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.

@TizerorFizz the NQ salary will be the same for a qualified apprentice solicitor or a qualified trainee solicitor. The only difference is the route. We don't really have any data to show whether law firms favour the traditional route over apprenticeships when recruiting as the apprentice scheme is fairly new.

Apprentice solicitor - starts training in the September after A levels on a salary of £25k, increasing each year. Four days work and one day study. After six years will be a qualified solicitor on a salary of at least £100k. Time taken: 6 years with no student debt and earned gross salary of around £185k total over the six years. Not sure on likelihood of being retained but would think quite high after six years. Only 5 apprentice places available each year.

Trainee solicitor - does A levels, three years law degree (or three years other degree plus further one year law conversion course). Starts training contract on salary of £50k first year, £55k second year then is a qualified solicitor on salary of at least £100k. Five days a week in office. Time taken: 5 or 6 years. Cost would be the degree cost (£27k?) plus accommodation and maintenance during the degree. Earned gross salary £105k during last two years. No guarantee of retention after training. There are approx 32 trainee solicitor places available each year.

@judgementsrule asking questions about things like Free School Meals, parents’ occupations etc is now standard for all recruitment in my firm, not just for apprentice posts. The questions are based on recommendations from the UK Government’s Social Mobility Commission- I have put a link to their employers’ toolkit below if of interest. The use of that data is quite complicated. I believe that in qualified recruitment it is held for stats only and is not presented to the decision-makers. However for our trainee and apprentice schemes the recruiting team does see if someone has certain flags against their profile and these are taken into account when a decision is made about final offers and/or weighed against what might otherwise seem an under-par performance in an interview, group exercise or written test.

I firmly believe, having had a conversation with the Partner with overall responsibility for our Apprentice scheme, that faced with two candidates who are otherwise equal, the offer will be made to the one who is less likely to have succeeded in taking the traditional route. With only two Apprentice jobs available vs 30 trainee ones, a young person with the kind of background that produces and engaged mother like you is unlikely to succeed. UK social Mobility Commission Employers’ Toolkit

There are disadvantaged pupils who have to work substantial amounts throughout uni on the side to make ends meet. Or they have to stay in eg London at home to care for their mum with MS whilst studying/working all at once. So these places should rightly go to them over and above middle class kid going to Durham or Oxford who doesn’t have to work on the side, only does it for some fun/CV points etc and travels in the holidays. If your DC is in the latter category, it also doesn’t make sense to take those valuable years of self discovery away from them either. They will be joining the corporate hamster wheel soon enough.

That's interesting, thanks. I didn't realise these questions are now fairly standard. I'm all for social mobility. However, I would see this as a poor way to achieve it and too little too late. The great majority of magic circle partners were privately educated and tend to be rather elitist about educational establishments, etc right? Perhaps this can change gradually in the corporate world, but if governments genuinely wanted to improve social mobility, they would be doing things very differently. Anyway, I don't want to veer too much into politics!
You are probably correct that she doesn't stand a good chance as someone with engaged parents. It still seems worth a try and good experience whatever the outcome.

The great majority of magic circle partners were privately educated and tend to be rather elitist about educational establishments, etc right?

I think that the first part of your sentence is still probably true. However the second part is, first, a little bit offensive to those individuals and, second, often counteracted by “University Blind” recruitment. In my firm (not Magic Circle but a major City firm) the Partners who interview the candidates are not told what school or University they went to and are not allowed to ask. I’m not sure if candidates are warned off naming their educational institutions in the interview but they know that the interviewers do not have this info so it would reflect pretty poorly on them if they did not twig that it was not supposed to be offered up by them.

(It has come a long way from when I was recruited as a graduate trainee to the Magic Circle, when the law firm partners actually came to Cambridge and interviewed me there!)

Here you go: Clifford Chance have been doing it for 10 years so some of those recruits will be partners now.

https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/exclusive-law-firm-clifford-chance-adopts-cv-blind-policy-to-break-oxbridge-recruitment-bias-9050227.html

That's interesting - I had no idea that Clifford Chance had been doing it for so long. So those first recruits will be about 4PQE now, likely with about 3-6 years until partnership. I would be very interested to hear their stories.

Tbh, you have to name institutions attended to get a good idea of someone’s likely background just by talking to them - unless interviews end up being done behind screens, so you can’t see the person being interviewed; their answers are voiced by an actor, so you can’t hear the accent; and they don’t mention hobbies and extra-curricular activities.

don’t have to name…

By the time you get to your final interview with a Partner nobody is remotely interested in hobbies, believe me. We also rarely now take on people who have not done any work experience (vac schemes, paralegal contracts) so we’re not all that bothered about extra curriculars either.

Also, just because an approach isn’t perfect, is that a reason not to try it at all?

That's really interesting to know, thanks.
Apologies for any offence caused. My impressions were based on published recruitment stats and conversations with v successful, London based lawyers. A CV blind recruitment process sounds interesting. I wonder how much difference it has made.

https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/About_us/responsible-business/2023/uk-diversity-statistics-2023.pdf

@AndiOliversGlasses - the conversion rate to female partners is still not great?
The problem a lot of these law firms have is not in diversity recruitment but the glass ceiling at the top.

In fact, I massively object to hiring hard working first/2nd generation Asian immigrant females, working them to death as trainees/Associates and then they leave, out all burnt out. Whilst the men still make it to partnership and earn millions. That is where the real problem is in these firms. Pretending they are doing some social mobility at intake, not sure I buy into that. The whole structure at the top needs changing.

DS is in his second year of a degree apprenticeship but it’s not law. However he has as long as he passes a guaranteed job at the end of it and no student debt. The work level is pretty insane if I’m honest and nothing like going the traditional route. It’s basically a job with expected performance and study and then lots of study on days off and in the evening. No mooching round the student union for hours eating cheesy chips after too many beers, feeling misty eyed :)

We're touching upon a wider issue here - in my firm (top 100 regional, I am formerly City), the ratio of female vs male recruits is steadily 55-65% vs 35-45%. All the way to managing associate level the firm is more female. Those of you saying the top is still too male heavy and there's a glass ceiling are correct - but it is changing and it needs another decade IMO. I strongly believe when OP's daughter gets to partner level PQE, we will finally be in a different era. However, yes, I think a good tip is for your DD to keep her MH and wellbeing truly in check - I agree there are firms that will suck out life out of you before you get to partnership (if that's what you want). I think that's the case for women and men, and it's always been, but females have always been disproportionately affected through climbing the ladder and attempting to have/run a family life. In my experience, it has improved over the years though. It is a demanding career though, sometimes unreasonably so.

Thanks @Berlioze - makes sense. Let’s hope so.

I think the diversity should be tracking working class males from more deprived parts of UK being recruited both into apprenticeships and onto trainee programs. That is now the most deprived group educationally speaking.

Solicitor here from a national but not magic circle firm. We’ve had apprenticeships for a few years now and I’ve been impressed with the quality of apprentice and the training my firm offers them. I went via the RG uni route and whilst I loved it the world keeps moving on and my DC are considering doing solicitor apprenticeships rather than uni and I have no issue with that at all. I think the stigma part is fast disappearing (or disappeared) for a number of reasons and, if anything, I suspect apprenticeships will be more competitive to gain a spot. As it sounds like your DC has one at a good firm, I would be very tempted to go for it - subject to her final decision / views etc.

@Araminta1003 absolutely, I wasn’t in any way suggesting that they have it right or have solved their diversity problems by recruiting in this way. But I don’t think that firms should do nothing to improve the diversity of their recruits at entry level, simply because that is only one part of the overall picture. Nor am I cynical enough to see it as complete tokenism designed to hide the real problems.

As for female promotion to partner level, as it happens this is a topic close to my own heart as I actually broke that glass ceiling and became a partner myself, in a substantial City firm. However I walked away from it after a few years due to a combination of factors, some personal and some institutional. I stayed in the same firm and often take part in internal focus groups to try to work out how they can do better. That’s a topic for a different thread though.

It certainly isn’t a reason not to try an approach, but it would be interesting to see how successful it has actually been at increasing recruitment of people from genuinely diverse backgrounds, especially if the university information is not actually removed until the very last stage of the process. I presume vac scheme placements are also university blind, given their importance to recruitment for the real thing?

This is positive as I have to admit that my impressions have been similar to @Araminta1003's. Hopefully things will really improve for the better rather than just lots of lip service and no action. I agree that it is a v demanding career and perhaps this is one downside of the apprenticeship route; you start that demanding career at a v young age!

Thank you. I can imagine a high work load in law too. Big pros and cons to this route.

Thank you for your reply. I'm actually really encouraged by the replies from several solicitors on here saying that the training is good and that they work hard to be excellent mentors to their trainees. I think my DD would be very lucky to have this kind of support if she were to be successful. I don't rate her chance of success as high though for the reasons discussed already.

Talking of this, my sister initially failed to get promotion to partner at her first magic circle, having done really well. She was about to get married and the topic of children was discussed at interview.....
Still, she is now partner at a different magic circle firm so it worked out fine in the end.
Perhaps the culture is v slowly changing though.

We had apprentices at my previous firm
(“Silver circle” - long established international firm founded in London) and they had a fantastic experience. They were highly valued members of the team and got amazing experience and exposure to work - more so than the trainees as they were in the team for years rather than 6 months.

Im not sure whether it always works this way but at my firm the apprentices were based in one department and stayed there for I think 3 years while completing their academic study, then joined the trainees and completed 4 x 6 month seats. I’m not sure how much choice they had in the department in which they were initially placed so that’s another potential downside - if you want to be a disputes lawyer you might instead spend 3 years in banking. Of course you could then do a 6 month seat in disputes as part of the TC aspect but you wouldn’t have the edge that you otherwise might if you’d done 3 years in disputes.

Anyway, as pps said it is great but only if your daughter 100% knows she wants to be a solicitor in this kind of environment. I would never have made that choice at a similar age as, despite enjoying it now, it doesn’t compare to my 3 years studying literature at uni.