AIBU to quit my job and retrain as a solicitor?

[Moobieboobie]

Should I not? I hate my job (civil service) although fairly well paid and have always hankered after joining the legal profession. But, I am almost 40 and have three children would I even have a chance at getting a training contract? I can self fund the GDL and LPC, but would need to have a training contract in place once the qualifications are completed. Am I totally unrealistic as I will be competing with lots of young'uns!?

I'm a lawyer in a big City firm. As it happens, I'm leaving, but more because of London than because of the job!

I got my TC in my last year at university (doing a non-law degree) after completing a two week 'vacation scheme' (a work experience placement). The firm paid the fees for my GDL and LPC plus a modest maintenance grant, and then I had a guaranteed job for two years. I had to apply for a qualified position within the firm, but most places have decent trainee retention rates and those who weren't kept on have all managed to find decent positions elsewhere.

I've been pretty lucky - it's a good firm, and I was basically sorted for four years with a very good chance of securing a position on qualification. It meant that I didn't have to take a massive risk by shelling out for the fees and then not being able to get a TC. I like my firm and have found the work interesting and challenging (although there were some pretty tedious tasks when I was a trainee).

The down sides: I basically need to live in London to work at this firm, which sucks and pretty much negates the effect of the good salary! And the hours can be quite, quite horrendous. I got some flack on another thread for saying that I sometimes work 100 hours a week - believe it or not, it happens. There are some lawyers who work part-time, but it's not common at all and even those that do basically end up working from home on their 'days off'. Many of the female lawyers go in house when they have a baby - private practice in this area is not conducive to raising a family.

So all in all, I wouldn't recommend this kind of job if you've already got a family. But I am speaking from my own experience of the law, which is quite narrow. There are so many things you can do with legal qualifications outside of the City.

Also it's a good start even if you don't like it. Much easier to move down from a good profession and high income to other jobs than move up from say my graduate son post man's job (if you want to "move up" - whatever up is). Most parents would agree it's good for children to have something fairly solid to fall back on and a career in law is not too bad for that.

I have what for many people would be the dream legal job. It's interesting, very well paid, flexible hours and nice people. If I thought you could walk in to a job like mine, I would advoacate the legal profession in a heart beat.

The reality is that whilst big law firms are willing to offer more flexible hours to encourage female staff to stay, you have to prove you are worth it first with long and stressful hours. Then you have to have the luxury to be able to pick your field and team - to be able to do what interests you with people you like. In the current economic climate, this is not easy and jobs are very competitive. You often only have the option of qualifying into very limited areas as other areas are not taking NQs.

Finally (and this is not based on any knowledge at all), I wonder if firms would be biased because of your age and family circumstances? I know a government worker who requalified as a lawyer when she was around 40. She was very good but only managed to get an interview when she left her age off her CV and included a photo showing how youthful she was. One interviewed, she got a training contract but she definitely felt her age was against her.

Jilly - I really don't agree that a law career offers that kind of "solid" background any more. The profession has been commoditised to a huge extent, and offers few transferable skills unless one has a very niche practice area (e.g. M&A/investment bank).

Goosey - I had wondered the same thing, but based on family circumstances more than age. It is inevitably the case that trainees with family commitments are less "attractive" because it is assumed they cannot commit to the beasting long hours.

Who puts their age on a CV these days? It wouldn't occur to me.

Did you go to a top university for your first degree? Top grades?

I tried getting a place, oh, 20 years ago, but the stumbling block was really my university degree from a Uni that was not quite "top".

Recent cuts, significantly reduced resources and staff morale has meant the job is no longer what it was. There is an expectation to now do double the amount of work with no increase in salary and promotion prospects are minimal. Yes, they are 'flexible' but to what cost, I regularly work 60+ hours per week in order to get the job done. The end result is I have come to not only resent but absolutely hate my working environment.

I think this is true for the vast majority of professional careers these days - academia, law, architecture, medicine - pretty much everything.

I personally wish I'd left school at 18 and become a property developer - I'd be far better off now! But the boat has rather sailed on that too, now.

I suspect qualifying as a London lawyer is probably going to stand my daughters in better stead than their brother the graduate postman, though. You have a lot of options when you leave large London law firms. I work for myself. One of my daughters works in house. Some people are able to move into management. Some move to the bar. Some set up their own business. I think it remains a good solid base for lots of careers whereas pounding the streets carrying your mail bag may not.

It is no surprise my children's friends' parents want the children to have a profession so things like dentistry, medicine, law are very popular at careers nights.

As I mentioned upthread, I would very much steer the "children" towards medicine and dentistry (and definitely medicine if my DH's not-very-strenuous hours are anything to go by). However, the OP is aged 40 and already has a career, so I don't imagine she will be hanging out at many careers fairs.

Comparing law and being a postie is rather simplistic though - of course law is a better option in those circumstances.

Sorry but I think you are too old. It's not worth it. How would you cope with the 2 years as a trainee regularly working 8am-2am for 3-4 days in a row when a big contract needs doing? This is what one of my friends is currently doing, her contact is with one of the firms from the magic circle.

I agree with everyone else.

I'm an employment lawyer. I earn an awful lot of money but there has been luck and risk taking along the way. Plus I've been doing this for nearly 20 years.

Employment law as a field is not one to go into. The number of non qualified employment advisers out there is astonishing and the market is becoming more and more deregulated which means the problem is only going to get worse. I'm not sure what the SRA and law society are doing but the profession can't take this for much longer. I make a lot of money because I work for myself and can charge very low rates but most firms can't afford to do that because of their high overheads.

Anyone who self funds law school nowadays is crazy.

I do wonder if in 15-years there is going to be a shortage of lawyers?

No, because we won't do legal work in the same way. At my last firm and the one before that they were moving to a top and bottom model. Partners supervising junior and unqualified staff with only a few in the middle (who will eventually become the partners). Why pay an NQ at NQ rates when a paralegal can do the same work for half the money.

There are so many legal services providers using unqualified staff now. My DSis works for one and they have lots of big name clients. People aren't bothered as long as the work gets done and its cheap. Its a false economy in some cases but in others they'll get away with it.

Nobody seems to have asked the op WHY she wants to do this? Maybe she really loves the law and wants to practice? I don't think she should be put off doing it if she is really interested, but she needs to understand that with kids under 10, it's going to be a rough ride.

I'm a finance lawyer and I work in the magic circle. I am lucky to have a husband who works much more flexible hours at his big 4 accountancy firm so we manage the kids and our family lives etc better than many.

Even now, I find that 100 hour weeks exist - regularly and even in areas considered "nicer" or "less stressful" like pensions, employment and real estate. Clients want more work for less money so everyone is constantly under pressure to prove themselves. Not least of which, the juniors and trainees.

Trainees are expected to try to impress as an absolute basic requirement - there are 90 trainees in an intake here and only around 60-70 jobs a year. All of them come from good academic backgrounds and work hard, so we are constantly looking for any way to work out who we want for the permanent jobs. It's ruthless, and it means that they work longer and longer hours to impress.

I'm going to get flamed for this but... If my trainee told me she had to leave before about 7pm to pick up her kids, spend time with them etc etc I would respect it and I wouldn't stop her doing so (I'm a nice supervisor) but she would have to be absolutely amazing academically, the most efficient person I had ever met and an all round superstar for me to recommend her for a qualification job over a younger person who was good at the job, efficient, worked long hours whenever required, produced more work and could give more to the role. I have to consider the firm when I give my recommendations, not just each person. It's ruthless here.

I have friends in smaller firms up North. They practice in areas like property, employment, and dispute resolution. They don't work 100 hour weeks, but they do stay in the office regularly until 7pm and they are expected to drop everything on a weekend if a massive piece of work that the firm can profit from comes up. They have less job stability than me because their firms are smaller, which means that they constantly have to compete in the way that our trainees do and they don't earn amazing money (it's good, but no better than a civil service role). It's different but equally as ruthless and stressful.

