To ask your advice about re-training in law with a young family?

[jinglebellmel]

Okay so first of all, sorry, I realise this isn't really an aibu or particularly interesting but hoping it'll get seen by more people here.

I'm 33 with 2 preschool children, currently on mat leave from a fairly unfulfilling but flexible/family friendly admin job, and am feeling a little as though life has passed me by! This isn't what I'd imagined myself doing, I'm reasonably bright but for one reason or another just don't feel I've made the right decisions or fulfilled my potential career wise. Law is something I'd always wanted to do when I was younger and I'm wondering if I should just bite the bullet and try to retrain.

I'm hoping that some of you might be able to give advice. From what I can see the pathway would be a graduate diploma in law (which I could complete via distance learning while my baby is so small), a lpc or bar qualification and then 2 year training contract.

So assuming I'm correct with the above my questions are,
Would doing the graduate diploma via distance learning be seen as less valid than attending university? Is there any financial help available or is this all self funded? How hard is it to find a training contract? Are all training contracts full time hours? Are they paid? How difficult is it to find a job once newly qualified? What is the starting salary? Is there much option for part time/flexible working in this profession?

I know that's a lot of questions sorry! Would really appreciate any insight at all.

That's really encouraging, emsy, thanks.

I've been thinking of doing a Masters in Law which includes the GDL. I'm currently a nurse and want out and I am interested in law but do not want to be a solicitor or barrister but was more thinking along the lines of medical advisor type role. However, from reading all these comments I am assuming that would be fairly hard to get into too.

What is a medical advisor? It's not a job role I've ever heard of. Some firms who do clinical negligence work employ ex nurses to review medical records. I would imagine those types of jobs would be fairly few and far between tho.

Medical advisors work in pharmaceauticals.
They do clinical research and tend to be trained pharmacists.

Ah right - What has that got to do with law? I think I've lost the thread a bit!!

Nothing at all to do with law.

Watching this with interest. I've been thinking the same as you for the last 8-10 years but it was never the right time. No I'm 41 and it's too late I fear. Definitely go for it

I am a lawyer- qualified in 2002 and spent the time since working in the City. I resigned last year and am now in academia.

In your position, I'd think very hard about what is you like about the idea of a career in law and whether there are other careers which would offer you the same thing. The only good reason to pick law is that you find it- the law- interesting. Of course lawyers so more than deal with the law (depending on the type of lawyer they are, they might need commercial judgment, marketing skills, ability to deal with people etc etc) but all these other parts of the job are relevant to lots of careers.

I loved my job but the hours were bonkers and very hard to combine with family life- long periods when I simply didn't see my children in the evenings as was never home before midnight. High street hours are more reasonable. Either way you need top notch childcare which will eat up a large part of your salary, esp while you are a trainee.

I am not trying to put you off- as I say, I loved my job in the City, I find the law fascinating and as a career it can be both intellectually fulfilling and very well paid. But it's not without substantial downsides, so you need to think hard.

NeverTwerk Naked, I'm really pleased to hear about flexible working that actually works. I think being in house must make this more doable- my experience (in private practice) is that firms often try to be open minded about flexible working but clients object.

I can understand this, in a way- if you're paying hundreds of pounds an hour you expect your lawyer to be available when you want them and, while some clients can get their heads round the idea that you have other clients who might take up your time, none react very well to the idea that you just don't work Fridays, or whatever. The upshot is that, IME, most private practice lawyers who work PT end up doing FT hours for PT pay.

I also think this is more of an issue for junior lawyers. IME clients are more likely to accommodate their external lawyer working flexibly when that lawyer is someone they have instructed for years and who they consider a trusted advisor. In the case of junior lawyers, however, I've known clients specifically ask not to have anyone on their jobs who works PT. Brave law firm that says no.