Addleshaws heads up 2010 trainee retention rankings with 89% of March intake kept on
Addleshaw Goddard retained the highest number of March 2010 qualifying trainees in the UK top 30, with the national law firm keeping 89% of its intake. The firm kept on eight of the nine trainees qualifying and 100% of those applying for jobs, putting its retention rate narrowly ahead of those recorded by Nabarro and Wragge & Co and significantly above the 75% average across the top 30 as a whole.
March 17, 2010 at 06:44 AM
4 minute read
Trainee retention rates at Addleshaws, Nabarro and Wragges set the standard as trio top rankings for 2010
Addleshaw Goddard retained the highest number of March 2010 qualifying trainees in the UK top 30, with the national law firm keeping 89% of its intake.
The firm kept on eight of the nine trainees qualifying and 100% of those applying for jobs, putting its retention rate narrowly ahead of those recorded by Nabarro and Wragge & Co and significantly above the 75% average across the top 30 as a whole.
Nabarro and Wragges both kept on 86% of their newly-qualified lawyers in March, with this rising to 92% for Nabarro when looking only at the retention rate as a percentage of those who applied to be kept on.
Other firms beating the average across the top 30 include Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Allen & Overy (A&O), Herbert Smith, Slaughter and May, Eversheds and CMS Cameron McKenna.
As reported last week, Legal Week's research into trainee retention rates across UK top 30 firms showed average retention rates fell by nearly 10% across the firms from the March 2009 figure of 83%.
Addleshaws graduate recruitment partner Andrew Blower (pictured) told Legal Week: "We focus on recruiting and retaining talented trainees and the retention rates show that the focus is satisfied. We have planned our resources very carefully over the last couple of years and we've done it pretty accurately, which is what the figure brings out."
The retention rates are affected by the different size of intakes at different firms. Wragges, for example, achieved its 86% score on the basis of a seven-strong intake, while Pinsent Masons saw its retention rate drop to 64% after three of its 14 qualifiers opted not to apply, with a further two failing to secure positions on qualification.
Wragges recruitment manager Julie Caudle commented: "Our strategy has always been to take on a smaller number of trainees so that we can ensure a higher retention rate."
Other firms coming in with significantly below average retention rates for March 2010 include Ashurst, SJ Berwin, Macfarlanes and Irwin Mitchell – all of which kept on 67% of their trainee intake.
Ashurst graduate recruitment partner David Carter said: "The number of people who wanted to go into our corporate practice was highly over-subscribed, which also had repercussions on their second and third choices."
Overall, Dentons saw the lowest rate by far after keeping on just one of its seven-strong intake, leaving it with a retention rate of 14%. The firm attributed the rate to poor economic conditions.
Nine law firms within the top 30 only carry out one intake per year, in September. For the September 2009 intake, the average retention rate across all 30 firms stood at 74% of the 1,141 lawyers qualifying. This rose to 78% when looking only at those applying for jobs.
Though the average retention for March 2010 was marginally higher than last September's, the intake was roughly half the size overall, with 548 lawyers qualifying across the 21 firms with March intakes.
Looking at both intakes, Holman Fenwick Willan and Bird & Bird saw the highest retention rates, as they each kept on 100% of their September 2009 qualifiers.
Shoosmiths kept on the lowest number of trainees in September, when it retained four of its 13 qualifiers, equating to a retention rate of 31%.
Louise Hadland, director of human resources at Shoosmiths, told Legal Week: "Given the market, we were naturally cautious about retention of NQs in 2009 and our forecast for 2010 is one of cautious optimism. With business needs changing constantly, we review things on a regular basis."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBird & Bird Steers Katjes in Bittersweet Dispute with Lindt & Nestlé Over Vegan Chocolate Patent
Hong Kong Bourse Seeks Feedback on IPO Price Discovery, Takes Steps to Boost Capital Markets Activity
Big Four Japanese Firm Mori Hamada Launches Foreign Joint Law Enterprise, Joins Rebrand Drive
US Wins Trade Dispute with Mexico Over Genetically Modified Corn
Trending Stories
- 1Graffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
- 2Phila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
- 3Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 4SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 5Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250