Pinsents, Wragges and Stephenson Harwood reveal retention rates

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

Readers' comments (5)

  • It's frustrating to see two different websites being so willing to post unqualified percentages. As previously posted:

    "Taken in isolation these March retention rates do not really help that much. In seven potential qualifiers, the actions of one person make a significant impact on the figure quoted.

    Combined, the figures make for more interesting reading (ie Wragges, 27/31=87% for the year)."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Did Pinsents ever reveal their Sept 2010 retention figure or were they simply too embarrassed?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think the retention rate was 55 percent for Sept 2010 (reported in Legal Week anyway) for Pinsent Masons - so they were very bad and that followed a poor year the year before. Suppose they will argue March 2011 was a better retention rate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The very small numbers at most of these firms make percentages near irrelevant - one trainee leaving for any reason can skew stats badly. At the bigger firms, fair enough, although annual figures are clearer.

    I'd maintain that anything higher than mid-80s is exceptionally high and perhaps too high. Trainees leave at qualification for several reasons - not up to scratch, not offered a position, decide to leave the law, want a specialty NQ role that isn't on offer etc etc etc.

    Bearing in mind that there are very few departures mid-training contract an overall attrition rate of about 85% over two years is incredibly low. Even more so if you consider that the industry's ridiculous recruitment regime means those very NQs were originally selected 4+ years earlier when they only really had their school academic record to offer as evidence!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The reason PM didn't make too much of a song and dance about September 2010 retention rates is because they were horrendous. I think it's underlined by the fact that quite a few who were offered jobs apaprently decided to go elsewhere anyway...(that's after a 55% ish retention)!

    The other contributing factor, is that apparently March 2011 NQs were asked well in advance where they were contemplating qualifying, and provision was made for this in the September 2010 job-round. Effectively, positions seem to have been held back for 6 months to accomodate the 2011 NQs! Good business planning that flies in the face of fair treatment? Then again trainees are seen as a commodity, not a future asset at "certain" firms....

    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 (5)