Firms are unlikely to hire you over Skype

A couple of recent surveys have brought legal work experience into the spotlight. Lawyer2B revealed an annual increase in the number of firms taking on a higher proportion of trainees who had completed a vacation scheme with said firm, while the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) found that 79 per cent of respondents had undertaken unpaid work experience.

Criticism has been directed towards firms, such as Mishcon de Reya and Nabarro, which
have decided to select trainees exclusively from their pool of vacation schemers. Many argue that those in full-time work are disadvantaged as a two-week interview equates to taking a chunk of holiday allowance with no guarantee of a training contract offer. This potentially affects the diversity of those awarded a training contract by skewing the balance in favour of the wealthy young law student with no job or dependants, who perhaps has ample time during term breaks to complete a vacation scheme. The compulsory vacation scheme seems to be a growing trend, with the proportion of trainee intakes from firms’ pools of vacation schemers increasing from 32 per cent in 2013 to
40 per cent in 2014 for those commencing a training contract this year (60 law firms provided data).

With the exception of those with dependants, I find it
difficult to empathise with
those complaining about this
trainee recruitment trend.
Those in full-time work (and there are many law graduates paralegalling) need to accept the fact that they may have to use up holiday allowance in order to be awarded a training contract.
For those prepared to work
hard for a training contract offer (whatever their background may be), annual leave will surely not seem like such a large sacrifice.

My own experience of working full-time while attending training contract interviews meant little real holiday time. The fact is that gaining a training contract in an environment where the supply of law graduates far outweighs the demand takes ‘hard graft’, and will be done on terms set by the firm. Except for a few lucky ones, working towards a training contract offer will not consist of one short interview, and it is very unlikely to be at a time suitably convenient over Skype.

Long-term unpaid work experience (23 per cent of respondents to the JLD’s survey had worked unpaid for at least six months) is the real concern.
Two to three weeks’ worth of work experience, (which some firms even pay for) is not a hard price to pay for a strong chance
of a training contract offer, particularly considering the amount of desperate graduates willing to work for free in roles that, had the demand for training contracts not been so high, would likely be paid positions. Those in full-time paid work should perhaps be a little more realistic about the sheer over-supply of law graduates and snap up any short-term work experience which may lead to a training contract, rather than grumbling about it. SJ

Natasza Slater is a trainee at Howard Kennedy