Useless trainee solicitor

[Milkbottlewaffle]

I thought legal would be the best place to post to get the attention of lawyers on Mumsnet.

I work for a firm of solicitors and we have taken on a trainee who is absolutely useless. He is due to finish his 3rd and final seat in September and so far, each department has passed him on hoping that he will do better in the next - which he has not.

He’s very bright, first class law degree, but does not seem able to put what he’s learned into practice, applying law to actual cases seems very difficult and he needs excessive hand holding.

What happens if at the end of his training contract, he isn’t a competent lawyer and cannot be signed off? Would another firm offer to take him on for an extended training contract? Although I’m not sure in another 12 or even 24 months, that he’d be ready.

I wonder whether it would be best to just abandon the training now and everyone cut their losses??

It's very unusual for someone not to qualify at the end of a training contract and leaves the trainee in a very difficult position. Much more common that you qualify without a job then immediately move into a different area. The (ex) trainee in that situation is much better placed, can say that they completed the training and qualified but chose not to pursue a legal career, which is reasonably common and unlikely to hold them back in future. I know quite a few trainees who have done this and gone on to success in other fields.

The training principal needs to sign the trainee off as being of proper character and suitability to practise (as well as that the training has been completed). Generally this is only withheld where the trainee has done something truly egregious- dishonesty, for example. It would not be usual to withhold it just because they're not that great- in that situation, you just don't give them a job. Remember you are not signing off on whether they are a "competent lawyer" (not many NQs are that!)

You also need to consider whether the training that has been provided has been sufficient. Are you the supervisor? If so, you should be talking to the trainee now about how it's all going and what their future options are. I'd also suggest a chat with the firm's training principal and maybe HR. You (collectively) have a responsibility to the trainee to ensure that he's not hit with a nasty surprise at the end of all this. Give the SRA a call if you are in any doubt.

It's very unusual but does happen. One of my contemporaries was not signed off - there were a number of issues. I don't know what the process is but if a firm really doesn't think the trainee is up to it, they shouldn't just sign them off to get rid of the problem as it were.

I agree though that none of this should come as a surprise - the end of seat appraisals should have given a pretty clear indication of how things were going. If the trainee is poor, there should be more frequent appraisals too. We used to do brief mid-seat catch-ups and formal end of seat appraisals but for some of them, had far more than that to try and steer things the right way.

The worst trainee I ever had ended up in a Magic Circle firm,probably earns double what I do
She was very intelligent but couldn’t handle the basic grunt work of a high street firm
She sat on the floor a lot
I would give her eg 5 tasks,hear nothing,go and find her at end of the day and she would have done none of them ,and would start telling you about some point of law she had decided spend all day researching
I was running a busy Comm Prop department!
The issues you have need to be addressed with your trainee asap
Could you extend her training period
Any contacts with another firm that could maybe take them on for a month to give them a fresh start

Good luck

they shouldn't just sign them off to get rid of the problem as it were

Definitely agree with this, but what the principal is asked to sign off is very specific. It isn't that someone is a competent lawyer, it's that they have done the training and are of proper character and suitability. It's quite hard to be below this unless something really major has gone wrong.

Definitely one to get support with, I'd say.

@Milkbottlewaffle not a lawyer but HR for an organisation that employed lawyers.

I repeatedly asked this question and was told having secured a legal training contract they are deemed to be competent and just need to do the placements to be able to practice. As pp said the poor ones are not kept on.

I was appalled that essentially no matter how poor a legal trainee is as an actual lawyer or even as an employee they still pass their legal traineeship. It is also extremely difficult to dismiss a legal trainee during their traineeship no matter what they do.

Thank you all very much for your replies. It’s very helpful and has given me a lot to think about. I’m not any kind of manager, just a secretary who can’t quite believe what an opportunity this young man has been given! He’s so different to other trainees that I’ve worked with previously and I really am worried about how he’s going to struggle in his next job, where he expects to be a solicitor, when he struggles with the most basic of tasks 18 months into his training.

I admit that the trainee has encountered problems from us as a firm as well, such as mentors leaving and being off with stress, which definitely hasn’t helped! The quality of mentoring has been very patchy and there are still sizeable gaps in his knowledge which means that he isn’t able to practice in any of the 3 areas that he’s worked in.

He is also very good at leaving tasks for weeks without touching them, especially the more difficult tasks, which has caused us as a firm problems, but these haven’t been raised properly with him due to the staff changes.

Its a very unfortunate situation that we have graduates not on training programs that are more competent than him, nearing the end of his training!

If all we have to do is sign off that he’s done the 2 years work experience, I think we can do that - but he is so far from being a competent solicitor I worry about how it will reflect on us as a firm when he moves on in the autumn.

@Milkbottlewaffle
I think the question your firm should be asking is: how did you make such an unfortunate employment decision? Does your recruitment policy need an overhaul? Did you really get the best candidate or have you got a square peg in a round hole because your recruitment policy isn’t getting the best people for your organisation? Were you just looking at the first in Law? From where? What about other skills? What was the whole process of selection? Some applicants might only have a GDL, not a 3 year law degree. What would your company do with them regarding training? 50% of lawyers come via this route.

It seems to me that your company should not have taken on a trainee if mentors were sick and he’s not been adequately supervised. It seems he has been abandoned at times. Is that fair? I guess your pay grade won’t influence recruitment decisions but stabilizing the existing workforce should be a priory before you have more trainees. In my view.

This.

Just don't offer him a job. Ruining his chances at a career is horrible

I'd say mind your own beeswax, tbh. Maybe he's depressed, or dealing with something you don't know about. If he's crap then his career won't progress but it's not your problem.

I knew immediately you’d no clue and were not in a position to understand he’s been submitting his hours to the law society for the duration of his training contract. That’s supervised. What’s the real story here? Why are you wondering if best to end his training when literally no one will ask you your opinion nor will you ever have a say in such a thing?

Offering him a job or not is nothing to do with her. She writes like the decision maker but shows she no understanding of the process.

No NQs are great lawyers. That's why they are meant to be supervised by partners. Also, if he's leaving tasks for weeks to the point where it's causing problems for the firm - WHERE IS HIS SUPERVISOR to notice and make sure tasks get done. Blaming a trainee for poor case management is pathetic. You can't just dump files on trainees and not supervise them. Are you in a high street practice or a very small firm?

If all we have to do is sign off that he’s done the 2 years work experience, I think we can do that - but he is so far from being a competent solicitor I worry about how it will reflect on us as a firm when he moves on in the autumn

um what? I’m sure the supervisor will be pleased on your guidance on this..

Blimey. Some legal secretaries were real bitches to the trainees when I was a young lawyer but this thread really takes the biscuit.

@Milkbottlewaffle why on earth do you feel remotely qualified to sit in judgment on this trainee? How would you feel if he was on social media passing judgment on your admin skills 😂

It’s very helpful and has given me a lot to think about. I’m not any kind of manager, just a secretary who can’t quite believe what an opportunity this young man has been given! He’s so different to other trainees that I’ve worked with previously and I really am worried about how he’s going to struggle in his next job, where he expects to be a solicitor, when he struggles with the most basic of tasks 18 months into his training.

@Milkbottlewaffle with kindness, if you are not a lawyer, how on earth can you properly assess whether this trainee is competent or not?

Just because he's different from others may not mean anything at all. It's also possible he has had private and confidential matters addressed with his supervisors that you know nothing about - personal problems, bereavement, and the other way too - he may have complained about his lack of adequate supervision.

In a profession, your value comes with experience. No one Day 1 fully qualified is anywhere near as good or as valuable as they are Year 20, Day 1. A large part of the job is learning as you go.

as @Daisiesandprimroses says why is this of concern to you at all? there must be some bigger issue that you have with this poor chap! What is it?

Baffled as to why you think you’re qualified to judge? Nobody is going to care what your opinion is!

This is an odd post OP. Why are you seeking advice on whether this person should abandon their training contract or what their future prospects might be? (Are you their mum? Genuine question.)

This thread is hysterical. Reminds me of those gatekeeper PAs to CEOs, who take on all the mannerisms of being supreme leader and decision maker.

I wish @Milkbottlewaffle would come back and tell us what the issue really was!

I wonder if actually she shagged him and it's an affair gone wrong... or wanted to and was knocked back... or he got a traineeship in preference to her child... or....?😱 😀

I know one like that. Honours degree from Oxford and a lovely person. She was signed off but never lasted long at the next firm. She then worked for Lexis Nexis and has now found her niche in the charity sector. Some in-house positions can be less challenging that dealing with a dozen clients at once.

than

It would be cruel not to sign him off because it may be more to do with a mismatch of role than being a useless lawyer.

I have seen purportedly useless trainees turn out to be excellent with the right supervision and guidance

Agreed! Bizarre

He might just be a useless twit. On the other hand he might be struggling hugely with the lack of supervision and type of work.

I've had useless trainees in my litigation team who thrive doing deals and the reverse no doubt applies.

And trainees are supposed to be supervised. Some need closer supervision than others. It doesn't sound like he is getting the support he needs.

Nothing you have said indicates he can't be signed off to say that he's completed the necessary seats. Your firm doesn't have to offer him a permanent role and once the contractual term ends he'll have no employment rights so can be let go without repercussion. It sounds like he is highly academic but not so naturally inclined to the practical/business side of the law. Part of your firm's duty was to help him develop his skills and it sounds like the firm may have fallen short. This is not uncommon, firms see the trainee as a mere fee earner whereas it is partly that and partly a master/pupil relationship. I'm a partner in a large law firm by the way! Some trainees are like a duck to water and do great but most do need quite a bit of steer and guidance and unfortunately a lot of senior lawyers can't be bothered. Of course some never really get any better however hard you try. Don't get bogged down worrying about whether he us "competent to practice". No one will let an NQ loose on client files without supervision. I would say it took a good 2-3 years post Q before I felt like a "proper solicitor". I made a lot of horrendous mistakes in the meantime which my supervising partners helped me sort, sometimes with a week deserved bollocking. Been qualified 20 years now and not struck off!