Unnatural selection
Finding your own conversational gambits used to be the mark of the averagely socially skilled lawyer.
So there’s something faintly depressing about the notion that Camerons’ fee-earners need a computer program to help them swot up on discussion topics in advance of a cocktail party. It seems a very expensive way of prepping; surely a cheaper bit of advice would simply be to read the paper properly without just scanning the headlines.
I don’t necessarily blame Camerons for trying to make their fee-earners’ lives easier; we all need crib sheets now and then, and a bit of knowledge-sharing goes a long way. But there’s a more fundamental point, which is that even normal business interaction has fallen prey to systematisation. This extends particularly to recruitment - the more students apply for training contracts, the greater the need for filtering systems.
But as many law firm partners privately acknowledge, selection is not a science, and a lot of their best senior colleagues would not have got in under current recruitment criteria. I sense an unease that a generation of identikit lawyers with the same personality type is being created and that the obsession with Ucas points is not necessarily landing the best recruits. Diversity should extend to character as well as social or ethnic origin: is that pleasant, diligent, spoon-fed candidate really going to be the
big business-getter or client partner of tomorrow?
Some firms explicitly recognise this: Freshfields does not consider Ucas points on its application forms, while Addleshaws has an excellent scheme for candidates from more challenging backgrounds who for whatever reason did not excel at A-Levels. This reminds me of the story of former Baker & McKenzie London chief Russell Lewin, who when he was graduate recruitment partner used to sneak in a couple of trainees every year who didn’t meet the academic requirements. There was just something about them he instinctively thought was promising, a bit of spark or flair; but he never disclosed who they were.
By the way, if you want to feel positive about today’s teenagers, turn to page 18. We interview four state school pupils about their legal aspirations after they attended the Lawyer 2B careers day. What they say might surprise you.
Readers' comments (2)
Bertrand Frost | 26-Mar-2010 3:02 pm
Typical lawyer background - private and privileged education instilling a deep sense of worth over and above 'normal' people. Easy entrance to a university of their choice (often Durham, Exeter or Bristol, most being unable to make the Oxbridge grade despite a fortune spent on education) to study and party for four years, one at law school. Easy entrance to a law firm of their choice (often using daddy's old chums or just ticking all those boxes beloved of HR) and then watch as the pounds flow in for what is an average days work using less than impressive intelligence but great 'social' skills ie, dealing with people who have the exact same background, both at their firm and on the other side of transactions, and indeed their clients who are also public school educated. THIS PRODUCES GROUP THINK, on a huge and detrimental scale. Lawyer has kids, who are sent to same public school as daddy and the whole cycle starts again. This set up does nothing to promote the best, just the wealthy. It does nothing to promote the most intelligent, just the wealthy. And it does nothing to stop greed, it just enriches already wealthy people. Welcome to social mobility Britain!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Mar-2010 8:46 am
What a sad, gloomy perspective Bertrand has. I'm a partner in a City law firm, yes I went to public school but was there on a scholarship and would not have gone but for that, I went to a red brick university, struggled for a training contract in the last recession, fought hard to develop a decent career. I'm now involved in graduate recruitment at my firm and fail to recognise anything Bertrand says. Yes there are lots of members of our profession who are sub-standard in the "thinking skills" department but I think that has to do with a range of factors including the way law firms set about developing their young lawyers and less the strange views, at least 20 years out of date, expressed by the previous poster.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment