Whether to fund daughter's LPC?

[merlehaggard]

Hi, a question to those who know about legal careers. My daughter is in her final year of Russell Group Law LLB. She ideally would like a training contract and would like to work in medical negligence. She has no interest in the very large commercial firms but would realistically be happy working in lots of areas - either within law or in HR, train as an accountant etc. Her first choice would be as a Solicitor though but is very concerned by how hard it is to get a training contract. She is happy to keep trying over a period of years to improve her CV and keep applying though, by working as a legal secretary, paralegal etc.

However, she is also interested in the CPS. To work there, you need to have already done your LPC. They will not fund it, but a lot of Solicitors' that she will be applying to will.

To pay for her LPC, we will have to increase our mortgage. She has always said that we should because she may get a training contract from a firm who will, and they would not be more interested in her just because she had already done the LPC. After speaking to someone whose daughter graduated 5 years ago (during recession when training contracts were even worse to get), she said that they paid for hers and she wouldn't have got anywhere without it.

I'm sorry that this is so long winded but would it be worth (in your opinion) funding the LPC so that she could start studying it next year?

I agree that only six applications for a TC seems staggeringly low. When I was trying to get pupillage, now many, many years ago I made easily 100s of applications. So too did my friends trying to go the solicitors route.

stitch10yearson I agree. I read that thinking that there is no chance that my child would feel obligated to us. That is not how our family is. My dad is a very generous man, would do anything for his family and has helped us out on countless occasions. That is the way I have been brought up and he always says that if you can't give with a free heart, then not to give at all.

I also feel that adding it to our mortgage wouldn't be such a huge issue if it would help her. The thing is, what I'm getting from those more knowledgeable than me, is that it wouldn't help her. This was really her thinking too and I'm very grateful for their opinions. It stops me thinking "should I do more?".

atticusclaw £45 is the sum that most students will be leaving uni with. It is very average. It consists of fees of £9k x 3 plus maintenance loan of approx £4.5-£5k x 3.

She did not apply for training contracts in the first year, because she got a high 2.2. She was a bit disappointed by this because she had worked v hard and had previously for A*AABb in her A levels. She later found out that there were in fact very few 2.1's in her year and the vast majority were 2.2's and lower. She made a few applications for vacation schemes but knew she wouldn't get anywhere. The general advise was to get a 2.1 in the second year and then apply. This is what she did.

I mention HR because, at a careers event recently a huge firm were there and she spoke to them. It just made her realise that there are other jobs to do with a law degree. She likes people and said that she thinks she would be happy working in lots of areas. But being a Solicitor is her first choice.

Also then, if she finishes her degree and works in a high street firm as a legal secretary/paralegal would that be considered good experience, or should she try to work in the larger firms - the ones with whom she might like to get a TC with?

Also, does it matter that she is behind on applying for TC? Our original plan was for her to finish her degree and then make her TC applications from home, when she had more time on her hands whilst improving her CV and to just keep on like this.

I am an employment lawyer and so there is a big overlap with what I do and HR. To be an HR consultant or professional though she needs CIPD which in itself will cost her money. She wouldn't want to self fund the LPC and then find that she goes into HR and has to then fund CIPD on top of that.

I think she needs to have a good think. Accountancy is completely different from contentious law (which is what medical negligence would be). So too is HR. Accountancy and law at the top levels pay far, far more than HR (although there are of course many people in smaller firms who are lawyers and accountants and will never earn more than around £45k.)

What is it about being a solicitor that attracts her? Does she like the pubic speaking (advocacy) and the legal argument? Does she like the lifelong weekly academic learning involved, does she like the eye for detail required, being able to find the one thing that makes your case in a file of 1500 pages, does she like the meticulous drafting required? (Does she like the long hours, enormous amount of stress and pressure, piles and piles of admin, constant money chasing and forever trying to win new work to replace the cases that settle)

£45k seems a lot of debt to me but I appreciate things have changed. I still however feel that to burden herself with more debt before she has secured her training contract shouldn't be a step she takes lightly.

Please don't take this the wrong way but if she worked really hard and got a 2:2 last year, law might not be for her. The competition for training contracts is so great and plenty of applicants have firsts.

Working as a paralegal is good work experience. Paralegals effectively do what trainees do but for a lot less money (which is why there are far more paralegals around nowadays than there used to be and far fewer trainees). Working as a legal secretary is not good work experience and won't enhance her CV at all.

atticusclaw thank you very much. I will have to ask her what draws her to law but she is very meticulous, is a stickler for detail, is very hard working and is a very logical mathsy type person. You are right about funding LPC and then having to change career paths needing more study. That is def something to be avoided, but to honest, all the replies saying don't do it have made me realise that it would not be a good thing to do.

I know what you mean about a 2.2 in the first year, and was originally worried but has since been led to believe that it is very common in the first year as they are marked with the same strict criteria as the final year but are still learning how to write essays/read cases effectively. She has been told that their marks tend to go up year on year. In fact one of the few students who are expecting to get a first, only just scraped a 2.1 in the first year. She's at a good red brick uni and only a tiny percentage leave with a first (approx 3%). She got a mid 2.1 in her second year and is hoping for a high 2.1 in her final year.

Also, she partly only applied for 6/7 TCs because she said that they were the only firms she really wanted to work for. In addition, each application was taking a day to complete. Is this the wrong attitude? She she be applying a bit more generally and be less selective? Also, would being a paralegal in a high street firm be enough? Or would it need to be a city firm?

I don't think she shouldn't fund it herself. I just think she shouldn't fund it herself until she has a training contract. If it's with a bigger firm she'll have saved herself the money and if it's with a small firm then fine, she knows she has the contract and should make the financial commitment. It's just not something you should do thinking the training contract will automatically follow.

She can't be selective like that. It's fair enough saying only city firms initially before spreading the net a bit wider or saying the city is not for me I only want to look at larger regionals but not to limit herself to 6/7 specific firms. Particularly since she's forming her impressions of these firms on the basis of what? a website? We all say great things about ourselves on our websites. Lots of "horrible" law firms with snazzy websites. Lots of those "horrible" law firms will also have people there who think they're great law firms.

Paralegal work anywhere will be useful on her CV if she has time out.

I'm a solicitor of 15 years. Small firm - 60 ish staff over 2 offices.

We only have one trainee at a time. We don't recruit trainees they come as paralegals first. All the recent trainees have done their LPC part time alongside working as a paralegal/trainee.

Could she apply for a paralegal position. Then review matters in a few months. Good experience/good for CV.

The problem with doing the LPC then not doing into a TC is it becomes stale. I have seen lots of paralegals at the firm with degree/lpc who realistically have no chance of getting a TC and the staler the LPC gets the chance dimishes further.

Would agree that she seems to have left it quite late to look for a training contract. I have worked as a lawyer for 20 years and taught part-time on the LPC too.

She absolutely cannot limit herself to applying to the 6/7 firms she wants to end up with. Presumably she has applied to them and got nowhere so far. She needs to extend her net as wide as she can. Also, I would caution against picking a specialism before you have actually tried it out in practice. The reality of law in practice is nothing at all like studying it. Fun subjects become dull and vice versa. She might find that in practice, another kind of law is for her. Prior to my TC I had never even come across the area of law I have specialised in for 20 years.

Also, is she still on line for a 2-2 or have her marks gone up to a 2-1? Only ask as many firms would bin the potential 2-2s on an initial application sift without giving them any consideration, so she may want to bear this in mind. If she is now on-line for a 2-1, can she minimise references (or drop altogether) to the 2-2 marks? If not, does she have any mitigating factors for them?

If she is still looking at a 2-2, she should look carefully at which firms require a minimum 2-1 and which do not.

Best of luck to her.

GooseyLoosey yes, her marks have gone up to 2.1. At the end of the second year she got a mid 2.1 and is hoping for a high 2.1. Apparently, it all becomes a bit more achievable in the final year (so she has been told) when they can choose their modules and a lot of assessment is done by essays either wholely or in part.

She hasn't exactly got extenuating circumstances but was working in paid employment 25 hours + per week in the first year. It was an office job she had whilst doing her A levels and felt under pressure (from the company) to keep it and did this by travelling home for weekends/working from uni. After her first year results, she gave it up.

I can't really see how she can not put her results in her CV as it would stand out as something to hide. I just hope that she ends up with a 2.1, lots of paralegal experience and her first year result just becomes history.

I wouldn't expect to see module marks or first year/second year marks on a cv. I wouldn't have a clue what mine were. The only grade that matters is the final grade. I'd personally put "predicted x"

Thank you dixiechick and outtaideas. I think she does need to apply for paralegal work on completion of her degree.

What we've learned is that (1) she needs to expand the firms that she applies to and be less fussy based on what subjects are more interesting to study because in practice they may be different (2) to only self fund LPC if she has a training contract in place and that this can be done part time or by working for a year to fund it (3) she needs paralegal experience - not legal secretary (4) she really needs structured vacation schemes with the bigger firms - not a few weeks at high street firms (5) she needs to take her actual year marks out of her cv and just put predicted 2.1. (6) it looks better on your cv to train with a bigger firm. Anything else? I really do appreciate all your comments and suggestions. I'm gathering information so that I know a bit more when she comes home for Christmas. We were then going to discuss it more. Nowhere else would I be able to ask lots of lawyers their opinions and get almost immediate answers!

She also needs to realise that just because she applies to Browne Jacobson for example and they do medical negligence work, it does not mean she will get a medical negligence seat. You would hope that most firms will try to accommodate particular desires but they are more likely to prioritise their need for junior resource. If the property team is calling out for help and the medical negligence team is less busy (or is very popular with trainees all wanting a seat), she'll be doing property and not med neg.
I recall one trainee having an enormous tantrum over this one year. There were hysterical tears and everything. Needless to say that impacted on the firm's perception of her and she did not get an NQ offer.

Thank you very much atticusclaw. You and others have helped hugely. On her cv then, currently she lists every core subject she has studied in the first two years eg contract, employment and puts a mark by each one. Do you think then that she should take that all out to just put "predicted 2.1"? She would then not be able to list her free choice subjects this year - which are the non core subjects. Would they not want to know about these?

Also, she has not taken taxation or other commercially type subjects. Has she not burnt her bridges with the larger firms by doing this? Or is it the non commercial large law firms that she should be applying to? Sorry I seem a bit unknowledgeable but I don't work in law.

It hadn't quite occurred to me that you apply for a general TC and specialise after. The way she was talking, I was thinking that you applied to train in your chosen area. She hadn't said that but the fact that she was targeting certain firms made me think it. I can see that she is over thinking it and thinking too far ahead. She just needs to get a TC and worry about it from there. Is it fair to think that "I don't want to work in a large commercial firm" (magic circle) or should she just apply anywhere and everywhere at this stage?

I'm not surprised that the girl was not kept on after her TC. I really think that my daughter would be very grateful for any opportunity at all!

There's a whole host of firms that aren't magic circle (the big four) who are considered commercial. There are probably about 250 firms that fund training contracts and do commercial work - some more litigation/insurance minded (RPC, Clyde and Co, Capsticks) and some more finance orientated (Olswang, Pinsents, DLA Piper). Any TC anywhere in these firms will mean she can go pretty much anywhere. I trained at one such firm and had the pick of NQ jobs.

IMO you apply everywhere and anywhere (but then if asked at interview what type of firms you have applied to you give by way of truthful example a few firms very similar the one you are interviewing at ).

In an ideal world she would probably list her subjects but given her subject marks so far, I wouldn't. It will mean she immediately goes onto the reject pile since all they'll notice is the list of 2:2s. Its really something she should speak to her careers adviser about in the law department. Some firms will insist you complete their own form and will make you give the information.

You'd be amazed at the way some trainees behave. They do tend to think they're the bees knees. I'm probably outing myself here since I have told many people about this but my personal favourite was the trainee who said she couldn't come to court because she had a sunbed booked for that lunchtime.

I had a few 2:2s in my first year. Didn't we all? I did an English degree so was in the bath applying in the summer of my final year, and I think by the time I submitted the forms I had my 2.1. If she applies by 31 July 2015 for 1 September 2017 TCs she will have her degree results, probably, so this is all academic (excuse the pun). It is a little bit stricter than when I did it in 2006, but not much, and I don't think many firms would turn their nose up at a 2.1 that included some first year modules at 2.2. Explain about the first year office job by all means, but not in a defensive way: just say she did X Y and Z responsibilities all while working 25 hours a week in an office which gave her A B and C experiences. Then relate how she could bring those skills to a training contract (and do say it directly: lawyers are v direct).

Totally second PPs saying you don't know where you want to work - she should by all means go to a more litigious firm if she wants, but I went in thinking I wanted to be a catastrophic injury lawyer and then a district judge, or maybe criminal defence if I moved on qualification, and came out preferring the work of non-contentious commercial property which was pretty unexpected to say the least. There's a massive difference between 1. the law 2. the subject (e.g. it is de facto quite interesting to sit and read medical records) and 3. the work. For my the latter was most important: I have the kind of brain which would far rather draft a lease than send a million petty contentious letters which I found very piecemeal. So: you never know.

Erm, I wasn't in the bath. Wow. What was I even trying to say there? In the BATCH!