Traineeship in a Small Firm vs Big Firm

MilkMusic

Hi any thoughts on the advantages/disadvantages of working as a trainee solicitor in small or big firms. Any insight would be really appreciated. Thanks.

Mr. Incognito

Mid tier is the way to go.

Small firms dont pay and you dont get the same exposure.

Big firms are hit and miss depending on the area/ partner/ department.

MilkMusic

Thanks for the advice, would you think that training in a mid-tier firm (as opposed to a small firm) would greatly enhance your CV when it comes to post-qualification employment?

Peregrinus

No, in general the big firm looks best on the CV, since potential employers know that there is good experience to be had at big firms, and that the big firms have structured traineeship programs intended to expose trainees to a range of good experience.

Yes, you could do a stint with a dud partner (in terms of training and mentoring) in a big firm, but you could equally do a longer stint with a dud partner in a mid-sized firm.

The risk with a big firm is excessive specialisation. If you have an interest in a particular area they will try to ensure you get exposure, but it can't be guaranteed. And, of course there will be areas you never get exposure to. For instance, I did my traineeship in a large firm, and my entire litigation experience was in commercial litigation - I never did any family law, any negligence actions, etc. My commercial experience was in tax and financial services; I never did any M&A work. And so forth.

I got very good experience in the areas that I was exposed to, and the specialisms that I later pursued developed out of that. Plus, I was kept on in the firm post-qualification and there was a concerted effort to continue exposing me to new areas of practice; it's not like everything stops the day you qualify. But if I did decide that the large commercial life was not for me, and I had been looking to be employed in a more general firm, they would certainly have noticed that I had no family law experience, no general common law litigation experience, fairly narrow commercial experience, etc. If they were looking for someone ready to hit the ground running in fields like that, I was definitely not that person.

Mr. Incognito

MilkMusic wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, would you think that training in a mid-tier firm (as opposed to a small firm) would greatly enhance your CV when it comes to post-qualification employment?

Are you doing it for Career purposes or to be a good lawyer.

if you are doing it for money, then join a top tier and specialise in something like tax or M &A or Aircraft Leasing.

I trained in a top 4 Accountancy Firm in tax. It was pigeon holed and dull. I learned nothing after my first 6 months and did a lot of menial tasks.

When I retrained as a solicitor I studiously avoided the top tier and joined a mid tier commercial firm. Find one with a structured training programme that rotates you. About 15-50 employees is best.

That way you get a lot more exposure and you will know what you are suited to and what you want to specialise in.

MilkMusic

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Are you doing it for Career purposes or to be a good lawyer.

if you are doing it for money, then join a top tier and specialise in something like tax or M &A or Aircraft Leasing. .

No money is not a major motivating factor for me. I have a particular interest in Criminal Law. I have a BCL and an LLM (my thesis was in Criminal Law).

Samuel T. Cogley

MilkMusic wrote: »

No money is not a major motivating factor for me. I have a particular interest in Criminal Law. I have a BCL and an LLM (my thesis was in Criminal Law).

Criminal firms tend to be smaller firms. IIRC one of the busiest firms is 5ish solicitors. My extremely limited experience was that solicitors don't deal with much of the interesting criminal side. If money is not a major factor is the barrister route an option?

MilkMusic

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Criminal firms tend to be smaller firms. IIRC one of the busiest firms is 5ish solicitors. My extremely limited experience was that solicitors don't deal with much of the interesting criminal side. If money is not a major factor is the barrister route an option?

I had looked into the barrister route before but I had come to the conclusion that working as a solicitor would suit me more. I know I am better at 'working quietly behind the scenes' if that makes sense? I don't think I have the extroverted personality that I'd imagine you'd need as a barrister!

I realise most solicitors do little or no criminal law and it is a specialist area but I would like to get even a small bit of exposure to it in my training in the future.

I have four Fe1s completed this year. It seems that alot of people have to 'take what they can get' when it comes to securing a traineeship so maybe I should just be delighted to get offered anything! (I did graduate in 2009 though so I'd imagine it is slightly easier now with the upturn in the economy...hopefully!).

Hunchback

I just did ppc1 last year and it became evident that almost nobody (or maybe even exactly nobody?) intended to specialise in criminal law. This was based on a show of hands in a room of 150 to 200 trainees. So maybe there is a real opportunity to take advantage of that you have an interest in the area, if this is part of an emerging trend

Peregrinus

MilkMusic wrote: »

No money is not a major motivating factor for me. I have a particular interest in Criminal Law. I have a BCL and an LLM (my thesis was in Criminal Law).

If you're thinking of specialising in criminal practice then, relevantly to the question raised in your OP, the big firms do little or none of this. It's largely done by specialist firms, and they are fairly small-to-mid-sized firms.

Dandelion6

If criminal law is what you want to do then definitely look for a small firm that specialises in it. As an alternative, a rural general practice might be an option - at least you'll get some criminal experience, which you won't get at all in the mid-tier or large firms.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

My extremely limited experience was that solicitors don't deal with much of the interesting criminal side.

Depends what you think is interesting. If it's advocacy, solicitors do this all the time in the District Court. If it's serious crime, solicitors are there in the higher courts instructing their barristers.

McCrack

MilkMusic wrote: »

I had looked into the barrister route before but I had come to the conclusion that working as a solicitor would suit me more. I know I am better at 'working quietly behind the scenes' if that makes sense? I don't think I have the extroverted personality that I'd imagine you'd need as a barrister!

I realise most solicitors do little or no criminal law and it is a specialist area but I would like to get even a small bit of exposure to it in my training in the future.

I have four Fe1s completed this year. It seems that alot of people have to 'take what they can get' when it comes to securing a traineeship so maybe I should just be delighted to get offered anything! (I did graduate in 2009 though so I'd imagine it is slightly easier now with the upturn in the economy...hopefully!).

Crime as a solicitor is mostly District Court and its not particularly specialised. Most is run of the mill. Majority accused plead. You pick it up quickly. Its also disruptive..calls to the garda station at all hours and bail hearings at weekends etc. Legal aid for the time and work involved doesn't really reward. There are certainly more lucrative areas of practice.

If you thrive in it you will enjoy it but you will work hard..think having 20 or 30 clients in one day and having to know their files and make your case/pleas before the judge. It can be intensive.

leek15

Would anyone have any idea what to expect in terms of trainee wages outside of the big firms? Is minimum wage and no Blackhall fees still fairly standard or are some firms paying better wages?

Any insight would be appreciated!