The recent news that Deutsche Bank will no longer pay panel law firms for work carried out by junior lawyers has provoked a strong reaction across the legal profession, with a Legal Week survey finding almost 60% of partners think the demands are unreasonable. Here, Fieldfisher managing partner Michael Chissick sets out why, despite external pressures, firms need to continue investing in trainees 

We all know the financial pressures that GCs face. The legal sector has risen to the challenge in a variety of ways – offshoring and northshoring, alternative fee structures, new technology and automated processes or artificial intelligence.

One area that has recently been highlighted is the cost and use of trainees. For some firms, the cost of training may simply be absorbed. But there is a concern that to address the expense of recruiting and training the next generation of solicitors, firms will hire fewer trainees – or not train them in some areas of work vital to the learning process where the cost cannot be recovered.

Law firms must continue to invest in trainees and learning and development programmes. The impact on the profession otherwise is obvious: fewer trainees mean fewer future partners.

The blunt truth is: law firms don't make money from trainees. Each trainee costs a City firm on average £250,000 during the period of training.

However, this cost is important – both as an investment to the firm, but also as an obligation to develop the next generation of solicitors.

As a dedicated employer, we've increased our number of trainees by 30% in the past two years, unlike, for example, some US firms based in London that do not offer a trainee solicitor programme.

We must provide clients with well rounded and properly trained lawyers. A vital element in this process is taking trainees to client meetings. We can't start scrimping on 'doubling up' at meetings, or having partners taking notes. The role of a lawyer is more than just technical. It also involves client, engagement, business development, negotiation and soft skills – key areas that are learned from observing meetings, developing peer and networking groups and experiencing life outside of the office. These skills provide the client with more effective, efficient, rounded and commercially aware lawyers in the future.

We also need to address Generation XY's expectations and desires. They expect to be at the coalface and highly trained. They have invested a lot of money themselves in becoming lawyers – and won't join a profession where they are concerned about a lack of proper training. If we lose the best graduates to other sectors, the supremacy of City lawyering and its balance of payment surplus could be in jeopardy.

Offering traineeships and other entry models is vital to diversity and social mobility in the sector. If we start reducing these opportunities, we regress into a profession where only those who can afford to do it become lawyers – as continues to be an issue in certain areas of the Bar.

Even with the potential introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination, as a sector we have an obligation to provide proper training. We need to seriously think about how training will work – not just firms – as in-house lawyers often train or start in private practice. These are questions that need to be addressed, without the profession radically reducing or removing trainees from the equation.

The moral imperative, as well as the numerous benefits of having a diverse workforce, means that we must continue to invest in future lawyers.