McCann FitzGerald defers Trainees for two years

dats_right

Apparently, some of those trainees who were due to start this summer were told by the firm that they would not be starting training until September 2011. A full two years away!

See report.

enry

"So that's OK then. It got all coy about how long the other graduates would be forced to clean the streets, flip burgers or give handjobs to meet the rent, and refused to comment on whether it would pay any compensation for "reasons of commercial sensitivity"."

I'm hearing horror stories about the big firms. about people workin the odd time for 23 hr. straight, doing their best and thinking they will have a job at the end of it. Then getting to the end of their training and being told that they will be kept on a week by week basis of told sorry no job here for you.

What a pain in the ass considering the amount of time they prob spend copying proofs and working on discovery long boring days with a break in the mid to read part of the RSC.

Ok the big firms pay you while on the ppc1 they also pay the fees however; it’s not like their practicing altruism. You have to work hard for that and you have to buy in to all the sh1t. I did not apply to any of the big firms I could honestly say that I could do with the money however I would not be willing to put that kind of effort in. so while I say fair f4cks to those who have and are training with these firms, I also feel sorry for them because more and more of them are find that there is no tangible benefit for all their effort.
Would you be a better solicitor after coming out of one of these firms then out of a small country practice?

legal eagle 1

It also takes an english website to expose this!! That is terrible news for the people concerned, it didnt take them to this late stage in the year to realise they are unable to take on these trainees. Just hope people remember this when applying to firms in September!

Tom Young

I query whether or not the apprenticeship/trainee model has been flawed for a number if (boom) years?

Thereby oversetting the expectation of people who we related to, or academically bright enough to secure (with ease) the entry requirements to access the trainee programmes in the various law firms.

Are the rates and conditions of the Halcyon days ever to return?

Tom

shaneybaby

enry wrote: »

"
Would you be a better solicitor after coming out of one of these firms then out of a small country practice?

Is the choice between just those two? Not picking holes but it sounds like a choice between commercial and long hours as opposed to probate/conveyancing and having a life outside the firm.

There are plenty of medium firms in dublin and cork that have a big emphasis on commercial work without having face time. It's unfair to lump all big firms into the one bracket but certain ones do have a reputation for the "don't leave before your boss does" effort. if people don't mind dealing with that then i say fair play. In the same way i'm sure some big firms value their employees mental health (considering it's their main asset!) but as per every other news story it's always the bad news that creeps out first.

cycleoin

It seems to me that firms have been trying to out do each other year on year for a long time now. FIrms are ranked in two ways: Annual turnover and amount of employees. It's obvious that in their vanity, most firms took on more staff than they needed in an effort to be perceived as a growing firm. If you're not growing you must be shrinking or failing.

It's an absolute disgrace that any employee should be treated like this. Moreso when the firm has an ethical duty to ensure a trainee obtains a well rounded and full apprenticeship.

Perhaps those trainees might now go on to train in general practices, which in my view, will provide them with more opportunity and responsibility.

Dante09

Jayzuz thats poor form alright. Im not with them but after reading that im keeping my fingers crossed.

enry

cycleoin wrote: »

It seems to me that firms have been trying to out do each other year on year for a long time now. FIrms are ranked in two ways: Annual turnover and amount of employees. It's obvious that in their vanity, most firms took on more staff than they needed in an effort to be perceived as a growing firm. If you're not growing you must be shrinking or failing.

It's an absolute disgrace that any employee should be treated like this. Moreso when the firm has an ethical duty to ensure a trainee obtains a well rounded and full apprenticeship.

Perhaps those trainees might now go on to train in general practices, which in my view, will provide them with more opportunity and responsibility.

they must have had loads of work with trainees having to work 16 hr a day or so i'm told.

dats_right

Dante09 wrote: »

Jayzuz thats poor form alright. .

I've got no axe to grind with that firm as I have never worked nor applied to work with them, but absolutely agree 100% with these comments. Especially think it outrageous for firms to treat their trainees in this manner when they make such bold claims on their own website, such as: "Chosen because we believe our trainees will be the future partners of the firm, our philosophy is to focus on the individual and develop a tailored training schedule for each person"...

"tailored training scedule" obviously translates as 2 years flipping burgers!!

legal eagle 1

The biggest issue i would have with this is how late the firm left it to inform these prospective trainees. They've left it so late that they cant apply to any firms for this year or apply for any masters etc. Like its not like they have only decided overnight that they are unable to take them on. What will be interesting to see is if this company have a recruitment campaign this year!
I think this also highlights how the Law Society in this country just arent doing enough, they should be highlighting this not leaving it to an English website to do. They should also force this company in trying to seek alternative training contracts for these people so as they could attend PPC1 this year as planned. The more these firms get away with the longer this immoral behaviour will continue.

nuac

Sympathies to those affected. It is a sign of the times. All practices or at least all I am in touch with are finding it difficult to cover overheads these days.

Applyijng to other professions also - viz the carnage in architectural firms, consulting engineers etc.

Agree to some extent with cycleoin. Most of the major firms and middle ranking firms heavily advertised their vacancies to their ever expanding commercial, environmental etc etc departments. It seems it was important to them to have the highest or an increasing number of fee earners on publication of the LS directory each year.

There is a lot of work around. The problem is that many who urgently need advice and sometimes urgent action are unable to pay the reasonable cost of providing the service.

dats_right

nuac wrote: »

Sympathies to those affected. It is a sign of the times. All practices or at least all I am in touch with are finding it difficult to cover overheads these days.

I agree, but some of these trainees who are affected might well only have been recruited on the most recent (Jan/Feb '09) campaign. So it's a bit much to just brush it aside by saying it's merely 'cost cutting measures, sign of the times, etc', because they went recruiting whilst either they knew or ought to have known that there would be difficulties with their traineeship programme.

They simply cannot mess around with people's lives like this, I've said it before, but I truly think that it is outrageous. I mean the affected trainees might well have had other offers from "less glamorous" firms and opted with McCann probably on the basis that they belived their glossy recruitment brochures and sales spiel about being the bestest and most unique firm amongst the other identical "top" commercial firms; and where does that leave the trainees now? Well, I'd imagine with a very bitter after taste in their mouth.

At the very least they should be following the example of the more lucrative and glamorous commercial firms in London that they so desperately aspire and give the effected trainees a few grand for their troubles, that could be utilised towards some relevant courses or even travel.

Dante09

dats_right wrote: »

I agree, but some of these trainees who are affected might well only have been recruited on the most recent (Jan/Feb '09) campaign. So it's a bit much to just brush it aside by saying it's merely 'cost cutting measures, sign of the times, etc', because they went recruiting whilst either they knew or ought to have known that there would be difficulties with their traineeship programme.

They simply cannot mess around with people's lives like this, I've said it before, but I truly think that it is outrageous. I mean the affected trainees might well have had other offers from "less glamorous" firms and opted with McCann probably on the basis that they belived their glossy recruitment brochures and sales spiel about being the bestest and most unique firm amongst the other identical "top" commercial firms; and where does that leave the trainees now? Well, I'd imagine with a very bitter after taste in their mouth.


At the very least they should be following the example of the more lucrative and glamorous commercial firms in London that they so desperately aspire and give the effected trainees a few grand for their troubles, that could be utilised towards some relevant courses or even travel.

You've said it all there. I agree with you 100%. Im just hoping that I dont find myself in a similar position this time next year.

legal eagle 1

I just hope something much better comes along in the meantime for these people affected, than they can tell this company what to do with their contracts;) Just reiterates my opinion that even though these firms are huge and powerful in their own right, there still not to be trusted!!:rolleyes:

Johnny Utah

What's the big deal? They're lucky to even have a training contract imo.

Tom Young wrote: »

I query whether or not the apprenticeship/trainee model has been flawed for a number if (boom) years?

Thereby oversetting the expectation of people who we related to, or academically bright enough to secure (with ease) the entry requirements to access the trainee programmes in the various law firms.

Are the rates and conditions of the Halcyon days ever to return?

Tom

I've said it many times before; the process for training solicitors in this country is an absolute farce.

_JOE_

dats_right wrote: »

I agree, but some of these trainees who are affected might well only have been recruited on the most recent (Jan/Feb '09) campaign. So it's a bit much to just brush it aside by saying it's merely 'cost cutting measures, sign of the times, etc', because they went recruiting whilst either they knew or ought to have known that there would be difficulties with their traineeship programme.

They simply cannot mess around with people's lives like this, I've said it before, but I truly think that it is outrageous. I mean the affected trainees might well have had other offers from "less glamorous" firms and opted with McCann probably on the basis that they belived their glossy recruitment brochures and sales spiel about being the bestest and most unique firm amongst the other identical "top" commercial firms; and where does that leave the trainees now? Well, I'd imagine with a very bitter after taste in their mouth.

At the very least they should be following the example of the more lucrative and glamorous commercial firms in London that they so desperately aspire and give the effected trainees a few grand for their troubles, that could be utilised towards some relevant courses or even travel.

Very well said dats_right...

_JOE_

Johnny Utah wrote: »

What's the big deal? They're lucky to even have a training contract imo.

I don't think that's a fair comment to make unless you've endured such an experience yourself, and i'm not just talking about looking for a contract...

Johnny Utah

_JOE_ wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair comment to make unless you've endured such an experience yourself, and i'm not just talking about looking for a contract...

I've had plenty of disappointment in looking for a training contract- much worse setbacks than this.

As I said before, they're lucky to even have a training contract in the present climate. According to the article, the firm are only deferring the start of the training contract for two years. Therefore, the still have a guaranteed training contract with salary and PPC fees all paid for. Furthermore, the interim two-year period gives these prospective trainees plenty of time to pursue postgraduate studies or travel. I highly doubt they will spend their time working in McDonalds or sweeping the streets- that website is a pisstake having a laugh at the stupid Paddies, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to it.

cranberry

That's not the point. Speaking as someone who cannot afford to do a Masters or other further education and doesnt want to have to wait another 6 years to be fully qualified (which is the effect of this announcement on the later intake in the firm) this is a disgrace. I dont see how someone can say 'at least they have a training contract' when someone has worked extremely hard on the basis of a promise and a time frame and has very few options left in the meantime.

Sangre

It is poor form but McCann's kept on all their July newly qualified.

nuac

Sympathies again to those seeking to qualify and having difficulty with training contracts.

Again and not for the first time would advise those contemplating law or who have not spent too many years studying so far to consider some other profession.

Law, especially the solicitors' side of it is getting more difficult by the month. AFAIK an Irish solicitors' qualification does not in itself entitle you to practice abroad. In contraxt I know of architects who have recently been able to get work abroad with an Irish qualification.

Thats my view anyhow after 30++ years practice at law.

oirish_oi

I've read a lot of the solicitor/trainee posts on boards.ie and never replied ... Anyway, two points about the above.

(1) There is a recurring theme of bashing big firms on these threads. They have their downsides, as does any place of employment. I've worked in a medium firm, top five corporate and small general practice and all have pros/cons. The workrate/demands of the big firms are usually grossly exaggerated here, though you might have to work long hours sometimes and rarely have a 5.30 finish.

(2) There is an odd sense of entitlement to some people's reaction - e.g. how can McCanns do this, messing with peoples' lives, etc. They are employers. A training contract is a job offer. There is an economic depression in progress in this country so it's hardly surprising that this is happening. It is unfortunate that they messed the timing and aren't compensating but hardly the end of the world. Training as a solicitors is, after all, a form of employment - not an extension of school/college.

It is understandable that the big firms or the profession itself can seem like an opaque and strange world but some of the comments people post about the whole process are gas.

(P.S. I never worked for them btw so am not defending them on that, or any other, basis).

legal eagle 1

I think the reason why people on this forum are so dismayed at McCann's is the fact that unlike a job.....a training contract is extremely difficult to come by. They are so scarce and so difficult to acquire that it is alarming and depressing to see people who have actually succeeded in acquiring one , still being faced with hardship and disappointment after getting so far. To people in the process of looking for a training contract, it is everything to them, it means the world and each rejection and set back have a profound effect on some of them. So while i understand where your coming from oirish_oi and your arguments are as equally valid, i think your looking at this story from a different prespective than some of us!

servicecharge

McCanns sought voluntary redundancies earlier this year, so they were obviously aware of difficulties months ago.

More importantly/deviously McCanns waited until the last minute.

Remember McCanns pick the best of the best in graduate terms. If they had told them months ago, chances are most would have found other traineeships or taken other offers. If you get an offer from McCanns there is a good chance it won't be the only offer you had.

So McCanns didn't want to lose their hotshot picks to rivals, so waited until August that way ensuring that most will still be around next year.

Equally McCanns could have simply cut wages to law society minimum thereby being able to afford this years bunch. But how bad would that look.

So they were complete pr1cks just to save as much face as possible. And I would remind Oirish Oi that partner's in McCanns make hundreds of thousands a year. €5000 per trainee in deferral compensation would not kill them and is standard in London (the city McCanns see themselves an equal of). BTW I spent happy years in the top 5, but this is too much.

lala stone

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

I think this also highlights how the Law Society in this country just arent doing enough, they should be highlighting this not leaving it to an English website to do. They should also force this company in trying to seek alternative training contracts for these people so as they could attend PPC1 this year as planned. The more these firms get away with the longer this immoral behaviour will continue.

This is very true! The English Law Soc also came out and advised students to strongly consider all aspects of starting a law degree, cost, jobs etc..

Can you imagine the Irish Law Soc doing the same?

It's all about the Benjamins with these guys,, they just keep churning out Fe1 grads.... Like lemmings over a cliff...

legal eagle 1

It's all about the Benjamins with these guys,, they just keep churning out Fe1 grads.... Like lemmings over a cliff...

+1

Berti Vogts

lala stone wrote: »

This is very true! The English Law Soc also came out and advised students to strongly consider all aspects of starting a law degree, cost, jobs etc..

Can you imagine the Irish Law Soc doing the same?

It's all about the Benjamins with these guys,, they just keep churning out Fe1 grads.... Like lemmings over a cliff...

If the Law Soc did the same here, then they would be accused of trying to stifle competition etc.....can't win.

Johnny Utah

cranberry wrote: »

That's not the point. Speaking as someone who cannot afford to do a Masters or other further education and doesnt want to have to wait another 6 years to be fully qualified (which is the effect of this announcement on the later intake in the firm) this is a disgrace. I dont see how someone can say 'at least they have a training contract' when someone has worked extremely hard on the basis of a promise and a time frame and has very few options left in the meantime.

I know a couple of people that secured a training contract with some of the 'top 5' firms. They only got in there through contacts and connections, so I wouldn't be so sure that these candidates worked "extremely hard" to secure their place.

servicecharge wrote: »

McCanns sought voluntary redundancies earlier this year, so they were obviously aware of difficulties months ago.

More importantly/deviously McCanns waited until the last minute.

Remember McCanns pick the best of the best in graduate terms. If they had told them months ago, chances are most would have found other traineeships or taken other offers. If you get an offer from McCanns there is a good chance it won't be the only offer you had.

So McCanns didn't want to lose their hotshot picks to rivals, so waited until August that way ensuring that most will still be around next year.

Equally McCanns could have simply cut wages to law society minimum thereby being able to afford this years bunch. But how bad would that look.

So they were complete pr1cks just to save as much face as possible. And I would remind Oirish Oi that partner's in McCanns make hundreds of thousands a year. €5000 per trainee in deferral compensation would not kill them and is standard in London (the city McCanns see themselves an equal of). BTW I spent happy years in the top 5, but this is too much.

Hotshots? I think someone has been watching The Firm a little bit too much. There are no hotshots in Ireland; the magic circle firms in London, or the bigger firms in New York is where you find them.

Dante09

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I know a couple of people that secured a training contract with some of the 'top 5' firms. They only got in there through contacts and connections, so I wouldn't be so sure that these candidates worked "extremely hard" to secure their place.







Hotshots? I think someone has been watching The Firm a little bit too much. There are no hotshots in Ireland; the magic circle firms in London, or the bigger firms in New York is where you find them.

Of course there are always going to be a few that get in through contacts but that goes for every profession in every country. The vast majority of people that get into the big 5 do so on merit.

I would also disagree with the latter comment. I have heard of several people who qualified with the big 5 who are now practicing in the MC and the likes of Sullivan & Cromwell. I've also spoken to a number of people (some of whom I know quite well) who have interviewed and have been offered TCs at the MC who tell me that their fellow UK applicants who were present with them on the day are not near as impressive as one would expect them to be. Im not saying that everyone who gets into the big 5 on our wee island are going to be superstar lawyers in years to come but a substantial number of them, have at the very least, the potential to be so.

legal eagle 1

Im not saying that everyone who gets into the big 5 on our wee island are going to be superstar lawyers in years to come but a substantial number of them, have at the very least, the potential to be so.

Can I just add that you don't need to work for one of the big 5 in this country to have the potential to become a superstar lawyer in years to come:D

Dante09

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

Can I just add that you don't need to work for one of the big 5 in this country to have the potential to become a superstar lawyer in years to come:D

True. I was only referring to the big 5 because Johnny Utah was implicitly comparing their trainees with those of the MC or top US firms.

Tom Young

Years and years and years and years ......lol.

legal eagle 1

Years and years and years and years ......lol.

One can always still dream Tom And if we can't become superstar lawyers the legitimate legal way, we can always become corrupt and be all over six one news for being struck off.......we'll be superstars in another way hehe (joking obviously)

Tom Young

Ha ha - Indeed. Or you could drop the law and become a superstar banker, I think some of them will be experiencing the 'Joy' of superstardom fairly soon.

legal eagle 1

Or you could drop the law and become a superstar banker, I think some of them will be experiencing the 'Joy' of superstardom fairly soon

True but bankers are soooo dry......think i'll stick with the law

paulanthony

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I know a couple of people that secured a training contract with some of the 'top 5' firms. They only got in there through contacts and connections, so I wouldn't be so sure that these candidates worked "extremely hard" to secure their place.

I know a few people with contracts from McCanns and none of them had connections there. Therefore they did work hard to get in.

You have had the debate re connections and contacts on other threads so it's not really relevant here, and I don't think anyone wants to hear you going on about it again.

Trainees deferred at this late stage have the right to be annoyed, more because of the timing and nature of the deferrals than the actual deferrals themselves which are obviously necessary.

You shouldn't belittle this right just because of your misconceptions about big 5 training contracts in Ireland.

cranberry

Exactly. The whole 'contacts' excuse is churned out time and again. As someone who has secured a top 5 training contract with absolutely zero contacts I really resent those sort of comments.

The recession is obviously messing with everyone's plans to say the least but a little bit of common courtesy from the firm in question would have gone a long way.

maidhc

There is an assumption abroad that firms actually have a plan that lasts more than 3 months and actually know the direction they are headed. I really don't think they do. Small local practices don't know how the next 6 weeks will go, and you can be quite certain large behemoths like McCanns are at a bit of a loose end too.

For final year law students to think McCanns somehow are trying to stop them for joining a different firm because they are so valuable to the legal community at large is fanciful to the point of being absurd. And there is no such thing as a hotshot trainee, (or a hotshot solicitor for that matter).

No one owes anyone a job, and it doesn't matter a hoot what the firms do in London.

bountybar2

As a non mc canns big 5 trainee i read these posts with interest.

As regards McCanns actions, a lot of us knew this was coming for two reasons 1) They, through some addmittedly poor planning had 47 trainees due to start this year and 2) Their building is packed to capacity.

They recruited practically all of this years intake from their summer intern program of last summer, none of these have been deferred and appearantly wont be but they will be joined in oct 2010 by 12 trainees who would have preferred to start this year a further 3 or 4 are sitting it out till 2011.

Even if the celtic tiger was still booming mccanns would have preferred not to take on this amount in 1 year (30 being about optimum). while the late notice has gone down as bad form at least mc canns recruited less this year (almost exclusively from their summer 08 internship to allow space for trainees that everyone knew would have to be deferred)

Funnily enough the genreal feeling around town is that mc canns is the place to be(bearing in mind i rejected an offer off them) they are the only firm to retain 100% of their trainees and are getting some much sought after instructions thanks to a really solid regulatory, litigation and finance teams and the fact they were slightly less exposed to M&A and property work. My supervisor curses them daily.

My firm and from what i can gather the other big 5s have decided not to defer trainees, they (like mc canns) have reduced recruitment by 10-20% and although there are a few more trainees coming in than strictly necessary they will be accomodated and hopefully retained.

Finally having read a few of the law firm related threads, i think many of the posters fail to appreciate how trainees are viewed in the big 5. Law firms dont produce any products, they have practically nothing in terms of assets, the only way they make dosh is through talented minds. Trainee recruitment is the lifeblood of the big 5, the competition for the best is fierce, why else would they continue with their recruitment in these circuimstances. Most of the partners in my firm think to mess around with trainee recruitment would be suicidal and that in four or 5 years time they would be left behind when the upturn comes.

RandolphEsq

I'm glad; I have a couple people closely connected who got taken on for the summer there. It is FINALLY the case that those who studied law in college are the ones who are sorted and those 'freeloading Saturday-night-lawyers' are being squeezed out. Don't do law unless it is inherent

/light hearted

shaneybaby

RandolphEsq wrote: »

I'm glad; I have a couple people closely connected who got taken on for the summer there. It is FINALLY the case that those who studied law in college are the ones who are sorted and those 'freeloading Saturday-night-lawyers' are being squeezed out. Don't do law unless it is inherent

cranberry

bountybar2 wrote: »

As a non mc canns big 5 trainee i read these posts with interest.

They recruited practically all of this years intake from their summer intern program of last summer, none of these have been deferred and appearantly wont be but they will be joined in oct 2010 by 12 trainees who would have preferred to start this year a further 3 or 4 are sitting it out till 2011.

.

As one of the above mentioned former interns, I made a phone call on Friday evening and this deferral does directly affect the the latest intake. Apparently September 2011 will be the earliest possible start date for any former interns due to start in 2010.

dazza21ie

I along with everyone else would have sympathy for anyone that has their training contract deferred but I think the reaction is a bit OTT. Firstly this effectively affects a very small number of people in comparison to the numbers employed by the law firm. The reason for the defferal is obviously cutbacks which. I'm sure if McCanns didn't cutback now they would have to cutback later. They are chosing therefore between currently employees who may have worked with them for years and a potential trainee who is still unproven.

It may not look like it now but McCanns could be doing the deffered trainees a favour. If they start in 2011 then they will be qualified in 2013, the economy could be a way back up along with wages and post qualification job prospects and all will be rosey.
The timing of the decision is terrible if it affects trainees that thought they were due to start this September. However, these are not the first trainees who were disappointed like this. Last year the stories of trainees being told their training contract was gone were very numerous. At least the McCann trainees still have their contract. And realistically it wouldn't have mattered if these people were told 3 months ago. The other self professed "big firms" recruitment would have been closed long ago and there are very few contracts available around the country.

Johnny Utah

maidhc wrote: »

There is an assumption abroad that firms actually have a plan that lasts more than 3 months and actually know the direction they are headed. I really don't think they do. Small local practices don't know how the next 6 weeks will go, and you can be quite certain large behemoths like McCanns are at a bit of a loose end too.

For final year law students to think McCanns somehow are trying to stop them for joining a different firm because they are so valuable to the legal community at large is fanciful to the point of being absurd. And there is no such thing as a hotshot trainee, (or a hotshot solicitor for that matter).

No one owes anyone a job, and it doesn't matter a hoot what the firms do in London.

Well said Maidhc.

drkpower

maidhc wrote: »

There is an assumption abroad that firms actually have a plan that lasts more than 3 months and actually know the direction they are headed. I really don't think they do. Small local practices don't know how the next 6 weeks will go, and you can be quite certain large behemoths like McCanns are at a bit of a loose end too.

For final year law students to think McCanns somehow are trying to stop them for joining a different firm because they are so valuable to the legal community at large is fanciful to the point of being absurd. And there is no such thing as a hotshot trainee, (or a hotshot solicitor for that matter).

No one owes anyone a job, and it doesn't matter a hoot what the firms do in London.

Few inaccuracis in there:
1. Any firm worth its salt will have a "plan"; they are businesses and any business that doesnt have a plan for future eventualities is a pretty poor business; whether or not those plans are any good is another question.
2. Believe it or not, the firms do tailor their recruitment programmes to ensure they get the best new talent. The Big 5 often get into silly buggers by having their interviews and offers before the rest etc... precisely for that reason. It is also the reason that they spend so much time on wining and dining prospective trainees.
3. Hotshot or not, there are some very very capable trainees who the firms want to attract. Attracting these guys and gals at trainee stage is a lot easier than trying to do so when a rival has already employed them.

maidhc

drkpower wrote: »

Few inaccuracis in there:
1. Any firm worth its salt will have a "plan"; they are businesses and any business that doesnt have a plan for future eventualities is a pretty poor business; whether or not those plans are any good is another question.

You can only plan if you can predict future economic growth with some degree of accuracy. The last 18 months have been anything but predictable in terms of fee income, and this seems set to continue,

drkpower wrote: »

2. Believe it or not, the firms do tailor their recruitment programmes to ensure they get the best new talent. The Big 5 often get into silly buggers by having their interviews and offers before the rest etc... precisely for that reason. It is also the reason that they spend so much time on wining and dining prospective trainees.

I know a few people who are in big firms. They didn't get in because they a) have contacts or b) because they are better than anyone else. They got in because that is what they wanted more than anything in the world.

Firms want hard working employees who will give their life to the firm. They don't want albert einstein questioning how things are done. They want diligence, hard work and subservience, they find out who will give 101% in the interviews.

drkpower wrote: »

3. Hotshot or not, there are some very very capable trainees who the firms want to attract. Attracting these guys and gals at trainee stage is a lot easier than trying to do so when a rival has already employed them.

See above. They want to get people they can mould into their way of doing business. Don't get me wrong, intelligence is a pre-requisite, but you has as good a chance of getting a job with a semi-decent 2h1 as a 1h. A lot of the nice food and wining and dining was just ego to be honest, but we all got good nights out of it.

Dante09

maidhc wrote: »

You can only plan if you can predict future economic growth with some degree of accuracy. The last 18 months have been anything but predictable in terms of fee income, and this seems set to continue,



I know a few people who are in big firms. They didn't get in because they a) have contacts or b) because they are better than anyone else. They got in because that is what they wanted more than anything in the world.

Firms want hard working employees who will give their life to the firm. They don't want albert einstein questioning how things are done. They want diligence, hard work and subservience, they find out who will give 101% in the interviews.



See above. They want to get people they can mould into their way of doing business. Don't get me wrong, intelligence is a pre-requisite, but you has as good a chance of getting a job with a semi-decent 2h1 as a 1h. A lot of the nice food and wining and dining was just ego to be honest, but we all got good nights out of it.

Maidhc, you're spot in what you're saying re the people getting into the big 5 wanting it more than most others. You're also correct in saying that the likelihood is, is that those people will work their back sides off for their firms and that the firms see that at interviews. However, you cannot deny that those Irish lawyers listed in the legal 500 or chambers and partners as some of the top European lawyers in their respective fields were once those very trainees you're describing. Are there any firms outside of the top 10 listed on those forums? No. Ergo the big commercial firms attract people with the best potential to make it to the top of the commercial law world.

