TCLA General Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[Jessica Booker]

In the past year, I’ve had catch-ups on Zoom. But regarding setting up coffee catch-ups/chats during a VS, how does that usually work in person? Do we actually go out and have the coffee in a cafe? Or just chat in the canteen or a common area at the firm? A bit random but I have no idea what a coffee catch-up usually looks like in person 😅

More than likely in a communual area/canteen area, unless there is a coffee shop very close to the office.

When you arrange them, I would typically ask where might be convenient for them to meet or if they have any preference of where to meet.

 

[summer207]

More than likely in a communual area/canteen area, unless there is a coffee shop very close to the office.

When you arrange them, I would typically ask where might be convenient for them to meet or if they have any preference of where to meet.

Thanks for your response Jessica! My first VS starts Monday and I’m trying my best to not overthink everything 😅

 

[Jessica Booker]

Just listened to this podcast from two of my ex-colleagues from Freshfields. Highly recommend having a listen to it if you are worried about "fitting in" at a law firm

My Realisation: realise transformational change | Podcast on Spotify

 

[gdelle]

Hi, everyone

Hoping you can help me out of my sudden confusion: I had it understood that apprenticeships were aimed at non graduates (and had in fact seen as a requirement on some sites that you must not have a degree of any sort), whilst training contracts, for the time being, remained the route for graduates.

I've just found an ad for a Graduate Apprenticeship - apparently there is such a thing as apprenticeships for those who have an LLB or a degree + GDL, but no LPC? If this is correct, and it seems a low-cost way of recruiting solicitors, isn't it just going to make the route into law harder for potential career changers who can't take the plunge into legal studies without the knowledge that there's a job waiting at the end of it?

Do direct me to another thread if there is a better place for this!

Thanks,

E.

 

[AvniD]

Morning everyone,

So, the university of law funds a postgraduate 'career changer' scholarship. This would be financially a God send for me right now, but also I think it applies as I was a pastry chef for 8 years prior to my LLB.
My question is how to go about structuring an answer to this:

What is your motivation for a career change?
What are your academic and career aspirations/how do you see yourself using your degree in changing career? Describe the transferable skills you deem beneficial to your new career path giving examples to demonstrate this from your previous work experience. Max 500 words.

I was thinking that I would first briefly mention my previous career and why I went into Law, then say what I want from the LLM/how this will facilitate the career I want.
I'm just a little unsure of where to shoehorn in the transferable skills bit into that?
Do I need a couple of examples at the end, or should they be integrated for a better flow?

Thanks

I think @Alison C has broken this down wonderfully! Just to add a couple thoughts-

What is your motivation for a career change?

• I would be careful about how you portray your previous career. Would recommend what drew you to commercial law rather than what make you turn away from being a chef (subtle difference, but makes a big impact in the tone with which you communicate your message). Would also recommend substantiating motivation with some examples of initiative you've taken to learn more about a career in commercial law (something you read, an event you attended etc.)

What are your academic and career aspirations/how do you see yourself using your degree in changing career?

• You need to demonstrate a direct link between how your degree feeds into ➡️ your academic and career aspirations. Be specific- pick out particular courses, topics, academics etc. at the university that directly relate to your aspirations and how you intend to engage with them.

Describe the transferable skills you deem beneficial to your new career path giving examples to demonstrate this from your previous work experience. Max 500 words.

• I would recommend going on to a law firm's website and having a look at the competencies they've listed as being important in their trainees. For eg- if one of the competencies is attention to detail, pick specific examples from you previous work experience where you've demonstrated this actionably with a quantifiable result and tie it into how this competency would be beneficial in your new career path. This is pretty complex structure to follow so a couple examples should be just fine as long as you're able to flesh them out with the requisite detail.

 

[Alice Manners]

Hi all - has anybody taken the LPC with masters (and therefore got the student loan) and then dropped the masters element? Trying to find out if the loan would have to be repaid or if this would have to be classed as failing a module (which I can’t do for my TC). Does anybody have any experience of this? Thanks!

 

[Abii]

Hi all - has anybody taken the LPC with masters (and therefore got the student loan) and then dropped the masters element? Trying to find out if the loan would have to be repaid or if this would have to be classed as failing a module (which I can’t do for my TC). Does anybody have any experience of this? Thanks!

I think the best people to advise on this would be the LPC provider. Honestly the masters element is hardly any more work so it might be more hassle trying to organise this than just doing the module if the admin team at your provider are as slow as at mine!

In terms of paying it back I can imagine it would likely be treated in the same way as those that drop out part way through a degree.

This can also have visa implications if you are relying on a study visa whilst undertaking the LPC.

 

[Alice Manners]

I think the best people to advise on this would be the LPC provider. Honestly the masters element is hardly any more work so it might be more hassle trying to organise this than just doing the module if the admin team at your provider are as slow as at mine!

