Training grounds – why law firms need to overhaul their training programmes
Behind closed doors UK law firms should be gearing up for what could be a training revolution.
September 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM
3 minute read
Behind closed doors UK law firms should be gearing up for what could be a training revolution. The news that firms have been steadily scaling back their UK trainee intakes is nothing new. As the post-Lehman crisis gave rise to a wave of redundancies across UK law firms, it became painfully apparent that scores of lawyers hired years in advance were a pretty big liability. Particularly when the budding lawyers in question were all coming – initially at least – into the local market at a time when most firms were trying to chase growth in global currencies rather than in the pound.
Even so, the extent to which leading UK firms have decreased their trainee numbers is impressive. A steady drip of downward projections for future intakes has seen all of the magic circle – bar Freshfields – cut trainee numbers by more than 15% since 2010.
But this reduction is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the training of the next generation of lawyers. Buried in the August holiday period was a government announcement of new guidelines for legal apprenticeships, which a host of firms helped draft. The proposals would potentially open up a career as a qualified lawyer to those without degrees and certainly without formal training contracts.
Every bit as important as the announcement itself is the fact that firms look like they may actually get on board should the scheme come into effect in 2017. Addleshaw Goddard has already said it will give some of its existing legal executive apprentices the new options and others are also looking at their training choices.
The ramifications could be huge – as demonstrated by the accounting profession, where apprenticeships have transformed entry routes into the industry at the same time as university fees have soared.
It may also mean firms would not have to recruit so far ahead of time – meaning they would have better visibility of actual market conditions when they hire and bring people into the firm.
Should the industry get on board with the plans – and I think it should – an overhaul of legal training, complete with apprenticeships leading to full qualification, would go a long way to addressing the profession's perpetual social mobility problem. While no scheme is ever likely to create full equality across all educational and social boundaries, this looks like it stands the best chance since the days of the articled clerk.
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 AllWickard AI Partners With Law School to Bring Legal AI Training to Ethiopia
What Firms in Australia Are Doing to Attract and Retain Lawyers in a Competitive Market
7 minute readReport: Toronto Law Students Did Not Breach School's Code of Conduct With Pro-Palestinian Letter
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