University vs Solicitor Apprenticeship-is anyone using the apprenticeship route for Law?

[judgementsrule]

I wondered if anyone could advise about the pros and cons of these routes into law. In particular, does anyone have a son or daughter who is taking the apprenticeship route and what feedback do they have?

My daughter has offers from Russell Group Universities to study Law and has also been offered an assessment day for a Solicitor Apprentice at a v well respected, international law firm, probably based in London but with other UK branches.
The apprenticeship is a relatively new route for aspiring lawyers. They work for the law firm and attend a local Uni one day per week to get a degree. I expect they would be expected to work pretty hard but they also get paid a salary and would not get into tens of thousands of pounds of debt like typical students do. Also, they would have the connection with a v well respected law firm on their CV and would probably be more likely to be offered a job afterwards if they do well. On the negative side, they would miss the Uni experience, with all that involves, including the social life.

Any experience would be really helpful.

Perhaps do the assessment day and see if an offer comes of it and then decide. It would give certainty and mean no university debt if she took the apprenticeship. I have 4 solicitor children (2 qualified last month) and I am a solicitor too. I did a law degree and the children all went to university but that does not mean the apprenticeship route is bad. It is very likely they will offer her a job once she qualifies as a solicitor and I think in the last 2 years of the apprenticeship she would move into the formal 2 year training programme the law firm will also run for its trainee solicitors who have done their degree and SQE post grad year first.

It is certainly quite a new option and there are pros and cons. May be someone whose child has used this route to qualify will come along with useful information.

The traditional route is 3 years uni, 1 year law school, 2 years training contract. For that route on Plan 5 you incur debt that is cumulative and has to be paid back at 9% after you start earning over 25k. If you get a training contract before law school you typically get law school fees and a small living allowance (never enough). Once you train, you get more of a proper salary (Magic Circle now pays trainees quite well).
I know some of the degree apprenticeships pay 24k ish from day 1. Not sure how much it ups to later on, Year 5 and 6 in particular.
For a child who is very mature and ready to work and does not want any debt, it could be a fantastic option. I would find out how many others there are on the same pathway though. Part of the fun of law school and training contract is that there is a huge peer group. And as you rightly point out, uni is fun and sociable and a time to grow up and find yourself. Some DC will be so mature at 18 already and very focussed and degree apprenticeships could be great for them.

Solicitor here.

Apprenticeship is a new route and I suspect there will be some employers who will be apprehensive about it. However, it's been mostly welcome by the profession.

I took the classic route to qualification, therefore cannot compare. As apprenticeship is so new, you won't find practitioners able to compare.

However, an apprenticeship will be much cheaper, for sure. It will pay less pa, but your DD will not have a large university and PG debt.

I supervise an apprentice and she's the best junior I've ever had. I want to see talented people in the profession and I make sure to nurture them.

Things that your DD needs to understand are: salary, any loyalty clauses in her contract, duration and scope - will they give her an opportunity to explore different areas of law? The benefit of the traditional route including a training contract is that trainees rotate seats, i.e.: you get exposure to several areas of law which are very, very different. I didn't know what I wanted to do before my 3rd seat. It's a choice for 40+ years and it's not easy to change once you chose your area of law so I'd say this is a key consideration.

I also think a degree does come helpful if she ever wanted to change careers and needed a degree. I do think a strong law degree from a good university is beneficial in terms of knowledge and understanding, but I am not convinced if it necessarily makes me a better practitioner. It's a difficult question after many years in practice, clearly you learn most through practicing and having good mentors and supervisors. Best of luck to your DD!

My last firm had solicitor apprentices & the one who was on my team when I joined was brilliant, he was in his final year so had been at the firm 5 years. He knew how everything worked, he was efficient, he had a really good set of skills. Like many people in their early 20s, he had an active social life.

I would expect that solicitor apprentices would (all things being equal) have a massive head start over their peers who have spent four years having fun. When they qualify they’ve already been working in a legal environment & absorbing knowledge/developing skills for six years rather than 2.

I echo a lot of what has been said upthread. I work in a City firm which will take on its first apprentices later this year and am peripherally involved in planning how they will be trained. One very interesting aspect of the scheme is that the apprentices will spend time in the “business support” functions such as finance, IT, HR and Facilities as well as on the fee earning side. I think this will make them much better all-round employees.

