King & Wood Mallesons SJ Berwin continues below-par retention with 73% rate

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

Readers' comments (5)

  • "Of the 22-person cohort, 18 applied for roles with the firm". So 2 people did not get jobs. Or one ninth. Or 11.11111%. So not 27% then, Lawyer.com.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The retention rate is the number of people who are staying with the firm on qualification.

    In this case, that is 16 of 22, or 73 per cent. Eighteen trainees applied for roles, two were unsuccessful in their application.

  • There is a significant difference between a firm that does not, for what ever reason, make offers to 25% of its trainees (downsizing? short of cash?), and one which makes offers to nearly all of those that apply. The headline occludes that and gives a misleading impression.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The headline is accurate. Readers are concerned with the 'retention rate' because it is indicative of the firm's ability to 'retain their trainees'. This applies to both the situation where trainees are disenchanted and do not apply as well as the situation where trainees apply but are not made offers, whether the reason is firms' finances or the quality of applicants.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • that is wrong, Anon @5.48. The firm's ability to 'retain their trainees' is part of it, of course, but that is not the primary way people (especially prospective trainees) read those figures. you are wrong (again) to assume that trainees who do not apply generally do so because they are 'disenchanted'. Of course that may be sometimes be the reason, but more often than not it is because they are lured to an nq job at another firm paying more money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ anonymous 10.37

    There is a significant difference between a firm that receives applications from 100% of its trainees compared to a firm that receives applications from 50% of its trainees, whatever the reason. Both firms might offer NQ positions to 100% of applicants, but given the choice, I feel that most people would prefer to train at the first firm, as opposed to the second. For this reason, I think that it’s right that the headline gives the retention rate as opposed to the percentage of offers to applications made.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For the record, Lawyer 2B - and indeed the rest of the legal press - has always reported retention in this way and it is consistent across all the firms we cover.

    Firms spend time and money training people who then don't apply for jobs - why should these people suddenly be excised from the record? While including them in the figures doesn't tell the whole story, leaving them out skews the picture in a different way.

    There are of course many reasons why trainees don't stay with their firm on qualification and if the firm provides us with further detail we will usually include it in the article. But reporting the number staying on out of the total who qualified gives a more complete overview to which further context can then be added.

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)