Interns can bring benefits but law firms must be alert to the pitfalls of placements
Internships are on the rise. This should not come as any surprise to us: an experienced intern can be a fantastic and cost-effective resource for any organisation. Law firms and professional service providers offering this form of on-the-job training will stand a good chance of attracting high-quality candidates. For this reason, we have found more and more employers incorporating internship programmes into their workforce planning and recruitment processes over the past few years. And not just for the traditional 'intern season' over the summer: increasingly, firms are taking them on throughout the year.
November 07, 2013 at 07:03 PM
6 minute read
Structured programmes and written agreements can help firms reduce the risks of taking on unpaid staff
Internships are on the rise. This should not come as any surprise to us: an experienced intern can be a fantastic and cost-effective resource for any organisation. Law firms and professional service providers offering this form of on-the-job training will stand a good chance of attracting high-quality candidates.
For this reason, we have found more and more employers incorporating internship programmes into their workforce planning and recruitment processes over the past few years. And not just for the traditional 'intern season' over the summer: increasingly, firms are taking them on throughout the year.
The relative ease, however, with which organisations can attract interns has only come about because of the potential benefits for the intern. At the heart of every internship is the unwritten understanding that it could lead to a permanent job.
At the very least, the intern will expect to gain insight on their chosen profession and make their all-important curriculum vitae stand out from the crowd.
It seems that with the job market set to remain highly competitive over the coming years, there will be no shortage of candidates vying for internships in the legal sector.
But let's pause for a moment and consider what exactly an 'intern' is, because this is an extremely important consideration for employing firms, and one that is easily overlooked. As fast developing as employment law is, the term 'intern' still has no legal definition and it seems the nature of internships varies widely from one organisation to another.
Status checking
Before engaging an intern, it is critical that you understand their 'status' and the rights and obligations this carries. In employment law terms, interns can fall under three broad categories of individual that enjoy protections. These are:
• employees – who have certain important statutory rights, such as the right to claim unfair dismissal or a statutory redundancy payment;
• workers – who have more limited statutory rights than employees, but still enjoy certain important protections such as the right to unpaid annual leave and the right to receive national minimum wage; and
• a wider class of individuals carrying out work; for example, volunteers – who have only limited rights, such as the right not to be discriminated against or placed in an unsafe working environment.
So in effect, interns can be anywhere on a spectrum where employees (with all their rights and benefits) are at one end and unpaid work experience students at the other. Identifying in practice where an intern falls within this range can be a difficult proposition. When organisations get it wrong, they run the risk of breaching legal rights and obligations.
Exploitation fears
We have all seen reports of interns working such excessively long hours that they suffer serious harm or even death. Such instances are thankfully rare, but, aside from the personal tragedy, the reputational damage this can cause an organisation is hard to overstate. So too is the impact on staff morale.
A more common issue for organisations arises from unpaid internships, which raise important ethical and moral questions. Many interns are prepared to work on an unpaid basis in the hope that this will lead them to permanent work. If this does not materialise, however, some look to a claim under national minimum wage legislation as a way of compensating their efforts.
Such claims are usually of low value, but the reputational damage they can cause is of greater concern. Employers in breach of national minimum wage legislation can also face fines and criminal sanctions.
This situation could get worse if the Labour party came to power – it is saying it would increase the level of fine from the current £5,000 to a maximum of £50,000!
When engaging interns, law firms must also have in mind the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) code of conduct rules, in particular those relating to equality and diversity, and the Bribery Act 2010. The wealthy client requesting an internship for a favourite nephew will be a scenario familiar to many.
So what should firms be doing to avoid these pitfalls? The best way to manage the risk is to have a clear and well-structured internship programme and a written internship agreement. Structuring a programme will involve considering:
• your recruitment process;
• the management of the intern's expectations;
• the duration of the internship;
• whether it will be paid or unpaid and cover expenses;
• which insurers will need to be notified;
• how to ensure the health and safety of the intern;
• what level of supervision and mentoring will be provided; and
• how to protect confidential information.
A firm that properly structures its internship programme is far more likely to realise the benefits of interns and mitigate the associated risks. Aligning an internship scheme with broader strategic aims such as workforce planning and talent development will also reap rewards.
The road ahead
Under the law as it stands, uncertainty will prevail over internships. The use and misuse of interns will continue to arouse strong public feeling and divide opinion along political lines.
But in this economic climate, the growth of internships can only be expected to continue and the voices calling for legislative reform will become all the louder – even though 'good' legislation in this area has been frustratingly rare.
As such, law firms need to be extremely careful when planning their intern intake if they want to avoid becoming embroiled in future outcries.
Christopher Tutton is an associate in the employment department at Irwin Mitchell.
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 AllCan AI Beat the Billable Hour? Legal Tech Firms Say Selling AI Products to Law Firms Still a Challenge
More Young Lawyers Are Entering Big Law With Mental Health Issues. Are Firms Ready to Accommodate Them?
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
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