsMon | 1-Jul-2009 10:20 am
Anon at 7.50 makes a good point - while things are very bleak indeed for NQ's who have worked so hard and really want to stay in the profession, there is something to be said for viewing this as a chance to try something different. Forcing a few young lawyers out of their comfort zones may prove to be a good thing in the long run.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Jul-2009 1:06 pm
Do you think this will also be the situation for NQs in 2010 and 2011 (i.e. the ones recruited pre-recession)?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Jul-2009 1:41 pm
BLP is still a week and a half away from telling its trainees whether they have a job at the end of August. To add to the already rather late process, they decided to interview all trainees and string the interview process out over two weeks. Ridiculous!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Indiana Pwns | 1-Jul-2009 4:38 pm
What do you mean 'pre-recession'?
Anyone qualifying in 2010 and 2011 is likely to have been recruited in 2008-2009, during the recession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Education, education, education... | 1-Jul-2009 6:21 pm
I am (hopefully) due to qualify in 2012 and the retention rate at my firm this year is set to be pretty low from what I gather.
I hope that the prospects of being retained or at least switching firms are far more positive in three years time. After the hassle of obtaining a TC, it would be nice to relax, look forward to a prosperous legal career and start to plan ahead long-term instead of always worrying about the end of the next two year cycle.
Frankly, the fact that newly qualified lawyers are still considered fledgling and most are not secure in their career path when in their mid-to-late twenties is pretty damning. At this age, people should have garnered significant experience, should display confidence in their futures and should be able to start thinking of purchasing their first home, starting a family etc.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ash Man | 2-Jul-2009 3:44 am
Trainees and lawyers have really got to snap out of the law firm mentality and understand they are not schools, colleges, jobcentres....they are businesses. As much as they say in the recruitment brochures that they will gush all over you, when push comes to shove, they wouldnt bat an eyelid. The truth of the matter is their clients are now bust, merged or state owned. Time to think afresh, and say goodbye to the fat smelly whisky drinking partner who's been sat in the office doing the same thing over the last 10 years. My advice to NQ's is to move on. Set up a business. Some of you will make it. When you do, you'll have your boss-that-never-was drooling over you, whilst you can quite happily poo on his face, and let him it eat it. I do that with my lawyers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham | 2-Jul-2009 3:25 pm
From the article - "One magic circle NQ said: “I think the class of 2009 have had it really bad. It’s really tough because there are less jobs and those who are qualifying are working for less money; and on top of that there are far fewer career opportunities for those not kept on.”
Poor grammar; it's 'fewer jobs' not 'less' and the NQ is not even consistent, going on to say (correctly) 'fewer career opportunities.'
These things get noticed in the workplace.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Jul-2009 6:03 pm
@ Graham 3.25pm - that's already been pointed out and commented on by another pedantic so and so. Would have thought somebody with such a superiority complex would have noticed. Those in glass houses etc.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Jul-2009 7:00 pm
‘whatever happens in the next one or two years, the world economy will double over the next 20 years.’ Gordon Brown
I suspect that the job market for those fortunate enough to be qualifying in 2012, 2013 or 2014 will be very different from the job market today.
(and I knows that my grammars is bad, so leaves it alone, alright!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 3:20 am
I'll make one thing clear to the Gen Y moaners. If you believe that insisting on correct grammar makes one a pedant, then don't be a lawyer. Too many people are content to let standards slip, then complain that they aren't being given a chance, or things are too hard. There is nothing more important than getting the basics right, and those of you who think otherwise should go and do something else and stop being passive-aggressive about the standards justifiably imposed on lawyers. If you can't even write English, you have no business in the profession, and even less if you can't take the fact that mistakes of that nature are unacceptable in any circumstance for a solicitor.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 9:45 am
To the poster at 3:20 a.m. above:
Your failure to use a relative clause in your second sentence, between "or" and "things" and excessively long sentences run counter to your pontificating.
p.s. Don't you have anything better to do at 3.20 a.m. than to chastise others' grammar and spelling?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 10:01 am
p.p.s. And now you can have a gleeful moment that I said "second", rather than "third" sentence. Go on, you know you want to...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment