Advice for a wannabe city lawyer?

[goldberg]

Hello. New here and have a question regarding becoming a lawyer. I read the Oxbridge application thread with interest so think here is a good place to ask.
Dd is in her first year at Oxford studying history and english.
She has some experience at some chambers and a law firm in london, as well as at home in Bristol.

She obviously has good GCSEs and decent A levels to get into Oxford. I’ve read that most vacation schemes are for second years onwards non-law.

There are about half a dozen schemes that are open to first year non law, but these aren’t vacation schemes. They’re 2 days-1 week. She has applied to them, and put effort into the application and had someone read them who does law at LSE. She has always gotten through the first round to be asked to take a test, she has passed three of these tests.

One then decided they weren’t taking things further and rejected her, but her score was above pass mark but not that high. Probably her paper application wasn’t good.

Another she took the test for and hasn’t heard anything back in 2 weeks whilst others got interviews. So she is taking that one as no.

It’s a similar story for another, and the others are yet to be reviewed by the law firms.

Is there any way she can improve her chances? She has used the career service and done lots and lots of practice tests, but they don’t really seem to improve her score that much.

She is part of law society too, and has been and even given a speech at an event so has lots of contacts on linkedin etc.

Does anyone have any advice how she can progress? She understands that she is just in first year, but it’s already very disheartening for her, as I am sure it is for others too.

My Ds applied a couple of MC /CIty law firms ( I m not a lawyer so forgive me for lack of nuance ) Ds ( 2nd year Oxford) didn't get an internship. I think he thought he should do it rather than really wanting to do it. Now GDL & applying for pupillage and whilst nothing yet - some 1st / 2nd interviews and he is so co much more enthusiastic because I think what he actually wants to do. Yes v v v competitive but at least he has the appetite for it

I agree with others - 1st u/g year far top soon to get despondent. Get her to get some work experience.

Oh re above I need to clean my keyboard - apologies for typos.

Well my DD knows lots of young city lawyers and they don’t regret it at the moment! Not that they surface for air much. None of her barrister friends regret it either. However the slog does mean some don’t make it and change their minds. That’s ok. It’s not a career for everyone. It is important to think whether a city firm is really what she wants because she needs to be realistic about the work hours required. The money helps though!

I loved being a lawyer and was highly valued by my firm. Until I let the side down by having children

Well I love being a lawyer and having babies in a sense was the making of it as it gave me even more in common with older lawyers ( qualified at 23, graduated at 20 in law) and my clients. No side letting down at all. We all differ I suppose.

Xenia - I know you from another forum and I think it's fair to say you are probably in the minority - the exception that proves the rule. In addition, you work on your own as sole practitioner. Fair play to you but that is not equivalent to the majority of female lawyers' experience.

I worked in big firms for quite a time - over 10 years whilst having small babies and toddlers and I have children who are lawyrs. I don't think I'm unqualified to say I and plenty of others like law. Even if people move into a different firm after starting in a firm that pays you a high salary and pays 1 - 2 years of law school fees and maintenance is not a bad start in life.

If people are not happy in particular jobs they should do something that does make them happy.

I like law too Xenia. I don't like the way that the majority of large firms treat female lawyers who have had children. I see a number of mediocre male lawyers being promoted over much more competent female lawyers who have children and/or caring obligations. It is a matter of fact that the vast majority of partners are still male. This is not because female lawyers are poorer lawyers or do not want to be partners.

The problem is not going to be restricted to law though is it.

I agree that in the better paid firms it is a pity that 20% (not 50%) of the highest paid are female. I would not have refused a partnership had one been offered and I know women with children who are in those jobs on even £1m a year etc

I tihnk you have a lot more choices in life earning a lot of money though than if you pick a low paid career when you graduate where you might also find it hard to combine babies and work. At least we lawyers and our partners can afford a cleaner and a nursery/nanny etc

It is also the case that in all the big money jobs and positions of power in the Uk we still have about 20% male not 50%. I don't think firms want to choose incompetent men as partners particularly. That is not my experience. There are more women who marry someone who earns more who definitely do choose to work shorter hours or give up work or go part time than there are men in that position which is part of the issue. I would love it if 50% of higher earners in the Uk were female.

We certainly don't help the issue though if we put young women off going into jobs that pay well and for which you have to put in a lot of hours. We just make the problem worse.

Another ex City lawyer here.

I wouldn’t go quite as far as “don’t do it” but I would certainly warn that:

1. The pay/hours ratio for City lawyers is worse than in many other City careers. It’s good at the very junior levels as they have to pay well to recruit, but as you get more senior the pay tails off but the stress increases.

2. It’s also much less transferable to a different career or self employment than, say, accountancy or consulting. This is very relevant for women who have DC.

3. The career structure is particularly bad for women as the high pressure “make or break” time for partnership is your mid 30s - right around baby/young child time. Not very compatible unless you have a SAHD as a husband.

4. Partnership is less appealing than it once was: it’s harder to get, the hours are longer, the pay (at junior partner level) is worse and it takes longer to get to senior partner level.

5. Part time City law jobs are very rare and hard to make work in practice.

Most female 30-40 something lawyers I know are very disillusioned. The ones in their 20s are still bright eyed and keen and haven’t hit the children/career trade off yet. The ones who are late 40s or 50+ experienced a different career path: harder, I imagine, in terms of sexism and lack of technology to allow working from home etc but better in terms of reaching high financial reward earlier and for somewhat less crazy hours.

The industry is well overdue a major overhaul but it hasn’t happened yet.

My DD has friends who work in city banking and they certainly work long hours too. It isn’t just lawyers. However if this aspect of city work puts someone off, then there are other careers. It’s best to go to a careers fair and speak to people who are currently in these firms.

Bankers work similar hours but get paid a LOT more.

Bankers also have a lot less job stability.

True. Although I’ve seen plenty of lawyers be quietly managed out. A large proportion of them women with children.

How much do bankers earn in comparison then? It's something I've read on a few posts here, but top law salaries seem to be high. Is it perhaps that banking salaries grow at the more senior end?

As I understand it, banking pay continues to grow in a fairly linear way as you get more senior. Lawyer pay growth tails off after about 5pqe (around late 20s). So a 30-35 yr old banker will earn a lot more than a 30-35 yr old lawyer. In my experience, at least double if not more. Don’t get me wrong, both are paid incredibly highly by comparison with average pay. But if I were choosing based on pay, going into finance is a lot better rewarded for the hours worked, especially after 5-10 years.

Banking is remunerated heavily in bonuses even when young. Lawyers need to become partner for the really big money, typically.

Most of us women who work full time (and men for that time) tend not to agree that we aren't raising our own children just because we work however....... Presumably you will be going for home education to and co-sleeping so your child will always be with you.

Sounds like you have something that works for you. As long as men including my 3 sons get exactly the same choices and options that's all fine but the more women who choose to earn less whilst lettingtheir husbands earn more the more we engrain a pattern that women serve men and children and men work and earn the big bucks.

What I would say ( and again - see above - I have never been a lawyer - nor a banker ) The best banking jobs I suspect are with those who are very very good at maths, Friend of my brother's and a friend of mine. Anecdata

Or PPE grads from Oxford! They don’t just want Maths. They want people who will meet clients as well and have personalities! Banking in private banks and merchant banks is more than maths. And so it should be. It’s a blend of people and skills.

I'd say if you are going into law, pick a field you are really interested in and don't just go for the money.

Being in the city is about the least fun way to practice law. As a name on a CV it is good experience but really you would get better training- early responsibility and more varied work in a good medium-sized or smaller firm.

In house can be a great way to practice law, in the right company. It can also be a right pain in the arse and stressful as well. There are also a lot more freelance lawyer opportunities these days.

I disagree about the maths advice to be honest.

I think that level of "commercial awareness" expected of prospective trainees at city firms is now so high that most candidates would be competitive for finance jobs (which are increasingly about financial modelling rather than any form of mathematical ability). The majority of finance jobs are looking for business and economics skills, not mathematicians.

A couple of Oxbridge history grads I know went on to be bloody accountants.