In terms of paying it back I can imagine it would likely be treated in the same way as those that drop out part way through a degree.

This can also have visa implications if you are relying on a study visa whilst undertaking the LPC.

yeah that’s true! Student services had no idea re finances but I think from a conversation with student finance I would just pay it back as usual with rest of my student loan, as it’s already been paid and is not classed as an overpayment.

So, on that basis, do you think the masters is worth doing long term? To stick out an extra module, exam, essay and presentation? I already have a TC so not worried about that but I suppose just how it looks going forward? Any advice much appreciated!

 

[Jessica Booker]

yeah that’s true! Student services had no idea re finances but I think from a conversation with student finance I would just pay it back as usual with rest of my student loan, as it’s already been paid and is not classed as an overpayment.

So, on that basis, do you think the masters is worth doing long term? To stick out an extra module, exam, essay and presentation? I already have a TC so not worried about that but I suppose just how it looks going forward? Any advice much appreciated!

It will make no difference to your future career whether you do the module or not. The only factor to consider are those already raised (impact of student finance, visa implications, and making sure it wouldn't be a "failed" module, just a change in course).

 

[sunflowerducks]

Hi everyone. Does anyone have experience negotiating a salary upon receiving a job offer? If so, do you have any tips on sticking to your ground and being confident? Similarly, if anyone has in-house experience as a contract administrator, executive, or manager, I'd appreciate it if you could DM me. I currently think I'm being low-balled.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi everyone. Does anyone have experience negotiating a salary upon receiving a job offer? If so, do you have any tips on sticking to your ground and being confident? Similarly, if anyone has in-house experience as a contract administrator, executive, or manager, I'd appreciate it if you could DM me. I currently think I'm being low-balled.

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss - I have experience both sides of the table with salary negotiation, albeit not with contract team roles.

Salary offers can vary quite significantly from candidate to candidate even within the same role. I have made offers to people to work in my team and despite their job titles being identical, salaries were quite different based on experience, skill set and abilities. Plus how much you can negotiate is dependent on so many variable factors, and often things you won't have sight of.

Whats the percentage difference between what you have been offered and what you were expecting?

 

[James Carrabino]

Hi, everyone

Hoping you can help me out of my sudden confusion: I had it understood that apprenticeships were aimed at non graduates (and had in fact seen as a requirement on some sites that you must not have a degree of any sort), whilst training contracts, for the time being, remained the route for graduates.

I've just found an ad for a Graduate Apprenticeship - apparently there is such a thing as apprenticeships for those who have an LLB or a degree + GDL, but no LPC? If this is correct, and it seems a low-cost way of recruiting solicitors, isn't it just going to make the route into law harder for potential career changers who can't take the plunge into legal studies without the knowledge that there's a job waiting at the end of it?

Do direct me to another thread if there is a better place for this!

Thanks,

E.

Hi @gdelle,

This is a really interesting question. I would start by saying that I have not personally come across many such 'Graduate Apprenticeships', so I am not sure if this is a one-off concept that you have seen or if you believe that you have noticed it catching on more broadly?

I do think that if this becomes more mainstream then training contract providers may have to re-assess their approach, although for now it does not seem widespread enough to affect the legal recruitment market too significantly.

I have a couple of questions based on what you have said - firstly, how do you see it being a low-cost way of recruiting solicitors? I would have thought that the salary these apprentices will be paid is higher than what they would earn on a maintenance grant, and they are not likely to be adding a lot of value yet, especially if they have to study during the apprenticeship. I may have misunderstood though!

I also am not sure how you see this making it harder for potential career changers. Are you saying that if this catches on amongst firms in general, then they will no longer fund the GDL and career changers would have to fund it themselves? I am not sure that we would see this in the near future but it is definitely interesting to keep an eye on!

I am sure @Jessica Booker will have much greater insight into this

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi, everyone

Hoping you can help me out of my sudden confusion: I had it understood that apprenticeships were aimed at non graduates (and had in fact seen as a requirement on some sites that you must not have a degree of any sort), whilst training contracts, for the time being, remained the route for graduates.

I've just found an ad for a Graduate Apprenticeship - apparently there is such a thing as apprenticeships for those who have an LLB or a degree + GDL, but no LPC? If this is correct, and it seems a low-cost way of recruiting solicitors, isn't it just going to make the route into law harder for potential career changers who can't take the plunge into legal studies without the knowledge that there's a job waiting at the end of it?

Do direct me to another thread if there is a better place for this!

Thanks,

E.

Apprenticeships work at all levels, including postgraduate. With an apprenticeship you just shouldn’t have a qualification of the same level or higher in the same subject. For instance, you couldn’t do a graduate level law apprenticeship if you had done a law degree.

What you have stated is correct. It is a postgraduate apprenticeship, meaning you study the LPC or SQE on an apprenticeship basis. It just means you earn while you learn rather than having to take a year out to dedicate to studying the course. If anything, it makes it more accessible rather than less.

Just because it is titled an apprenticeship, you shouldn’t assume it will be a low pay job. It is effectively a training contract and will result in people being paid the same upon qualification (and most likely during the TC too).

Kennedys is one of the firms taking this approach with the SQE.

It’s a shame more firms aren’t getting on board with this and just sticking with the old model of getting the legal qualifications out the way before you can do a day’s work. Ultimately the SQE came in because of apprenticeships, and had been designed in a way to encourage this approach of learning on the job.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Did you know U.K. employers effectively pay an apprenticeship tax of 0.5% of their total U.K. payroll (called the apprenticeship levy)?

They can get that “tax” back by drawing it back to pay for apprenticeship training. So a firm could pay £15k to BPP/UoL to train someone the traditional way pre TC, or they could just pull from their apprenticeship levy if they were willing to employ trainees on an apprenticeship instead.

Many employers (including law firms) just don’t want the hassle though, so just end up paying the levy and only ever drawing back a small fraction of it to train apprentices.

 

[James Carrabino]

Did you know U.K. employers effectively pay an apprenticeship tax of 0.5% of their total U.K. payroll (called the apprenticeship levy)?

They can get that “tax” back by drawing it back to pay for apprenticeship training. So a firm could pay £15k to BPP/UoL to train someone the traditional way pre TC, or they could just pull from their apprenticeship levy if they were willing to employ trainees on an apprenticeship instead.

Many employers (including law firms) just don’t want the hassle though, so just end up paying the levy and only ever drawing back a small fraction of it to train apprentices.

This is fascinating, maybe over time things will change!

 

[Jessica Booker]

This is fascinating, maybe over time things will change!

I hope so, but apprenticeship training providers aren’t great (due to funding being capped and the intensity of training - it’s much more hands on with dedicated coaches/mentors from the training providers perspective than a degree course), and many employers both inside and outside of law just can’t be bothered and just effectively pay the tax. Another issue is that 20% of an apprentices time has to be dedicated to learning and many employers just sont

Even employers with apprenticeship programmes are only using a fraction of their levy pot funds, mainly where it can only be used to pay for the apprenticeship course. If you could use the funding for other things (eg other training or even the apprentices’ salaries) then this would be a massive game changer and we’d see this more often.

The model of studying whilst earning, even without an apprenticeship structure, works for so many other professions’ graduate programmes though. It will be interesting to see whether firms like Kennedys, Reed Smith and new players to the market like Flex Legal will become popular with candidates - as that could be the real tipping point. If firms lose talent to other firms, then will then start to reassess.

 

[Alison C]

Hi, everyone

Hoping you can help me out of my sudden confusion: I had it understood that apprenticeships were aimed at non graduates (and had in fact seen as a requirement on some sites that you must not have a degree of any sort), whilst training contracts, for the time being, remained the route for graduates.

I've just found an ad for a Graduate Apprenticeship - apparently there is such a thing as apprenticeships for those who have an LLB or a degree + GDL, but no LPC? If this is correct, and it seems a low-cost way of recruiting solicitors, isn't it just going to make the route into law harder for potential career changers who can't take the plunge into legal studies without the knowledge that there's a job waiting at the end of it?

Do direct me to another thread if there is a better place for this!

Thanks,

E.

I spoke with GR from Norton Rose Fulbright this week as they do one. It's a six-year apprenticeship; the GR told me that they recruit for it in the same way as their TC, ie form, Watson Glaser, AC. It's not necessarily aimed at grads but they will consider them. They send the apprentices off to BPP; I asked if it was day release but she couldn't be sure. The exam will be the SQE. They took about 4 apprentices last year.

Take a look here:

Law apprenticeships | Prospects.ac.uk

Law apprenticeships enable aspiring legal professionals to 'earn while they learn' and gain qualifications, while avoiding the increasing cost of a legal education

www.prospects.ac.uk

Dear legal profession – letter from a solicitor apprentice

From dreams of becoming a modern-day Atticus Finch, to challenging stigma around apprenticeships, Emily Shields shares her experiences in an open letter to the profession.

www.lawsociety.org.uk

There is also CILEX as another longer but steady way to qualify; they hold regular information evenings (just signed up for one).

CILEX | Connect with thousands of like-minded legal professionals

CILEX offers flexible, comprehensive and established options for kickstarting your legal career, whatever your prior legal experience.

www.cilex.org.uk

So the SQE and a crazily competitive TC is still not the only way forward, though I got the feeling from NRF that, as they introduced this as a way to promote diversity and access, they wouldn't necessarily go for graduates over high quality less qualified individuals. This was not directly stated but as they have a TC for grads it seems likely to me.

