Post grad law conversions - reality of the usefulness of this?

[BobtheFrog]

One of my DDs is looking to a post grad degree, law conversion in particular - looking for some mumsnet wisdom about this route. Good idea? Concerns / questions we should consider? Does it lead to meaningful work? What kind of work is down this route?

I'm aware of the numbers.

I'm wondering why you think it relevant to a 'good fit' that this graduate went to a top ranking public school. You go on to mention his family's wealth. That doesn't contribute to fit, if indeed it ever did with the Magic Circle.

I didn't say that he was a good fit because he went to a top ranking public school, I was just explaining roughly what his CV looked like. I said he was a good fit for law in my opinion as a ex city lawyer who then worked for a very large international firm before then doing another legal role and who has almost 30 years of experience. He is bright, confident and interesting to speak to and is extremely clever. He has excellent soft skills and lots of relevant work experience showing a commitment to law.

I mentioned his family's financial situation because it is my strong opinion that nobody should self fund law school (particularly a law conversion) but that if money is not an issue then of course its up to them what they spend their £25k on.

Anyway I'm not sure how us bickering is helping the OP. Your view is that if an applicant is good enough they will get a vacation scheme and then a training contract. My view is that it's extremely difficult to get either, even if you're good. I suspect we both agree that the OP's child who is likely to get a 2.2 is wasting their time and money doing a law conversion.

I didn't think we were bickering!

Yes you're correct. I think that a 2.2 will not cut any mustard, unfortunately and will only lead to disappointment.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I have lots of examples around me of young people who obtained work experience through contacts that has provided fantastic leverage. They are all up to it.

I don't think that you're referring to Magic Circle or London chambers though Ceramiq. And also, this is what you market, so your view is bound to be coloured.

I most definitely am referring to London MC, where I also have relatives in very senior positions who tell it as it is (and not what is communicated!).

I would say that the days of getting work experience in a top law firm as a result of who you know are largely gone anyway. There are competitive processes for getting this experience and most firms won't be able to take anyone outside of the formal schemes. Smaller firms sometimes have a bit more flexibility if an equity partner is pushing for it.

DH gets people asking him all the time since he is office senior partner for his firm. He can sometimes arrange something informally if their parent is a valuable client. Otherwise it's very unlikely.

I have a friend who is an Oxford educated barrister, early 50s currently working. He has stated in no uncertain terms that it is completely forbidden to give internships to known candidates - i.e. relatives, friends of friends etc.

I'm not sure if that's 100% what is being talked about here, but thought I'd throw it in for good measure.

Exactly. This is what is communicated but it doesn't work that way in practice. It does huge disservice to less advantaged applicants to believe that what is communicated (a completely fair and transparent recruitment process) is true.

It seems to be what Ceramiq is talking about. No Magic Circle partner or senior associate would be able to bring in a relative, a friend's or a client's DC, let alone encouraged to do so. It would be a big tactical error to flag up that sort of old school opportunity on an application. I suspect that Ceramiq's contacts may be humouring her.

No one is humouring me. What happens in all professional services firms is that known applicants get fast tracked for official schemes behind the scenes. It's not going to change.

And while professionals cannot (usually) recruit interns and work experience candidates directly (though this happens in consulting firms, where senior partners cover costs), they can spend time with them outside work. Of course it happens and it's beyond naive to think it doesn't.

I wouldn’t bother if I only had a Desmond!

Unis have deflated grades so a 2:2 doesn’t impress anyone. It will make entering a competitive profession hard.

My SIL is a solicitor and finally got to salaried partner in a small firm age 44. She has no kids and has had to work her guts out to get there. She describes it as gruelling, thankless and lacking in reward or job satisfaction.

And now with AI it will change rapidly.

I have not been in PP for 10 years now, but even then the "rules" were clear: no internships to children of EP's, clients etc, accompanied by lots of gushing self-promotion about the firm's transparency, integrity and ethics. It didn't stop the offspring of the great and the good from getting on vac schemes, of course, and in some cases they went on to get TC's. A certain orange legal website is pretty good at uncovering this - I recall a recent story about two well-connected sisters who were given plum overseas postings at a MC firm, and it went down like a cup of cold sick with their peers.

The one time when the firm's guidance was extremely useful was when being pressured to offer someone work experience when I was too busy or otherwise did not want to. "Sorry, I'd love to, but please fuck off it's against our integrity policy".

Having a chat in the pub with a friend's DC to give general advice is a long way from an 'unpaid internship' Ceramiq.

We were talking law, not consultancy. You're morphing things, which isn't helpful.

Although good luck to anyone who thinks they can be a McKinsay or Bain nepo baby.

Most firms now ask when you make the application for either a vacation scheme for a training contract whether you have any contacts at the firm. This doesn't mean you stand a better chance. I have a former colleague who is now recruitment partner at a very big, well known firm and she has said that in their firm, if a candidate got through the various stages who had named her on the application it would mean that HR would contact her to ask her about the candidate but that it would make no difference whatsoever to them getting through to the assessment centre in the first place.

On the other hand, one of the very popular student forums had a post just this weekend of a student getting work experience at a well known firm by making an unsolicited direct approach to an equity partner so it clearly works sometimes and in some firms.

LOL two of our children are!

I think you must be understanding nepo baby in your own way Ceramiq, or it probably wouldn't be something most parents would boast about.

It's a fact, which is the point I am trying to make and which you refute. It's not a boast, it's transparency: for all that firms communicate about their holier than thou recruitment practices as if they were bureaucracies, they recruit the best applicants for the job in any way they can. When they stop recruiting "insiders", the quality of recruits falls.

'Insiders' (by which I assume you mean DC of senior members of the firm in question, or DC of clients of the firm) should be perfectly capable of applying through the normal channels, unless they're a) not especially able and/ or b) cut off from the real world of internships and vac schemes which seems to occupy the minds of almost all second year undergrads everywhere. In either case they're probably not particular catches for the firm.

When they stop recruiting "insiders", the quality of recruits falls

An interesting statement. You obviously know what you're talking about so please could you cite a couple of organisations where 'insiders' have been excluded, the date/ duration for which they were excluded, and the evidence for quality of recruits plummeting - how was that measured?

I'm sorry but I think you're posting misleading information. I might be wrong but I suspect you are c4/5 years PQE. It's really misleading to imply that all good candidates will get VS/TC offers just by making a few applications. They simply won't. Unless you are applying this year you won't appreciate how it's being reported by firms that that applications have risen exponentially.

Of course there will be the exception where an applicant makes a few applications and then gets all the way through but in such a case they will have been extremely lucky or the absolute cream of the crop. It's really unfair to make people think that if they haven't got something straight away they are just not cut out for a career in law.

However much potential you have, it's really hard to get anything at the moment due to sheer numbers of applicants.

One of the London firms has reported over 5500 applications for 18 places today

Which one, Serafee?0

I cant find that one now (I was scrolling and half reading whilst on a call) but Mishcon has apparently had double the number of of applications it generally has (generally c 2500 and this year over 5000 for 30 places)

No idea why that 0 appeared.

If you come across it, could you post? Interested to know which firms are seeing significant increases.