To consider retraining as a solicitor at 33?

[northernbella]

Hi all,

Just hoping for some advice about retraining as a solicitor (I'm most interested in immigration or human rights law). I am researching other sources too but thought I might try and tap into the huge wealth of experience on here!

I graduated 5 years ago (languages degree). I am now at civil service middle management level in a role I find very interesting with prospects.

However, i have been thinking seriously about law as a career since uni. I did a couple of internships with law firms (immigration) and free advice centres. I found the work really interesting and rewarding.

Also, lawyers I know personally have said that they think i would be well suited to the job (when asked for their objective advice on retraining, not fishing for compliments!!). I worked in some immigration roles with the civil service.

The reason I didn't train straight away was that I wanted some time out of studying for health reasons but this is largely stabilised.

Currently single but would like a family.

Does anyone have any experience or views on retraining at this point, is it realistically too late? It would need to be part time for financial reasons. Any advice on funding sources would be helpful.

Would law firms be likely to favour younger candidates for training contracts? Also my degree was a 2:2 as I had health issues during finals (I could prove this). Is this likely to put employers off?

Many thanks in advance!

That's what I'm thinking DragonMamma I will explore GLS and funding through a training contract but it doesn't seem a good bet to self fund.

I am a solicitor. I was 30 when I went to law school. It is absolutely do-able and being older will not be a negative for you per se.

A 2.2 will be a problem. Even with an explanation about the health problems, it will be difficult. You will not get through the recruitment process even to interview stage with a 2.2 at any of the larger City or regional law firms. It is those firms who will pay your law school fees if they offer you training contract. I would not spend your own money on law school fees because it is at least £20k for the 2 years these days and no guarantee of a training contract at the end of it. I would not start law school without first securing a training contract. Law firms interview for these 2 years in advance.

Your best bet really would be if you have any contacts at some law firms, to try to use those to get a bit of work experience, anything to get your foot in the door and in front of people who might see past the 2.2 and be willing to give you a chance.

Solicitor here. Agree with everything that's been said - your age and a 2:2 aren't an automatic 'no' to law but the competitiveness / low number of training contracts mean that lots of highly qualified graduates end up in low paid positions just to get a foot in the door. If you're in middle management already it will be a long time until you're earning an equivalent salary. Also, I'm guessing you get relatively good perks such as decent maternity pay and your employer contributing to your pension? That's also quite rare in the law.

I didn't qualify until I was 30 so went on to have children relatively quickly. Although I was lucky to get agreement to part time hours (I was the only female solicitor in the department and I think they were worried about saying no!) it often means you're seen as uncommitted and you'll be passed over for promotion. Law firms are notoriously poor at equal ops for part timers / women - although it's improving (slowly). That's something to bear in mind.

I work in a competitive industry and have a 2:2. My husband died when I was pregnant and just 22 in the final year of my degree, and a quick note about the situation on any application form has meant it has never been an issue, even when it states that I should have a 2:1

I should state that I also have an MA and a PhD now. I've genuinely never had anything but kindness about the situation I was in.

A 2:2 doesn't automatically write you off, especially if you have anything post-grad

There are no easy entry points in law, unfortunately. It's all hugely competitive. Your age is no issue at all - there are lots of second career lawyers. But your 2.2 and need for flexibility are. Law firms are getting better with flexibility but courts are not and in immigration you would probably have a lot of court work.

eurochick OP clarified that she meant part-time/flexible studying, so she didn’t have to leave her current job, rather than needing part time or flexible hours when she started work as a lawyer. Though of course she does say that she’d like a family one day so will probably need flexibility eventually in the same way as most working Mums.

OP, on that point, if you do want kids and a career in law your age is against you in that it’s easier to go part time when you have a good few years’ experience under your belt. It’s a profession where generally working very long hard hours in the beginning is standard.
I am a solicitor, came to it a very conventional way. I am not going to repeat what a lot of others have said but agree with most. I think you’d be mad to give up a job that you like, has prospects and also gives you exposure to the areas of law in which you are interested in order to requalify. Civil service are famously flexible and have all sorts of opportunities. In the areas of kw that interest you the grass is most definitely not greener.

Thanks all, Jessie that's another point that plays on my mind. Thinking whether I'd need to put off having a family further to get established in a legal career. Maybe this is another area where the government legal scheme would be a bit more forgiving (if I was successful!).

Btw, I'm not saying that women have to choose in the normal run of things, and there are clearly a lot of you who balance both family and legal careers just fine, it's just that the timing for me is a bit awkward as I'd be qualifying in my late 30s and my health issue could cause delays in TTC if I waited.

Have a read of the book “the secret barrister” - a very eye-opening account of the current system.

Appreciate that I'm going against the flow here but if you want to study part-time, a funded GDL isn't a option - the firms who fund recruit two years out (giving offers in the summer before the GDL starts mainly). You won't get funding early enough to fund a part-time GDL.

You need to be aware you could be throwing the money away but I self funded the GDL and it wasn't terrible. I could pay monthly. I did it in full knowledge I wouldn't get the money back though and the (vast) majority of the people I studied with never qualified. In fact I can only think of me and two others out of a class of about 20.

Oh and if your exceptional circumstances are akin to Flamingo's plus your other academics (eg a-levels and year 1 and 2 results) are strong the 2.2 won't be an issue, I agree. Depends what you mean by 'sick' really (no need to share!)

