McCann FitzGerald defers Trainees for two years

dats_right · 21-08-2009 08:36AM #1

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 · 21-08-2009 09:49AM

"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 · 21-08-2009 09:56AM

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 · 21-08-2009 10:21AM

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 · 21-08-2009 10:38AM

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 · 21-08-2009 10:51AM

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 · 21-08-2009 11:01AM

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

enry · 21-08-2009 11:22AM

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 · 21-08-2009 11:38AM

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 · 21-08-2009 01:16PM

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 · 21-08-2009 02:06PM

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 · 21-08-2009 02:51PM

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 · 21-08-2009 03:02PM

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 · 21-08-2009 06:10PM

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 · 21-08-2009 08:12PM

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_ · 21-08-2009 08:33PM

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_ · 21-08-2009 08:36PM

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 · 21-08-2009 11:42PM

_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 · 22-08-2009 10:46AM

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 · 22-08-2009 03:41PM

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

nuac · 23-08-2009 06:57PM

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 · 23-08-2009 08:33PM

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 · 23-08-2009 08:53PM

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 · 24-08-2009 12:35PM

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 · 24-08-2009 12:47PM

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 · 24-08-2009 01:03PM

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

+1

Berti Vogts · 24-08-2009 01:17PM

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 · 25-08-2009 09:34AM

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 · 25-08-2009 11:00AM

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 · 25-08-2009 12:07PM

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 · 25-08-2009 12:50PM

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.

McCann FitzGerald defers Trainees for two years

Comments