 

[IRO]

I hope so, but apprenticeship training providers aren’t great (due to funding being capped and the intensity of training - it’s much more hands on with dedicated coaches/mentors from the training providers perspective than a degree course), and many employers both inside and outside of law just can’t be bothered and just effectively pay the tax. Another issue is that 20% of an apprentices time has to be dedicated to learning and many employers just sont

Even employers with apprenticeship programmes are only using a fraction of their levy pot funds, mainly where it can only be used to pay for the apprenticeship course. If you could use the funding for other things (eg other training or even the apprentices’ salaries) then this would be a massive game changer and we’d see this more often.

The model of studying whilst earning, even without an apprenticeship structure, works for so many other professions’ graduate programmes though. It will be interesting to see whether firms like Kennedys, Reed Smith and new players to the market like Flex Legal will become popular with candidates - as that could be the real tipping point. If firms lose talent to other firms, then will then start to reassess.

Do you think it’s likely that people will be drawn to Kennedy’s, Reed Smith, etc so that firms following the traditional model lose talent to them? I personally ruled these firms out very early on in the application process because I did not think the structure of their training (including the earn while you learn structure) was in any way appealing. I’d be interested to know whether I was unusual in this regard.

Also, aside from accounting what other graduate programmes have the same professional qualification requirements that law has? I’m not familiar with the graduate recruitment scene but assumed this was one of the areas that set law apart. My partner is in finance and had to do very little training/qualifications before starting his job, except getting regulated which was a doddle compared to PGDL/LPC/SQE

 

[Jessica Booker]

Do you think it’s likely that people will be drawn to Kennedy’s, Reed Smith, etc so that firms following the traditional model lose talent to them? I personally ruled these firms out very early on in the application process because I did not think the structure of their training (including the earn while you learn structure) was in any way appealing. I’d be interested to know whether I was unusual in this regard.

Also, aside from accounting what other graduate programmes have the same professional qualification requirements that law has? I’m not familiar with the graduate recruitment scene but assumed this was one of the areas that set law apart. My partner is in finance and had to do very little training/qualifications before starting his job, except getting regulated which was a doddle compared to PGDL/LPC/SQE

For those who can’t afford to do the GDL/SQE and they want to qualify as early as possible (an apprenticeship route is likely to lead to an earlier qualification), then the route will be attractive. It won’t be for everyone, but given firms concerns on social mobility diversity, I can see this being a route more in time move to. Particularly if they find more people are failing the SQE without experience vs those who do (some early evidence from the pilots to suggest this is the case), then firms will move to it as well.

It wont be attractive to everyone, but it will be to some. It’s just whether the “some” are more likely to be the talent the firm hoped to recruit.

It depends what level of finance qualification you do. CFA is pretty intense, especially if you do all three levels. Surveying/real estate jobs - (RICS accreditation) has a very intense set of assessments, but these can only be done when you have accumulated work experience - you can’t sit the assessments without a work log of 400 days (if I remember rightly).

 

[IRO]

For those who can’t afford to do the GDL/SQE and they want to qualify as early as possible (an apprenticeship route is likely to lead to an earlier qualification), then the route will be attractive. It won’t be for everyone, but given firms concerns on social mobility diversity, I can see this being a route more in time move to. Particularly if they find more people are failing the SQE without experience vs those who do (some early evidence from the pilots to suggest this is the case), then firms will move to it as well.

It wont be attractive to everyone, but it will be to some. It’s just whether the “some” are more likely to be the talent the firm hoped to recruit.

It depends what level of finance qualification you do. CFA is pretty intense, especially if you do all three levels. Surveying/real estate jobs - (RICS accreditation) has a very intense set of assessments, but these can only be done when you have accumulated work experience - you can’t sit the assessments without a work log of 400 days (if I remember rightly).

I guess the main difference w/r/t to finance is whether the qualification is necessary to do the job, in many cases where your role doesn’t involve giving advice you won’t need to be a CFA. In my view there isn’t really a point of comparison there since it’s possible to work in the sector without CFA but you can’t be a solicitor without LPC/SQE. In this regard I do think law is different to other sectors and less suited to an apprenticeship/earn while you learn structure. I hadn’t considered surveying/real estate as very few people from my university/background choose to enter these roles.

I also think there hasn’t been enough consideration of how this route would work for non-law graduates. Case in point, Kennedy’s requires you to already have a qualifiying law degree, so is not more accessible for non-law graduates. Ultimately, I think it’s unlikely this route would make the profession more accessible, especially considering financial accessibility is only one small factor that makes the profession less accessible, and social mobility is one of many areas where firms want to improve diversity.