One thing I would highlight, though, is that there tend to be many fewer apprentice places than traditional trainee ones (eg we will offer 2 apprenticeships per year vs 30 training contracts). I don’t know how this compares to other, similar firms. While it is not expressly stated anywhere, my firm is approaching apprenticeships as a way to improve its social mobility credentials and it is highly likely that the places will go to candidates who might have found it financially or socially too challenging to contemplate going to University. Therefore I don’t think that it is a level playing field for someone from a background which would normally support a traditional undergraduate degree route. No harm in applying and finding out more though.

An apprenticeship has to be compared to these salaries. Obviously these are very high. How does the firm compare? Have a look at Legal Cheek for inside info.

Also which RG unis? There’s a big difference between Oxbridge and some others. The regional ones like Manchester and Birmingham are very strong on supplying regional law firms. Oxbridge, Durham and a few others are very strong in the London market. So your DD needs to be able to compare the apprenticeship and possible salaries from the best payers! Is a degree from a local uni going to compare with the best RG unis? Is she going to an elite RG uni? What are her career aims?

With the changes to the qualification routes there is going to be much less difference between those who have done SQE and those who have done apprenticeships.

The apprenticeship route is brilliant I would recommend it. I didn't do it but I have one of the very earliest apprentices on my team and have seen them progress.

My firm think apprenticeships are the way forward and are likely to be more popular than the training contract soon.

You get a degree via the apprenticeship route now too.

Apprentices normally rotate seats too. At many firms they get longer per seat than a trainee so get better depth of experience but at least as many seats.

Apprenticeships have been around for plenty long enough for comparison. The very earliest were via CILEX so did have a bit of a stigma but the newer degree apprenticeships for solicitors are getting great feedback and there is very little difference from the SQE route and once qualified there will be no difference.

Not necessarily, no. It depends on what the firm needs, in some firms rotation is limited - don't make OP assume that what you know about apprenticeships is the case everywhere because it really isn't.

A degree apprenticeship is certainly an attractive route.

I wouldn't even bring up CILEX as that's a completely different pair of boots.

Also, OP, don't compare an apprenticeship salary to NQ salary, that's a ridiculous suggestion.

An apprenticeship is significantly longer and will likely pay a lot less than what your DD would get as a trainee, not to mention NQ. It's a trade off for not being in debt. It will take your DD longer to get to a decent salary and life in London will be expensive if that's the plan. I presume the firm you're talking about will fund SQE etc.

More general info here: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experience/job-sectors/law-sector/law-apprenticeships#what-legal-apprenticeships-are-available

You get a degree via the apprenticeship route now too

Are you sure? This implies it's still a non-degree apprenticeship:

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/solicitor-v1-1

Is she convinced she wants to be a solicitor? A solicitor apprenticeship is a crappy option if you have a yearning to be a barrister. Tbh, I found my law degree v interesting, but working for a City law firm an undesirable combination of frequently somewhat boring, hard work and very long hours (although I enjoyed the opportunity to do an overseas seat during training). Obviously, there are solicitor advocates, but by choosing now to do a solicitor apprenticeship, she is immediately opting into a particular environment, possibly only because of the temptation of being paid from the start instead of getting into debt being a student and not because it’s the type of law she really wants to do.

If she is already career focused, certain she wants to be a solicitor in an international firm, not remotely interested in academic work or the sort of law international law firms do not tend to do, and wants to get going asap with the career she has set her heart on, I can see that an apprenticeship would be the best option - she just needs to be certain that’s what she actually wants to be. If she went to university, she might end up deciding on a different career route altogether at the end of it.

https://www.mayerbrownfutures.com/our-programs/europe/solicitor-apprenticeship-program-london

"As an apprentice, you will gain the professional solicitor qualification that will demonstrate your commercial legal ability, client service experience, ethical behavior and commitment to lifelong learning and development. Studying under BPP University Law School tutors, you will develop your teamwork, presenting and time-management skills and earn an LLB (Hons) law degree and the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) qualification."

There's no need for training providers to offer the degree though - OP she should definitely check!

I work for a law firm in central London and supervise two solicitor apprentices. This is the third year we have offered the apprenticeship and we take on five apprentices a year, as opposed to about 32 degree educated trainee solicitors.

The apprentices are paid £25k for the first year, increasing by several thousand each year for the six years. All educational costs are covered. They will move to an NQ salary after the six years. The degree educated trainees will start on £50k, move to £55k the next year and then increase to an NQ salary on qualification after two years. We have a 90% retention rate at the moment.

It's only my second year of supervising the apprentices but I have been really impressed with them so far. They need slightly more hand holding as they are only 18 with limited corporate experience but they are treated the same as the degree educated trainees and valuable member of staff. One current apprentice came from Dr Challoner's and was offered several uni places but decided to throw himself into an apprenticeship instead and is really enjoying it.