Can I just say your 33 not 83! I'm 38 and (along the same lines as yourself) am going to be starting a Humanities study next year, hopefully leading to a degree, then onto Law (possibly...will see where that goes...)...but I don't think your ever too old to retrain/learn/requalify etc...- as for funding there are many ways to retrain (Open Uni has a great advice page)

I don't think anyone has said age is an issue. I have a friend who qualified in her 50s.

There aren't that many ways to qualify as a lawyer in the UK and the only funding is through law firms (with the exception of a very few scolarships).

Yes, it's not age per se that's the problem. It's age and stage. Thirty three is not old. I know people who qualified plenty older. And if OP had already had her children, or didn't want any, or was a bloke, no problem. But she's in a position where she'd ideally be looking to TTC within the next 5 years, and meanwhile those 5 years are exactly the ones she'd need to be able to focus and prioritise career in order to complete the 2 years study and 2 years training contract. You ideally don't want to be doing those things at the same time, however old you are.

This is before we consider maternity benefits and flexitime, both of which the civil service is massively better for than law. You'd be throwing them away right at the point when you need them! And, let's be honest, there's maternity discrimination. I do know someone who managed to study and qualify with a maternity leave in the middle, but she'd already been paralegalling for the firm for a few years.

Obviously OP is getting different advice to what she'd get if she were 23 rather than 33, but it isn't about being too old. In fact I'd say someone who was a few years older but not looking to have kids in the next few years would be in a better position to switch career.

Flamingo so sorry about losing your husband at such a young age but what an amazing achievement.

And age will have an impact on earning. 34 to start on a part time basis without a law degree means that you will be about 38 before starting a training contract. The training contract will be two years and will not pay well unless you go to a big firm where pay is slightly better. Then if you have maternity time out (and depending on what area you qualify into) you could find that you are not earning more than about £25k-£30k even in your mid 40s. If you go into a lower paid field then you might never earn much more than £35k-£40k. I suspect this is not as good as the salary you're currently on in your mid level civil service role.

Age per se is not an issue (in fact to an extent clients probably perceive younger lawyers as less capable). Career progression is fairly linear though and you have to serve your time before earnings are at the level people 'expect' a solicitor to earn.

I'm in my mid 40s and there's no way I would do this job with a young family for that sort of money. It has too big an impact on family life.

Princess and Cloud those points make perfect sense.

To be honest I hadn't realised quite how long it would take after qualifying to match my current salary (roughly at the 35k mark but if I stay put I hope to go for promotion in about 2 years all being well which should be around 42k).

I didn't imagine that I'd step into a 100k job upon qualifying or anything (especially since I'm not looking to do corporate law or similar) and my interest isn't just about the pay but it wouldn't be ideal (also the hours) with hopefully a young family by then as you say.

My alternative plan is a part time masters in part of my academic field which would make me more eligible for specialist roles in the civil service and organisations like the UN. I have checked and could get onto the course at a good uni given the mitigating circs for my 2:2.

Starting to think this might be a better idea unless I get into the government legal scheme which I think i will still try for.

In addition to my interest in law, it just feels a bit more future- proof to have a heavyweight professional qualification such as law. In the CS I have seen senior staff made redundant and have to start again at entry level to be able to reapply for positions at their level of experience (there aren't many externally advertised roles at higher grades except for specialists in various areas). I know the pension etc are good but I have to admit I feel I need a bit more of a USP for job security and transferability.

I used to be a solicitor but changed careers before I became a Mum. Seeing the experiences of solicitors who were also Mums I wouldn't recommend it as a career choice (unless you have a partner who is willing to do the majority of childcare). My friends from law school have all either retrained or work in house (one of the biggest challenges for me was juggling the competing demands of different clients).

A lot of law is at risk from AI at the moment and the bulk/procedural work conducted by trainees and junior lawyers will be the first to go. I would trust it as a rock solid quification to protect against redundancy. At the higher levels of law, business development is also the most important factor in job security / promotion. Otherwise people don't make partner and become very expensive associates at risk of being replaced by a less experienced and cheaper option!

would not trust it!

The role of partner (which is where most of the 80k and upwards salaries are outside of London) is a role which is very heavily dependent on business development and having a client following. DH's firm requires a circa £1m client following for equity partnership. I now work for myself having worked for many years for a very large international firm and this is sustainable only because I have a client following built up over many years and am a specialist in a particular area. This takes time. I'm 20 years qualified. Partnership is no longer a realistic possibility at circa 6years PQE as it might have been in days gone by and neither is it a given (in fact far from it). I agree with pp in that the mid level Associate roles are those most at risk. Why would you pay someone £60-80k as a 10 year associate when you have hungry partner mouths to feed and you can get a cheap and reasonably useful junior lawyer circa 3-4 years PQE to assist.

OP you might get an NQ job in a large firm and get to the £35k mark reasonably quickly but there are certainly no guarantees and I remain concerned about your 2:2 being a significant barrier. Plus the unfortunate reality is that trainees and NQ (newly qualified) lawyers aren't actually able to do very much and so there are fewer firms who can afford to take them nowadays.

I think you're bonkers to even think about giving up the public sector pension!

Anecdotally we met up with DH's friends from University (Cambridge) who all did law. All women, all started off as solicitors all early 40s. All it goes without saying extremely good, personable, top of the tree people. Out of 6 just one was still solicitor in private practice, one in house the rest doing different careers.

Don’t worry about the age aspect. Admissions tutors and HR managers won’t even blink at that age.

You'll probably never be on 42k ever in human rights law OP.

Fair point, cloud, but I guess that problem varies between firms and I’ve known a few people change careers to law in early thirties without any issue.