Law firms must help people... as long as they don't help the wrong people
There's only one thing that gets law firms more flak than not bothering to do anything to tackle entrenched social issues or the personal cost their businesses demand of their staff. And that's law firms bothering to do something to tackle etc, etc... Take PRIME, the new initiative launched this month by 23 major law firms - including the entire magic circle - with the aim of improving social mobility in the law. The aim is relatively simple: to usher in a cross-profession model for quality work experience for the kind of teenagers that rarely have their eyes opened to the possibility of a career in law.
September 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM
5 minute read
There's only one thing that gets law firms more flak than not bothering to do anything to tackle entrenched social issues or the personal cost their businesses demand of their staff. And that's law firms bothering to do something to tackle etc, etc…
Take PRIME, the new initiative launched this month by 23 major law firms – including the entire magic circle – with the aim of improving social mobility in the law. The aim is relatively simple: to usher in a cross-profession model for quality work experience for the kind of teenagers that rarely have their eyes opened to the possibility of a career in law.
I guess I owe the industry a partial apology on this one, as I have said before that City law firms' thinking on the issue is confused and that they care enough to wring their hands about social mobility, but not enough to do anything about it. On the former point I still have doubts, but on the latter, fair enough – this is surely an admirable attempt to do something constructive, in that it looks well thought-out and credible enough in scale to have an impact. It's only a start, yes, but it looks like a good start.
Yet judging by some of the reactions to the venture, it seems some people don't see it like that. The concern seems to be that the venture is overdoing it on the social mobility front, targeting its efforts at the least privileged in society, when they should be going after the averagely privileged or moderately under-privileged – the bright kids from the suburbs who only need a push and nudge. On this reading, the venture is either a politically correct mish-mash dreamed up by the naive or the manipulations of cynical law firms looking for good PR.
I've noticed this strain of thought before in the debate surrounding access to the profession, and it's very ugly. It speaks to a poisonous lack of empathy in society that is unfortunately all too common and is probably getting more so. Under this view, the poor kids from the inner city are beyond saving. They should be written off (a strange number of posters on legal websites seem to be making references to the racial make-up of the children that will be on this scheme, as if that's a problem).
This is drivel. If you're trying to solve a problem, the logical thing is to start where the need is greatest. And if no attempt is made to reach out to the least privileged in society then what can you expect from that society beyond dysfunction, mistrust and a high crime rate.
It's almost certainly true that if law firms used such a work experience scheme to target those at bog-standard rather than failing schools, then they would be more likely to unearth future lawyers. But such calculations are those of the labour market, not social inclusion. PRIME isn't designed to help law firms win the war for talent, it is billed as an attempt to contribute to social mobility.
Will PRIME work? Well, it was drawn up in consultation with charities like the Sutton Trust that bring far more knowledge of these matters than law firms. Even so, and even with so many law firms involved, its impact will probably be limited if it doesn't widen considerably in scale across the legal industry and lead to changes in behaviour within law firms themselves. But if that does happen – and increased contact with a wider group of society leads firms to rethink a few of their pre-conceptions during the recruitment process – it will have a chance of having a real impact.
(As it happens I suspect this scheme could ultimately unlock some moderate but not inconsiderable economic advantages for the law firms backing it in terms of staff retention and widening their labour pool at key points, though that shouldn't be why firms commit to it and those benefits should not be oversold).
Like all these schemes, there will be a considerable amount of trial and error if it's to work – logistics to iron out, ideas that work on paper but not in the field. It will certainly take time to achieve anything like its potential.
It also seems highly significant that the industry has set aside its usual lack of co-operation for once to come together and show some collective leadership. There's no doubt that the legal profession's inability to do so before has often limited its role in the wider community – so this looks a positive development for the profession as much as step forward for social inclusion.
As such, let's for once park the cynicism and wish these 23 law firms every success with this venture. They aren't perfect, most of them will have made mistakes and a few have even previously made hard-nosed or plain mean-spirited decisions, but that doesn't invalidate this effort. Let's hope they sign up many more law firms and schools and that this venture is the start of something much, much bigger. After all, if as a business you can realistically do something to help, why wouldn't you?
Click here to visit the PRIME website.
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
© 2025 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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
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