Hammonds has become the latest major law firm to offer its trainee solicitors a cash incentive to push back their start dates, topping that of the prevailing market average.
Hammonds has become the latest major law firm to offer its trainee solicitors a cash incentive to push back their start dates, topping that of the prevailing market average.
The firm wrote to its trainees who are due to start in September 2009 on Wednesday to ask them if they would consider delaying their start dates for 12 months.
Candidates who decide to defer their training contracts will be paid a £7,000 maintenance grant in London and £5,000 for those who live in the regions.
As well as the grant trainees will be offered the option to take up a client secondment lasting between two and four months, for which they will be paid up to £1,000 for each month they work.
Graduate recruitment partner Caroline Noblet said: “In today’s challenging market the opportunity to gain valuable work experience will clearly assist future trainees with both their training and with their long term career prospects.”
In theory the compensation being offered by Hammonds could top that of Norton Rose which is offering up to £10,000 to trainees who defer for up to 12 months.
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe has also contacted its trainees due to start in September 2009 asking if they would consider deferring for either six or 12 months.
Graduate recruitment partner Simon Cockshutt said: “Given that work levels are down we have decided to ask trainees to defer. Back in the 1990’s I remember hearing that trainees at other firms were put in seats that were so slow they had no chargeable hours and that’s not good for any trainee.”
The firm admitted it had not ruled out a cash incentive for prospective trainees.
–
I am ashamed to say that I too googled ‘Field Grieb’, hence probably exacting the reaction that this bizarre ‘Kent Magic Circle’ lawyer was hoping for. The banter here is classic guys.
On a serious note, as a Freshfields 1 year PQE associate, we were moaning a few weeks back after we had our pay frozen, but the mandates coming in really have convinced me that this is one of the best places to be during the ‘Crunch’. The motto from the top was ‘reputation is everything’, and is so far proving true, as we are distancing ourselves from the redundancies and concentrating on profitable work for the biggest clients.
ps. After ten years in the city, I hope to move out of the city, buy a farm and join the Kent crop circle (oops I mean magic circle)
Hammonds are decent
the agruments that the clients may suffer is ridiculous. Clearly if the work is there in abundance then the clients will be served and NR won’t invoke its option to place its staff (or some of them) on shorter hours. I dont think that it has been suggested that the office will be closed on fridays or mondays or any day but rather that a softening in demand for lawyers leads to a reduction in supply. Even if if this option is intorduced, i would think it unlikely that key practioners in the firm will not be available when required – even if technically speaking they were due to have the day as unpaid leave. Most lawyers are on a five day week the world over but regularly work weekends when required. Presumably the NR scheme will allow them to take an alternative day off instead.
Secondment???
I did a degree in history then did the GDL. The GDL is a well taught course and gives an adequate knowledge to do the LPC. However, unlike most of the people who did the GDL on this forum, I will admit that the GDL does not compare to a law degree. It lacks the depth, variety and complexity that an LLB entails. Furthermore, I cannot profess that my degree has given me additional skills that law graduates do not have. For me to say this would be ridiculous and very arrogant. Obviously a law degree is the ideal foundation upon which to start your solicitor training, and all of us who have done the GDL, have done degrees which aren’t quite as good as law and the GDL which is the LLB’s poor relation. No doubt many who do the GDL do well in the LPC and get tc, but we cannot escape the fact that it is not quite as good as a law degree. I am proud of my history degree but realize that it just doesn’t quite compare.
RE: Hammonds are decent.
“Do you know where you’re going to?” Was that the Carpenters? No? Not the carpenters who do so much better than LLB holders as they head up the Magic Circle Oxbridge (Daddie was a friend of old St. John Pinkwerton-Smythe and got me in reading Wood Appreciation & its Impact on the Weimar republic and Asiatic Beekeeping at Kings College) I meant the tragic singing duo. The fact remains that the “profession” has determined that any idiot has a crack at becoming a lawyer now – does it matter then whether it’s an idiot reading James Joyce or an idiot from Battersea Dog Obedience School College reading for an LLB. Having a 2:1 in any degree doesn’t make you a good lawyer. Good training can compensate for a lack of common sense to some degree but it is the right candidate with a mix of training, innate acumen and “keep it real” savvy who can shine regardless of educational background, discipline and yes, even class of degree (those working and studying part time might suffer from disappointing grades and yet could be a real asset to any firm).