Difference between studying Law at uni and law conversion after first degree?

[possiblelime]

Hi all,

Eldest DC is off to uni in the autumn which is prompting a fair amount of chat among her younger siblings and what they want to study!

My DS thinks he might be interested in becoming a lawyer. Aware that one can study Law at uni, or do a different degree and then do a law conversion course.

Am I right in thinking that Law graduates hope to start employment/official training in a firm following graduation (aware there would be a difference depending on if you want to become a solicitor or a barrister), but those who do law conversions study for a year, and then do the same?

A number of my friends are lawyers and did conversions, but that was a long time ago! What happens with finance for conversion courses? Is it just another year of student loans? Thanks

As a PP has said, there are many routes into law.

I didn’t know i was going to become a lawyer when i went to uni many decades ago. I studied MFL at uni, ended up (through a temping agency) picking up an admin role at a law firm which needed knowledge of one of the languages i had studied and in due course i started the GDL, part-time, while working full time. DH also studied a different subject for degree and like me chanced on to the path of law several years later.

Until very recently, i worked for a very large, international law firm. A number of our team members, including some of our partners, studied a different subject at uni.

The only drawback really - and for most people (including DH and me) it’s irrelevant - is that most of the US state bars only recognise English law degrees. DH and i couldn’t sit for the NY bar, for example, whereas i’ve had a few English law-degree-holding colleagues who have sat for and been admitted to the NY bar. This is something the Law Society has been debating with the US bars for years but, last time i checked, without success.

If you are a super brain barrister type who picks things up extremely fast yes a law conversion but that’s definitely not me!

It is less about being super brainy though. Yes a law conversion is a condensed and intense year but if a student can't manage that then law is probably not the right field for them anyway. The bigger issue is the significant additional cost.

There are always going to be people who convert for various reasons (myself included) but I do get fed up of the mantra "Oh, do a history degree instead and convert". It's really weird advice if you know law is the area you want to work in.

@user760DD is a family law barrister. Doing a law degree doesn’t help much with that. It’s fairly common to get conversion grads. DD is doing very well and doing a law degree wasn’t for her. The subsequent GDL and bar course pay little attention to family law.

It’s a great shame if law excludes people with a breadth of talents.

I have found a law degree extremely useful. My field overlaps with many others and clients frequently ask me about property /company / divorce / child law) I can’t advise but can identify issues and have an understanding of all these areas. Cannot see how on earth you could achieve that depth of knowledge in a years course.

@TheaBrandt1 DD doesn’t need that depth of knowledge though. She’s a specialist. People pay a lot for what she does. 3 years doing a law degree would not make much difference. She’s clearly learnt enough from pupilage and practicing. I’m not suggesting this is a good route or possible for everyone but the big law firms still recruit GDL people to vary their intake. It’s all about different ways of thinking!

That’s difference between solicitor and barrister though. Bar extremely specialised and yes a big percentage have a none law degree. I’ve recently instructed a newly called planning barrister, her academic background is double first geography from Cambridge, makes perfect sense.
Solicitors, certainly regionally tend to have a law degree. All my colleagues do. I’ve only had one colleague with a none law degree in 25 years that I can recall. Appreciate magic circle is different.
I personally think if you are interested in law it’s a shame to just do the 7 core modules, I loved options like law and medicine. When I was looking at universities for law with dd recently lots of amazing sounding optional modules.
My gut feeling is more solicitors will opt to have law degree with SQE. Plus there’s so many universities offering law now. In past some had none law first degree as there were less universities offering law, far fewer places so some had to opt for history etc as couldn’t get a law place.

My partner did a law conversion degree 11/12 years ago. His primary degree was English, he didn’t get funding but he already had an MA. He did upgrade to an MA with the law conversion too. It was a really tough year as you are effectively doing 3 years in one - we mostly lived apart that year as all he did was study. I think doing a law degree over 3 years would be less intense and also give you the breathing space to better determine which area of law is for you or if you would prefer a law adjacent job. In terms of funding I am not sure if it was the prior MA that barred my partner from being funded but it was very costly overall. He did the second postgrad year too so I think between course fees and living cost he spent around 50k. I know things have changed now so might be less expensive. The University of Law do advertise scholarships for low income or people of protected characteristics so could be worth checking out what is on offer.

At least four of my friends from Uni who did other degrees went on to do law, two were English graduates, one math’s and one business. My cousin did Psychology and then a conversion course, so it’s quite varied. What I would say is at least half the people I know with law as their primary degrees go on to do something else but it does open doors - a lot of people I know who used their law degrees to move sideways actually out earn some lawyers and have a better work life balance. My brother got into a more business/finance related field from it, my other cousin is with one of the big finance firms and has done really well, one of my friends moved abroad and works writing legislation as does another cousin’s wife. There are countless careers that are easier to obtain with law qualifications.

50% of lawyers at top firms don't do law first so I would not be too bothered either way. All thse years on I still use the very in depth law I studied in my three year degree in one case taught by Lady Hale (before she went on to become our most senior judge on the Supreme Court) and even subjects not relevant to my commercial work now I still find very useful background.

Just one point on someone's post earlier it is very important to realise not all paralegal jobs count as qualifying work experience under the new system. Even at a huge top firm many paralegals do work such as working with knowledge teams which do not count. Bewfore starting any paralegal job I would always check very carefully to see it it is a QWE paralegal job or not if the person may not be going to get a normal training contract instead. I would even recommend people accept a very low paid paralegal job than a higher paid one if the lower one is QWE.

Whilst you can go into the SQE exam with any degree, it does test academic law, so some sort of prep course is advised.
It’s a very difficult closed book exam - purely multiple choice

Of course you don’t have to do a law degree just saying my two penny worth that for me it’s been invaluable. But my legal career has been very eclectic ranging from City magic law firm to the high street! If you stick to one specialised area agree it’s less relevant. Having children sent me off in another direction which is more interesting and actually nearly as lucrative as the City.

Qualifying work experience is a lot different from a traditional training contract where you would do 4 seats.
I was able to sign off my paralegal and he was admitted as a solicitor only having worked for our team. It was focused on skills rather than exposure to different areas. I did look into it fully as I was keen to ensure his work met the requirements. So most client facing paralegal roles will meet requirements as QWE. It can also be gained at up to 4 different organisations including voluntary legal charity organisations.
@Xenia are you aware of any recent stats re 50%. Bar definitely is a high percentage with none law degree but solicitors I’m not sure 50/50 is true.

As I said, Im not saying that doing a non law degree is a disadvantage nor that non law graduates should be excluded in any way. Simply that it's putting even more cost into an already very expensive qualifying process. If someone thinks they want to be a lawyer the sensible thing under the new system is to do a law degree.

This is particularly the case as the SQE for solicitors is so difficult. It isn't multiple choice as such - its single best answer i.e. a number of very similar answers and you have to pick the best one. It's challenging, closed book and very long exams.

I suspect there is very little difference in terms of number of solicitors in the regions with a law degree compared to a non law degree and the number of solicitors in London with a law degree compared to a non law degree. It isn't the "wrong choice" to do a non law degree, It's just making the process longer and much more expensive - with no guarantee of a job at the end for many.

I think wannabe lawyers do need to think about solicitor, magic/silver circle solicitor, regional solicitor or bar. The Inns of court have scholarships to help with course costs. Others work and do it part time. The best find a way. However there is some merit in non law academic study and knowing, very early, you want to be a barrister definitely helps. In fact it’s vital as numerous deadlines come thick and fast. Many barristers do enjoy their first degrees and the opportunities these have brought to their lives. I would say my DD would not be the person she is had she not studied non law. I know others feel the same. We need to avoid “group think” in my opinion.

My DS is going through the process of qualifying at the moment. His degree was a BA in Jurisprudence.

He has just started his training contract at a London firm specialising in a niche area of law (not commercial).

His firm have paid for his SQE1 exam and contributed somewhat towards his prep course but they expected him to work full time whilst preparing for his exam. It took him 8 months of preparation (ULaw online course) alongside working full time as a paralegal but he has just passed it in the top quintile.

Next year, he’ll be working full time as a trainee solicitor alongside studying for his SQE2.

His firm seems to encourage this route to qualification. They have ten trainees in total this year.