To change industry at your age you need to be certain that you can commit. if you love the law and want to practice it that badly, just do it and be aware of the commitment required from you. But if you're basing your decision on what you've seen on TV and heard from people about the wages, don't do it - it's not worth it.

Many law firms now only give training contracts to people who have done vacation placements.
I would do some work experience or job shadowing before you make a decision.
Listen to atticus about the restructuring of the profession, its happening at all law firms, fewer qualified lawyers and lots of paralegals. How would you feel if you gaveup your job to be a paralegal? Could you afford that, what about your pension?

I think the people on here sayin "you never regret persuing a dream", "anything is possible if you are committed enough" do not have any knowledge of the current legal profession and the risk the op would be taking, of course she could regret it if she pays thousands of pounds in fees and cannot get a training contract.

As well as law firms only giving tc's to those who have completed vacation placements,there are also those who won't give you one unless you have worked at the firm for at least 1 year as a paralegal. No external recruitment for trainees whatsoever.

Heels99 very wise words.

DuchessofCambridge - hey, radical thought. Why not give both those trainees a job on qualification so they can do the work in half the time and both go home at a reasonable time? Oh, because that would reduce the enormous PEP earned by the senior partners.

I actually think your comment in pretty appalling, and indicative of why so few mothers stay in city law firms. Employment isn't my field but it also sounds like indirect sex discrimination to me.

YABU (and crazy) to suggest quitting your job. Start the GDL part-time and see what you make of it and where you get with training contracts. Lawyers are nearly all risk adverse - don't give up a secure job for an uncertainty!

For what it's worth I don't think the age thing is that big a deal anymore. At least one over 40 in my trainee intake and several in their 30s. The bigger issue may be that its just harder to demonstrate at interview (and during the training contract) that the opportunity to be a trainee at a firm is the best thing that has ever happened to you. Plus late nights are far less fun when you have to get up with the kids regardless. There is the issue of 'face doesn't fit' though.

Advantages to law are that it's decently paid (or very well paid depending on who you work for), firms are increasingly becoming more flexible particularly as you advance (large volumes of work but the firm doesn't necessarily care where you physically do it) and you get to interpret this mysterious language that makes complete sense to you but clients seem happy to spend large amounts of money paying you for (even if sometimes they could just Google it).

Disadvantages are the 24/7 culture - hours are long and unpredictable. I will rarely make mid-week plans with friends who aren't lawyers and my boss expects me to pick up emails promptly even on weekends where I'm not expecting to work. As a junior your work needs supervising so you will spend time hanging around until your supervisor gets to it. Time recording is sole destroying - basically anything that can't be charged doesn't count (and there's a lot that can't be charged) and e-billing systems means it can take nearly as long to work out how to record the time as do the work. Plus you have to spend your time with people happy to have a 10 minute argument over the correct use of a semicolon (sadly I probably see that last one as a positive).

wearenotinkansas Because Duchess is working for a business, not a charity?

It's not very family friendly but neither are the clients of the Magic Circle - I was articled there in less stressful times and I know whereof I speak. They want the work done yesterday, and they are paying for it.

weare

Why would a law firm take on a candidate unable to fit the role as required?

Andrew - running a successful and profitable business doesn't necessarily mean running your staff into the ground because the few owners at the top want to take how obscene drawings. Plenty of other industries manage it without the ridiculous hours city law firms demand. And I was a trainee in a top 10 firm and a partner in a city firm so I also know of what I speak

Alis - well it's potentially discrimation for one. Also, why cut out plenty of very talented people who might want to have a life outside of work. Also, having seen it from the client side, it is extremely irritating to be hanging around waiting for a deal to close at 11pm on a Friday night, when if the the firms involved had employed a few more staff it could all have been wrapped up by 5pm.

The whole system is knackered and the only people it benefits are a few (usually male) senior equity partners.

Oh I think it's shit, weare. But that is the attitude they take. And if anywhere knows how to circumvent the law without breaking any...it'll be a law firm.

If I could have my time again I'd never do a law degree never mind try to pursue a career in the field.

I'll be having a change of career once I've had this baby.