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.
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
Desmond Fancy | 3-Jul-2009 10:59 am
I agree with the 9.45 am post above. The complaint at 3.20 a.m. uses sentences which rely on punctuation for their meaning and are excessively long. As a consumer of legal services this style of lawyering is one of my pet hates.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Metallica | 3-Jul-2009 11:17 am
Ohh stop already!! Yes the point about bad grammar from previous posters has been made, and made again and again.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz!!! No wonder lawyers are considered so boring.
Getting back to the main issue - For those of you who did receive an NQ offer, what did you do differently to your colleagues who did not receive any offers?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 11:49 am
To Anon yesterday @ 7:00 pm. Gordon Brown is speculating that the emerging economies, particularly China and India, will continue to grow. The idea that the world economy will double in size is based on projected population increases, and the belied that the economy will grow with the population. It's dangerous to assume that this kind of growth will necessarily be good for British business however, and particularly that it will be good for English law firms. We've already seen a growth in outsourcing legal services to India, and I suspect we will see more.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 2:03 pm
9.45am: you're right. Touché.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 3:04 pm
If your written English is cr*p, don't become a solicitor.
Pithy enough?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Oliver Chettle | 4-Jul-2009 9:41 pm
Anonymous, the less/fewer distinction is a tiresome and pointless piece of pedantry, and it is on its way out, like many pedantries before it. There is nothing that pedants can do to stop this natural and desirable process.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Oliver Chettle | 4-Jul-2009 9:48 pm
The less/fewer obsession is nothing to do with "standards", Both words are equally clear, and the "rule" deeming one to be correct and the other to be incorrect is arbitrary and pointless. The English language will lose no clarity or flexibility when this rule expires, as it will. Pretty much all the people who care about this point are older than me, and I am thirty-seven next month.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 7:17 am
Loving the pedantry. All of you who don't have NQ positions to look forward to can at least take comfort in the fact that if you do manage to break out of the law the chances are the will be less (so shoot me) tossers like these in your life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 10:04 am
Re 'less' and 'fewer': Sorry but applicants really need to get their heads around that sort of thing. Lawyers must express themselves as precisely as possible for various reasons.
It is unfortunate for you if you weren't taught much about grammar at school, but you should consider it crucial to make up any gaps in your knowledge.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 11:26 am
Instead of attempting to justify your pathetic need to feel superior to others by quibbling about grammar, would all of you like to consider what you would have felt had you been a trainee qualifying in one of the worst recessions? Not only do many of them not have jobs to go to in September, but they have no hope of getting any. For some, they will be the lost generation, unable to qualify into a profession which has effectively thrown them on the scrapheap (in many cases with substantial debts) before they have had a chance to demonstrate their potential.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 1:40 pm
ignore these 'grammar' idiots - they are the ones getting squeezed out for being crap.
there will be fewer and less of them in the years ahead (thank gawd)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 2:54 pm
Anonymous of 1.40pm - I don't think you get squeezed out for having good grammar.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Jul-2009 1:45 pm
Anonymous @ 1:40 pm - your point is rubbish.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
KRUSTY THE CLOWN | 8-Jul-2009 2:35 pm
Those poor NQs need help and support, not ridicule.
I think that these firms should offer support groups and therapy workshops like:
Using a Knife and Fork - Unlocking the Code;
Coping with Daylight - A Beginner's Guide
Chin Transplants - Cosmetic Surgery for getting on in the Real World
Spinal Implants - Believe the Hype
Poor babies!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Jul-2009 2:12 pm
I AM NOT A LAWYER, HOWEVER A VERY CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER ISABOUT TO FINISH A TWO YEAR TRAINEESHIP, WITH NO JOB. SHE HAS STUDIED 4YEARS HONOURS, 1 YEAR POST GRAD LEGAL CERT, TWO YEAR TRAINEESHIP AND FOR WHAT THE DOLE. OW SAD! i AGREE i THINK THE BIG COMPANIES FORGET ABOUT THEIR nq'S FROM THEIR BRANCH OFFICES E.G. SCOTLAND
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Jul-2009 4:02 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.
To Anonyomous at 2:12pm. Tell her to do a two year placement with Voluntary Service Overseas. There will never be enough English teachers in the developing world. She can get an abundance of life experience, particularly cross-cultural and international experience, which will stand her in very good stead when the market turns around.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mature NQ | 10-Jul-2009 11:35 am
Astonishing.
Regarding the pedantry - whilst you're all correct that accuracy is important, may I just remind you that this is *only* a comments board! Most contributors type a quick paragraph or two during their working day (myself included, I hasten to add) so who gives a hoot if an off-the-cuff anonymous comment is not absolutely correct? There is no editing feature, and I'm sure all our employers would prefer we get on with the paid work. It's not like many people put their name to their submission anway. In this context, it's just not important.
Besides, if a petty criticism concerning grammar is the absolute best response you can come up with, then I'm not sure you're fit to be a lawyer either. Pointing out someone else's faults without actually addressing their point is deeply unimaginative and not at all clever.
Even though this has all been incredibly amusing to read, for the love of all that's holy just grow up. In the internet age, if you take insignificant comments boards (of which there are many) this seriously, I suggest you find a new soothing hobby and step away from the computer.
@ Metallica - what to do if you don't get offered an NQ position? go out and find another. They won't beat a path to your door. Be prepared to move, be prepared to be flexible about which area of law you qualify into, and be prepared to leap out of your comfort zone. If you've invested thousands on your education, it'd be daft not putting in the effort to see it through. I'm glad I did just that, It was tense and unpleasant for a while, but with a bit of hard work I got the better end of the deal.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jul-2009 1:56 pm
Mature NQ, I think you've missed the point. I imagine that most posters DIDN'T take this message board seriously and were just having a laugh*. Unfortunately (for you - not us), your post has "bear trap fodder" written all over it...
(*The definition of "a laugh" may vary from person to person)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jul-2009 2:02 pm
p.s. - Your use of a split infinitive in your final paragraph was unacceptable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Jul-2009 4:29 pm
I qualified, moved out of London, got a great job in a regional firm and get home by 6pm every night! Can't believe people still want to work in law factories at all hours of the night and day! There's more to life.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Greg House MD | 13-Jul-2009 7:32 pm
When I qualified in northern ireland during the last recession, there were not many jobs going. So I joined the army, serving in Afghanistan. Whilst I was on duty, my wife died and I was severely incapacitated within a month of each other. I came to terms with it, moved to London and am now 1 year away from qualfying with a magic circle firm. Please get some perspective people.
Also, I bet most people haven't saved for a rainy day. When my wife died, I came into a rather large inheritance and rather than blow it all on partying, I put away a nice little nest egg for situations just like this!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2009 11:49 am
Indiana Pwns is incorrect, for the larger, commercial firms at least. If you are beginning a TC this September (and due to qualify 2011) you are likely to have been recruited at least one year earlier than your TC start date, sometime two, i.e. in 2007 and 'pre-recession' (just).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment