Law career/vacation scheme advice

[notsoloudoliver]

I'm hoping someone can help. DD is a second year law student and is in the process of applying for vacation schemes for next summer but also has exams and assessed work to be completed at the same time as the deadlines which are coming up fast.

She's spiralling as the vacation scheme applications seem to require a high level of research and knowledge about specific firms that she feels she can't do right now without compromising her degree work.

I've done some googling so I don't give her duff advice but have actually been quite freaked out myself reading some of the articles about completing the applications and how most are dismissed immediately for being too generic and not firm specific and how 90% are rejected etc.

She does want to be a solicitor but she is also enjoying her life right now and trying to get the best degree she can but has called in a complete panic that she's left it all too late and should have been leading societies, reading up on law firms etc.

We don't have any law contacts in the family and my background is science based - plus I'm a 90s graduate who got a standard ABB at A level, went to a very good uni, fell into an unrelated basic level job and progressed quickly. I feel totally unprepared to give her any advice about this uber competitive path.

Can anyone kindly give me any advice as to what I should tell her ?

I do think Aurea has nailed it with the thinking outside the box. The ability to do that is far more important than being Law Soc president or anything of the sort. I think that's what I meant by not necessarily completing applications with what you assume is expected, since that's box ticking - very different. The two DC of mine who went to/ are at MC firms are very very different from one another: one read Law, one didn't. One was a player in the Oxford Law Soc, the other wasn't. One had plenty of law work experience, the other had none whatsoever. Also, very different personalities. But both do have a clear capacity to think outside the box.

Thanks so much everyone. The last few messages have been eye opening.

I think DD has to think very hard about how much she wants this.

Would be interesting to hear from anyone who didn’t go down the commercial city firm or works regionally. We live in London and doesn’t necessarily want to stay. It’s not a draw for her.

I trained in a regional firm and worked in private practice for 20 years. My route was very typical 5 months paralegal, then training contract.
I now work in local government legal.
Working as a paralegal while doing sqe1 and 2 (usually self funded) is now very common. You don’t need a training contract anymore just 2 years qualifying work experience.
There’s a whole range of legal work outside city law.
I have 3 in my local government team with first class law degrees working as paralegals. All will qualify as solicitors. Work is interesting and varied. Obviously salary not great but good life balance and opportunity to move to private practice or locum. Planning lawyers for example can pretty much name their price there is such a national shortage.
There’s so many options. Look at government legal, cps etc.
As someone who recruits your daughter would have a lot going for her. I specifically look for people who have decent customer service experience.

When you say customer service/paid work do you mean in a legal role or any typical student job such as shop work or waitering?

@mutterphore it is in many ways a numbers game as long as you have the right credentials, which your son sounds like he has. Certainly, Oxbridge still
opens a lot of doors with US firms particularly, who are less likely to use CV blind approaches than the magic/silver circle.

If he doesn’t get a TC straight out of uni or shortly after than it doesn’t mean it is too late, but I would urge him to do something else legal related that will set him apart, rather than just paralegalling (which unfairly, as I said above, can actually create a negative impression about a candidate if they do it for too long). For example, a friend of a friend got an internship at the CMA which was very helpful in the TC app process as she could talk knowledgeably about competition enforcement, which is a hot topic atm. I know others who have worked at the law commission. Time spent in business (any business) would also be really valuable.

No not specifically legal just customer facing work eg shop. My last entry level recruitment attempt resulted in lots of law graduates (some with masters) without a jot of paid work on their cv. I need someone who can deal with a wide cross section of the public and internal clients.

That sounds so grinding @mutterphore. Your DSs have real grit.

It sounds like your DSs are nailing the process so land vac schemes but having near misses at the assessment days. I wonder is there anything different being judged/assessed on the assessment days?

Just a thought (and absolutely no criticism) but is it how they present themselves? Ability to converse easily with others? Talking clearly and persuasively? I’m not sure of course but assessment days are visual as well as knowledge based.

I am struck with the requirements for solicitor apprentices at Slaughter and May. They want to see extracurricular activities. They want employment and evidence of legal work experience and non legal work experience. Quite a few young people just concentrate on academics and maybe don’t have the breadth of personality they are looking for? Being engaging, easy to talk to and being involved in lots of things seems to be what they want. Definitely not just law law law.

TizerorFizz Slaughter and May have always been slightly different in approach.

@TizerorFizz the solicitor apprentice scheme is completely different - for school leavers who will go straight into the workplace. An emphasis on presenting well for solicitor apprentices is particularly important given the age/stage of the candidates - they don’t expect them to have legal knowledge but they do expect them to hold their own in a professional environment.

These things are obviously taken as a given for a graduate TC applicant too, but they will need to demonstrate much more besides.

If @mutterphore’s kids are getting vac scheme offers they are capable of getting TC offers - there is unlikely to be something seriously wrong with how they present themselves - it’s just a bit of luck in terms of clicking with the decision-makers. But anything you can do to set yourself apart in terms of particular skills/knowledge (legal or non-legal - eg languages can be a bonus) really helps.

@ThatllBeTheDay Happy to be told that. @harrietm87 Yes, I understand the difference but some grads won’t even have what they want from 18 year olds. That’s the point. I was just really looking at why top grads might struggle to progress with the highest paying law firms. It’s no real criticism of anyone but if DC get to interviews and then no success, it surely pays to review everything?

I have no good advice. I am a solicitor and in 1982 did manage to get a TC during year 3 of my LLB but I applied to 139 firms and had 25 interviews before getting the offer - biggest break of my career even now I would say in a year with 3 out of work which was the worst for 50 years and I was top of year with university law prizes, scholarships etc). However in those days the process was posting Cvs with cover letter, application form and then usually 2 sometimes 3 interviews in person in London so a bit less work, no online tests etc. I trained a medium sized London firm but went to one of the top ones (mentioned on this thread) when I qualiiied.

I also have 4 solicitor children (the twins qualified this year), 3 of whom went to Bristol for university. One got a TC with a good firm (is still there). The other 3 trained with my firm as I was only prepared to pay for their post grad law course if either they had a TC by then or they trained at my one person London commercial firm - of course they were free not to take up my offer and keep applying to find a firm to sponsor those three. Obviously this is very unusual and potentially career suicide but luckily all three were seconded to various places so the CV is the very good commercial work at my firm plus the secondments and it has worked out fine and on qualification none worked for me (and that was not really on offer anyway as I like to work alone) All three went in-house in London and are happy with where they are. I was on holiday with one last week who was joking about being a nepo-baby but it is as much a ball and chain to have your mother's firm on your CV as not. Also the new SQE system (my children are not within that) now allows people to qualify through up to four jobs adding up to 2 years so in a sense I was ahead of time in that..... However just like with being a Xenia nepo-baby, a lumped together 4 work experiences over 2 years including voluntary work just to qualify does not mean you would get a job on qualification of course which is the poisoned chalice of those using the new SQE system more easily to qualify but finding it lured you in to that route whereas the good TC route is the one that is much more likely to get you the higher paid jobs.

By the way my children who trained at my firm are very good and I am not just saying that as a mother - high A level results, good university degrees, very hard workers, rounded CVs, all done work in university holidays, get on well with people. We also have in the UK the highest immigration ever in history and at 1.4m we are second only to the US on the planet now (640k net) and vast numbers of really talented top law students from abroad too many of whom want to work in London not their home country and we have many more graduates in law and other subjects than ever. Finally wages have gone up in law at the big firms only but not necessarily other jobs. I was paid £13,500 in 1985 at a big firm when I qualified. That would be about £40k today after inflation. Instead those NQs today get £150k - over 3.5 times as much in real terms which is not just reflecting student loan costs and high rents but real increase in real net pay over what was paid in the past so not surprisingly it is hugely popular.

I’ve also heard of more dc training in tiny firms with mum or dad since introduction of qwe. No need to cover range of work they needed under training contract as it’s now possible to qualify just having worked in a very niche area. It does feel like it’s opposite of what sqe was supposed to achieve in terms of widening participation. If mum and dad can pay for sqe and put up with you or persuade family/friend to pay you min wage for a couple of years as a paralegal you’ll qualify. Feels like a step back to olden days when people were articled to family members.

Not just private practice. One in my team has just passed sqe2 and will qualify but has worked in niche area for his 2 years qwe. Nothing like experience I had under a training contract.

Many thanks for all the thoughts and support. @Aurea very well done to your DS for being so proactive and securing a TC. He's done really well.

My DCs have also, at times, been in touch with some helpful lawyers and had discussions about applications. All have sounded optimistic and positive but haven't really suggested anything different beyond what DS1 and DS2 already have as qualifications and experience.

Maybe, as you say, @harrietm87 it's just a numbers game and they need to keep going with further applications. They're now thinking about the paralegal route and securing QWE jobs next autumn, post - SQE exams - alongside continuing TC applications. Thanks for the advice about doing different kinds of work experience such as the CMS and the Law Commission. How long is 'too long', to be a paralegal do you think?

@Stockpot I don't think there's anything particularly different about what's being judged on the assessment day compared to the Vac Scheme other than it all being concentrated into about 3 to 4 hours. DD1 and DS2 seem to get good feedback but sometimes contradictory too - eg DS1 was told by one firm, that he was too much of a leader in a team exercise and then by a different firm, that he was a great team player but needed to take the lead more. He couldn't see any difference between his behaviour at each assessment, so remains confused. How can he know, for future assessments if he should assert leadership more or blend in to the team more?

Also, there seems to be a difference between what HR recruiters are looking for and what the lawyers are looking for and the HR recruiters have the most power in the selection process, as far as I can tell. DS1 and DS2 seem to click best with the partners at the firms, although still get on well with the HR people too. It's so hard to discern what tips the balance in the selection process.

@TizerorFizz that's a good point about presentation. I've wondered whether having super good social skills and being super personable, tips the balance when all else is equal. Just being male (don't mean to be stereotyping or anything here) might work against them and they might come across as a bit too 'formal' rather than 'bubbly'.

That probably does sound like stereotyping but it does seem that there are far more women than men on the Vac Schemes and on the Assessment days and far more women get the TC offers. I guess this isn't a bad thing, to address the balance from when men got all the offers but obviously I'm most interested right now in DS1 and DS2 progressing in their careers.

@mutterphore I don’t know about how many of each sex get what but there’s also disadvantage in the equation as well.

I only have a DD who is a barrister but she has several friends working for American law firms and CC and a few others. All Oxbridge grads. All engaging and interesting people. Well travelled. Can talk about almost anything. Funny and bright. The sort of people who are great to be around. I have no evidence that this is why they were successful but it’s just something that occurs to me.

I think SQE might be backfiring too. Back to who you know!

Yes 64% of newly qualified solicitors are female.

I doubt that being male is holding them back. There are slightly more female associates because women are more likely to get the necessary qualifications but the partners interviewing them will overwhelmingly be male and in any event not biased against men. There is, rightly so, a drive for more diversity in recruitment but unconscious bias is alive and well and if they are white men this will not be doing them any harm.

The conflicting feedback is just a function of people looking for something to back up their decisions. They will have preferred someone else on the day for any number of reasons. It’s hard - there are so many good candidates. Unless they are getting consistent feedback from everywhere they are interviewing then it’s unlikely to be a real issue. So either there is something else problematic that the firms can’t/don’t want to say, or they’ve just been unlucky so far.

I think, personally, that they will be taking themselves out of the race for the top firms by going down the paralegal/SQE route. But this might be realistic for them. There is a world out there beyond the (top) city firms.

Of course there is more to law than London. Medium regional firms are always worth looking at. I’m not really sure feedback is tailored to individuals either. They just decided “no” on very fine margins.

It's probably due to "blind" recruitment.

@mutterphore I find your DCs experience of no TC after vacation scheme success quite shocking. But in a sense l not surprised by HR not being in sync with partners. This is quite common and is even the case with top executive search firms. I often specifically ask to see a long list vs short list because HR/recruiter doesn’t look at things in the same way. At some point I cut out HR out of the selection process and got them to do admin/logistics. But that’s in a medium sized PE firm - not a large structured legal recruitment machine. But just goes to show that sometimes there’s no way to rationalise rejection. Have your DC been in touch with partners or senior associates from their vacation schemes. I am sure partners could/would try to help and they have all the power.

@mutterphoreI have read your posts with interest. The first time DS applied was in his final year at Uni as he did a non Law degree. I think he was overconfident and did not appreciate how brutal and competitive the process would be. I think only made it to the second stage in one firm. This past year he was much more on the ball. Watching the process was very tough as a parent as each application takes a few hours and then if you get selected to start the process with a firm, the first stage is a computer based test for which there is no rhyme or reason for success. We didn’t discuss what the plan would be if he was unsuccessful getting a TC this time round as we wanted to stay positive but I would not have blamed him in the slightest if he couldn’t face the process again.
So your DC shows great resilience four years later! I hope they were successful this time round?

My DS has just graduate from a law degree, he spent sooo much time filling out these applications because they are long and, as you say, very specific. He heard back from one but never made it through after the first round. The competition is fierce!

When he came home after finishing this year he was quite depressed by it all and realised that his best chances of getting a job was with something more local and getting some experience under his belt and work towards qualifying. He found a job within a week and has been really enjoying it so far and getting lots of useful experience, they have also offered to fund his SQE.

Law has such high numbers graduating each year (400 in his year group!) that it is getting harder and harder for them to compete. Good luck to your DD, I hope she manages to get something sorted.

@JustHereWithMyPopcorn The harsh truth is, there’s just too many! Not only are there law grads, other academic grads can convert to law. Plus there’s lots of LLB paralegals from previous years all looking for training too. Many for years. They haven’t gone away.

Some firms don’t take grads to train for SQE at all. They employ them as paralegals and then sift from there. It’s clearly a profession with too many chasing the jobs and vast numbers are disappointed.

I do think we need a cull of courses and some “universities” should never have been allowed to offer law degrees. The former colleges of HE would be my starting point. 40 years ago a law degree from a college of HE was unthinkable! Now we seem to con students and it’s not ok.

Also Tizer, I would say that maybe an even harsher truth is that with the highly competitive London firms, which are what so many seem to aim for, the die is cast early on and there's remarkably little an applicant can do to help themselves, beyond not missing a first or a high 2.1. You'll find that some students are blanket applying and still get nothing and some are targeting a few top firms and getting offers from all.

Totally agree @TizerorFizz he just graduated from a good RG uni and they churn out that many - including variations such as law with other languages and other countries law etc. I was hugely relieved that he managed to find a position at all that quickly and it was a huge bonus when they included the SQE (subject to conditions of course!). I do think they are being sold a bit of a lie.