newby09 wrote: » LK Shields have started getting back to applicants....
theo2008 wrote: » Hey, Got my PFO from LK Shields today. And no they haven't done any interviews yet. I thought the wording was strange, the first line said "Having reviewed your application in more detail we do not feel that it would be appropriate to proceed further". Saying that it would not be appropriate just seems to me to be a personal statement and not a generic one. Could anyone else who's gotten PFOs from them tell me was this what they said to you also? Thanks.
Irishlawgirl wrote: » oh janey - minimum requirements ?? Think I read once that someone thought maybe these firms were looking for the near impossible - possibly a kidney?!?! I honestly believe that the majority (way past 60%) of candidates are taken while they were in college (for these top 20 firms) - soooo minimum requirements may actually mean "minimum age"! Oh I sound bitter and old!! I'm only 26 but I feel ancient when it came to sitting in the group interviews of ACox for the last two years. Just giving my rant a bit of air space here.
Johnny Utah wrote: » No, I'm a graduate so I would be older than the average age of those in their final year.
partyguinness wrote: » Sorry to hear about the PFOs But dont take the wording to heart. Those letters are standard form letters and are in a precedent bank in the computers. They are not written personally. This is standard in the legal profession. A bit like those letter from the bank when you miss a payment.
Johnny Utah wrote: » I got a different response from LK Shields. I got an e-mail today: "Although your application for job of Trainee Solicitors has been considered, your application has failed to meet the minimum requirements. Good luck with future applications." Failed to meet minimum requirements? Are they taking the piss?
AKK wrote: » Yup - agree entirely partyguinness but honestly, on a first reading of the PFO it seemed unnecessarily cruel! Of course I know that many will have gotten the exact same one. All the firms could take a leaf out of A Coxes book though: they've the sweetest pfo I've ever seen!
sid4lev wrote: » hiya, i got the same email as yourself and theo. Do you have fe1s done? I think that the reason it was worded as it was, is because i will not have my fe1s done before their 2009 start date. The email said to apply for the 2010 intake from next august onwards, further suggesting that that was the reason it was phrased as it was. I think that makes sense unless you or theo have you fe1s done, in which case the opening statement in the email is plain ignorant. Dillon Eustace got back to successful candidates yesterday and this morning.
hada wrote: » this lark of spending 40 minutes grilling people on aer lingus, public/private sector stimulation, investment opportunities in Ireland is absolute waste of time. to think they are basing a traineeship entirely on whether a 20something year old has an indepth knowledge (and I mean, indepth - I know for a fact some of these firms wanted much more than a surface knowledge as most would expect) of such things is a farce. Don't get me wrong, I've always had a damn keen interest in local, national and international affairs, but what type 20 year old does one have to be to pass such an interview? I'd sure as hell not have passed it when I was 20 and would probably struggle nowadays even.
sid4lev wrote: » Just to let interested parties know that the old thread on askaboutmoney has been re-opened. http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27367&page=41
newby09 wrote: » i got that email too but then got another saying that they had an error?? they said to apply again next year which is a nicer response than you failed to meet the minimum requirements!!! i was disgusted when i read that! anyone heard back from dillon eustace or maples?
Johnny Utah wrote: » I had a quick look through that thread, and it seems that things are very bad indeed. Some posters claiming that the large commercial firms are only taking on the bare minimum to keep up appearances; A&L only offering a training contract for one year! Hiya! OMG, are you serious about A&L? Are you sure its a one year training contract that they're offering as opposed to one year contract after qualification? Or is your source the thread, the link to which i posted earlier?
sid4lev wrote: » Hiya! OMG, are you serious about A&L? Are you sure its a one year training contract that they're offering as opposed to one year contract after qualification? Or is your source the thread, the link to which i posted earlier?
partyguinness wrote: » I have 4yrs pqe and in full employment so I'm just keeping the head down. I am fairly safe, even got a raise but I am not taking anything for granted. A lot of my friends have been let go.
Irishlawgirl wrote: » You're very lucky - 4 years PQE! oh to be in your shoes!! Definitely right about keeping the head down. How scary is this economy. I always thought that no matter what, law was a fairly safe area. Clearly not - and to be looking for an ap'ship in this climate verges on impossible.