The new SQE system has certainly give more choices. I have foillowed it quite closely as I have 4 solicitor children and with the youngest I was not sure if they would be SQE or LPC (they were LPC in the end due to their timing before the new system came out).
There are quite a few solicitors on mumsnet so hopefully someone can answer most law questions from posters.
As in my day if you do not train at a big firm it can be hard to get into those firms later and nothing has changed with that since SQE.

On statistics for how many trainee solicitors do law first and how many not, for the big firms, I just thought it was about 50% from what I had read but cannot find a survey on it. Let me do a random search for Freshfields trainee solicitor linkedin and see what comes up - my guess would be that the more contextual a candidate is the more likely they do law first but I might be wrong....

• LLB, might be contextual, from the regions.
• LLB, state school from the north
• LLB I think the person is from abroad, Chinese perhaps?
• BA not law, state sixth form but one of best in the country
• science degree - I was about to say contextual muslim but private school so a mixture and from the North - the first male on my search so far.
• BA back to the girls again - boarding school
• 1st from Oxford not law, yet another female
• Male, languages degree, may be from abroad, not law
• Male, state school (that Brampton one in London which does well), LLB

Okay have lost interest in my experiment. Good luck to them all.

Interesting and not surprising due to the costs involved in going to law school.

@Aurea is that just another name for a qualifying law degree? No GDL needed? It’s not adding an extra year to do the conversion course.

@TizerorFizz
Yes. It was a qualifying law degree, similar to a LLB, I understand. He’s been able to go straight into SQE study.

@Aurea Yes, but it’s whether dc not doing LLB or Jurisprudence are disadvantaged. They are financially but if they land magic circle, silver circle or USA firm, they are not in terms of career. It’s the further investment that’s the issue. When my DD did it, the course was small and it was limited to certain degree holders. That provider pulled out and the courses now take nearly everyone. The chances of getting a good training contract are not great. So it’s a gamble. However others already have the training contract lined up so they know they are on their way. However my DD didn’t want law for 3 years and can do her job perfectly well with a conversion course. I assume Xenia’s dc are the same. It’s good that not all lawyers are educated in identikit fashion and that other attributes are welcome.

Former solicitor here - yes of course it may well be advisable to do your passion degree but many find the law degree itself is extremely interesting - I did LLB and loved it so it was my passion degree and it has proved useful generally when writing letters or public speaking. It was more interesting than I thought it would be and I am so glad I did it. Did not enjoy being a lawyer though but that is another story.
A law degree is also well regarded generally for non-legal careers eg accountancy.

I’m a lawyer. My firms see intake (large city firm) they all passed SQE 1 and 2 first time. My current trainee said that he only knew of one person who failed (but this was an sqe filled with students with fees paid by top city firms and that is frankly the expectation). Anyone can do the sqe if they meet the criteria though but those that would have taken the traditional route to qualification a year or so ago will mostly still be fine. SQE is meant to open access to the profession but not all of those people will be as academically strong or may have other responsibilities (obviously much easier to study if someone is paying your fees and paying you a maintenance grant). There will always be one or two that fail despite strong background of course.

Of course do a law degree if that’s what you love. Firms will pay for GDL too - top ones! A law degree isn’t right for everyone though.

The point is not that anyones child has done the wrong thing in doing a degree which isn't law - plenty of us have taken that route.

The point is that when parents come on here asking whether their child should do law or non law because they want to be a lawyer the answer is that either will be fine but that it will cost them a lot more for no advantage if they do a non law degree.

The point about identikit lawyers is stupid. Lawyers are not just what they have studied at undergraduate level.

@user760 It’s not stupid to say that doing 3 years of law produces people who maybe think differently from people who haven’t. It’s a degree that is a training for many. It’s interesting the top city lawyers probably do still take a variety of people. If there was nothing different to observe, why not take 100% law degree holders? They don’t because they want a few MFLs and other types of people in the mix. They obviously see it as beneficial and pay for dc to do the GDL.

The big issue is having to pay for the course yourself and earning £30,000 afterwards. It’s then a poor return. It’s up to young people to work out the route that suits them best and, of course their pockets and ambition.

Interesting. I always thought doing a non-law degree could be a better option as getting into law at Oxbridge, Durham and other top unis is extremely competitive whereas getting into an MFL or History degree is less so, but at the end you still get a degree from the same Oxbridge or Durham, which would help more in getting a training contract than a degree in law from a slightly less ranking uni?