Pinsents, Wragges and Stephenson Harwood reveal retention rates
Pinsent Masons has announced its newly qualified (NQ) retention rates with 79 per cent of trainees being kept on for March 2011.
The top 20 firm has offered 11 out of 14 of its final seat trainee solicitors a permanent NQ position, showing a steady result compared with other firms’ Spring 2011 retention rates.
Meanwhile, Wragge & Co’s retention rate plummeted to 72 per cent, keeping five out of a cohort of seven qualifying trainees, although one of the seven trainees opted not to apply for a permanent position with the Birmingham giant.
The figures showed a drop from last year, when 86 per cent of its qualifying trainees were retained in March 2010, and 92 per cent were offered a place in September 2010, although one trainee dropped out of the running.
Elsewhere, Stephenson Harwood was the second firm to announce a 100 per cent NQ retention rate for 2011, with all five qualifying trainees being given a position at the firm.
The news arrives after several top law firms revealed their retention rates, with US firm Weil Gotshal & Manges being the first to reveal a 100 per cent retention, while Slaughter and May remains the highest for the top ten City firms offering jobs to 96 per cent of its trainees.
Meanwhille, the other members of the top ten with spring qualifiers revealed steady figures all round, with Allen & Overy offering jobs to 87.5 per cent of its trainees and Norton Rose announcing a figure of 86 per cent.
However, Hogan Lovells’ preliminary results showed a dip from last year’s, with the newly merged firm offering around 66 per cent of its Spring qualifying trainee’s NQ positions.
Readers' comments (5)
Statistician | 18-Jan-2011 3:53 pm
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
Anonymous | 19-Jan-2011 4:29 pm
Did Pinsents ever reveal their Sept 2010 retention figure or were they simply too embarrassed?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jan-2011 10:43 am
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
Stato | 20-Jan-2011 2:31 pm
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
Anonymous | 20-Jan-2011 2:44 pm
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