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)
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