NQs face dole queue as retention rates drop

  • Print
  • Comments (42)

Readers' comments (42)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • @ 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

  • ‘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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

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 (42)