Sangre

Dante09 wrote: »

Maidhc, you're spot in what you're saying re the people getting into the big 5 wanting it more than most others. You're also correct in saying that the likelihood is, is that those people will work their back sides off for their firms and that the firms see that at interviews. However, you cannot deny that those Irish lawyers listed in the legal 500 or chambers and partners as some of the top European lawyers in their respective fields were once those very trainees you're describing. Are there any firms outside of the top 10 listed on those forums? No. Ergo the big commercial firms attract people with the best potential to make it to the top of the commercial law world.

Its a bit of a catch 22. You can't really become known as a top commercial lawyer in a medium/small firm because you won't have the exposure to top end deals. That doesn't mean you couldn't be one. The largest companies/deals often won't use smaller firms as their indemnity insurance is a lot smaller. Not to mention they would prefer to use specialists in the area which isn't always possible in smaller firms.

Dante09

Sangre wrote: »

Its a bit of a catch 22. You can't really become known as a top commercial lawyer in a medium/small firm because you won't have the exposure to top end deals. That doesn't mean you couldn't be one. The largest companies/deals often won't use smaller firms as their indemnity insurance is a lot smaller. Not to mention they would prefer to use specialists in the area which isn't always possible in smaller firms.

Very true indeed. However, my point relates back to trainees getting into these firms. Like Maidhc said, firms see the desire in those people to work on big deals, for big companies etc and then they nurture that desire, helping them through the ranks. Desire, ambition and motivation (not necessarily einstein like brain-power) are more than half the reason why the big 5 choose the people they do and that, imo, is what makes up the potential a trainee will need if s/he is to have any hope of making it to the top.

drkpower

maidhc wrote: »

You can only plan if you can predict future economic growth with some degree of accuracy. The last 18 months have been anything but predictable in terms of fee income, and this seems set to continue, .

Agreed; but any big firm has a detailed plan based on predicted income/state of the economy etc.. You did say that firms dont have a plan that lasts more than 3 months. As I said, the plan may be poor, but they do have one.

maidhc wrote: »

Firms want hard working employees who will give their life to the firm. They don't want albert einstein questioning how things are done. They want diligence, hard work and subservience, they find out who will give 101% in the interviews.

See above. They want to get people they can mould into their way of doing business. Don't get me wrong, intelligence is a pre-requisite, but you has as good a chance of getting a job with a semi-decent 2h1 as a 1h. A lot of the nice food and wining and dining was just ego to be honest, but we all got good nights out of it.

Firms want many things. But there are certain individuals who, even from an early stage in their career, you can determine that they are likely to be excellent lawyers, potential equity partners in the future. Sure, some of them will fall by the wayside but some will make it and will bring a lot into a firm in the future. And it is in a firms intrest to get them early, and ahead of the competition. That is why they are (or maybe, were..) wined and dined. While it is hard to believe, they are valuable commodities.

I think your comments above about "not questioning how things are done" and "subservience" are a little short sighted. They may want that in an employee but those attributes are hugely negative in any senior lawyer and are particularly harmful in a partner/equity partner whose own views on how the business is run are hugely important.

TheDemiurge

Not the right thread to post in per se, but the tone is right. I haven't been on here in ages, I've been getting on with planning a new life.

If you haven't gotten an apprenticeship, consider yourselves lucky. My practice is closing down, I can't afford to pay an accountant to do up an accountant's report for year end December 2008, no bank will lend me the money to pay for it, and I got a call today from the Law Society informing me that despite them being aware of my financial situation they are reporting me to the Disciplinary Tribunal for not filing the report. So I find myself now with no money, supposed to defend myself down in Bow Street to save a parchment that got me into this difficulty in the first place and avoid a judgment being registered against my home.

Please God people - do anything, ANYTHING - except enter this monumental scam and train wreck of a "profession".