It is based on my knowledge of more than one firm.

I said most, not all apprentices rotate round a similar number of seats to traditional trainees.

I also pointed out that the CILEX apprenticeship is different and brought it up only because it is a reason why some people are negative about apprenticeships. I have positive experience of CILEX apprentices and the experience they gain while training so would not wish to disparage them but the qualification is not the same as the solicitor qualification.

The solicitor apprenticeship is much more all fours with the training contract route now when you consider SQE and how this is being adopted by firms rather than the old LPC route.

OP doesn't mention her DD is hesitant whether to become a solicitor or a barrister and this is not what the thread is about. It sounds like she's decided she would like to be a solicitor.

She talks about routes into law, not routes to becoming a solicitor, so I disagree with you.

I did it the traditional route many years ago but it sounds to me like an apprenticeship, if she gets it, would be a great idea. This would lead to a more rounded job experience and after a few years of companies offering this they’ll realise that this route is better and offer more.

I would go for it and wish it had been available years ago (I too studied at a RG Uni).

@Berlioze I was not suggesting a comparison of salary during apprenticeship with the NQ salary, but the sums need to be done on cost of degree vs no cost of apprenticeship and a smaller salary. However if the same NQ salary is available but the apprenticeship takes longer, the NQ salary and timing needs to be considered. Who might get it first and are there enough apprenticeships available for those who want them? If it’s a ratio of 1:15, it could be extremely difficult to get.

I don't understand what you mean or what you are suggesting? You posted a list of US firms who pay the highest salaries at the moment for newly qualified solicitors. Most (if not all) of them don't currently offer the solicitor apprenticeship route. If the OP's DD opts for an apprenticeship it will be at least seven years until she is a newly qualified solicitor and salaries would have changed by then. The minimum salary you can expect for a newly qualified solicitor in London is £100k at the moment. US firms are paying a lot more but expect a lot more.

What the OP's DD needs to do is pick a reputable firm with a good training programme and retention rate who have at least four separate practice areas so she can do four decent seats in corporate, litigation, property and employment.

In my firm you spend 12 months in each seat for the first four years, then for the last two years you follow the six month rotation of the standard trainee programme. The apprentices work in the office four days a week and spend one day studying. As I said earlier, we have only been doing this for three years so only have apprentices half way through the training and haven't experienced the entire process.

I think it's a great route into law and would certainly be happy for my own children to do it.

Securiting an apprenticeship with a well-respected, international law firm will be extremely competitive. Training contracts with international firm are increasingly difficult to secure and a law degree in a Russell Group university gives no guarantee of any training contract.

If your DD is convinced she wants to be a solicitor, I think it would be difficult to refuse an apprenticeship offer with the international law firm. There is no certainty that another opportunity will come her way.

Yes. So the point is they take graduates but not apprentices. So that’s surely a choice DC might make? These are international Lawton’s are they not?

To be a grad or an apprentice is the question. There might be a cost to being a grad but could dc earn more? Of course there’s a cost to your waking hours too. Some are ok with that. When looking at which route, it’s easy to say apprenticeship has zero costs (other than finding your rent in London) but the qualifying salary might be worth looking at too. Yes, these are Legal Cheek top ones but it gives an idea about what’s possible. It might not be possible for lower ranked RG grad though.

There are good posts above.

1. There are vastly more trainee places after the SQE than for 18 year old apprenticeships.
2. Firms differ in ho they treat them so as ever the great divide is between big well paid law firms and smaller ones who might not give different departments experience.
3. The state forces every UK employer with turnover over a certain amount whether they use apprentices themselves or not to pay the apprenticeship levy so it is not surprising firms want to get something back for that extra levy/tax and have some.

4 It can also be a useful day to gain access to very clever but diverse candidates who might otherwise not be recruited as firms tend to want more diversity. 5 The one from Dr Challoner's (one of the best competitive grammar schools in the country) probably illustrates the kind of people the big higher payment firms want even from 18 year olds - very top grades, very clever - nothing wrong with that at all as if people are not that they can mess up their law work and clients suffer.

Thank you so much to everyone who has replied. I am making my way through the replies and will speak to DD. It sounds as if most of the solicitors replying a pretty positive about this training route now that it has been up and running for 3 or 4 years.

Yes, @Berlioze is correct, she wants to be a solicitor as per the title of the thread.

@AndiOliversGlasses I think you are right about the firms trying to improve their diversity/ social inclusivity stats all of a sudden. DD completed several application forms and they apparently all ask whether you were a recipient of FSM!

Anyway, thank you so much to all. I will continue to read through these and will reply again later on.