Failure to pay up could result in a five-year prison sentence
Credit: Ealing News Extra
A solicitor who repeatedly ignored warnings from council bigwigs to stop using his terraced house as an office has been slapped with a £500,000 confiscation order.
Dr Akbar Ali Malik made two planning applications since 2011 to use his home in Southall, west London, as his place of work. Despite the immigration specialist’s requests being rejected by Ealing Council, Dr Malik is said to have continued to practise from the premises, leading to the council issuing an enforcement notice in October 2013 to stop him.
Dr Malik appealed the notice and applied for a certificate of lawfulness to use his home as an office. When his application was rejected by the council, he appealed that too. Ealing News Extra reports that with both appeals being dismissed, the council set a new deadline of October 2015 for compliance with the enforcement notice. Dr Malik is said to have ignored this and continued practising from the property.
As a result, Dr Malik was served with a summons in August 2017, charging him with failing to comply with the enforcement notice. He pleaded guilty to the planning enforcement offence at Ealing Magistrates’ Court in November 2017.
Following a further seven hearings, the long-running case finally concluded last week with a hefty confiscation order. Unless Dr Malik pays the £500,000 within three months, he will receive an automatic five-year prison sentence. He was also fined a further £10,000 and ordered to pay the council’s costs of £13,747.
Councillor Joanna Camadoo-Rothwell, Ealing Council’s lead member for community safety and inclusion said:
“Using a home for business purposes in this way may not sound particularly concerning, but it’s a big problem. In this case, the use of a terraced home as an office detracted from the character of the surrounding area and made living conditions in neighbouring properties miserable, which led to complaints from local people.”
In a separate matter, Dr Malik’s firm, Malik Law Chambers, was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in April 2018. According to the regulator’s notice at the time, the intervention was because there was “reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Dr Akbar Ali Malik and on the part of Mr Imtiaz Ali, the firm’s managers, in connection with the firm’s business”.
“An uncritical reliance on tech” in the justice system is raising alarm bells for the Law Society.
In a report published this week, Chancery Lane highlights a lack of accountability and transparency alongside potential human rights challenges of algorithms such as facial recognition, predictive crime mapping, and mobile phone data extraction being developed by the police, prisons and border forces.
There are increasing concerns about police forces piloting facial recognition technology that can, for instance, cross-reference someone at a particular public event with crime data, or algorithms that predict the level of risk of an individual committing further crimes over a given time period.
Christina Blacklaws, president of the Law Society, said:
“Complex algorithms are crunching data to help officials make judgement calls about all sorts of things … [and] … while there are obvious efficiency wins, there is a worrying lack of oversight or framework to mitigate some hefty risks … that may be unwittingly built in by an operator.”
The 80-page report, authored by a commission set up by the Law Society last year, sets out the challenges that algorithms raise such as bias and discrimination.
Because algorithms “encode assumptions and systematic patterns” they can reinforce and then embed discriminations. It reads: “If, as is commonly known, the justice system does under-serve certain populations or over-police others, these biases will be reflected in the data, meaning it will be a biased measurement of the phenomena of interest, such as criminal activity.”
There is also a concern that different government agencies are not talking to each other, as Blacklaws puts it: “Police, prisons and border forces are innovating in silos to help them manage and use the vast quantities of data they hold about people, places and events” but there is an “absence of … centralised coordination or systematic knowledge-sharing between public bodies.”
Chancery Lane makes a number of recommendations as a result of the research findings including ensuring that public bodies rather than tech companies take ownership of the software involved, and setting up a National Register of Algorithmic Systems as an “initial scaffold for further openness, cross-sector learning and scrutiny.”
The commission included members of the Law Society alongside academics, as well as Andrea Coomber from all-party law reform and human rights organisation, Justice.
Company co-founder accepts it’s ‘a bit controversial’
“We realise that [it] is a bit controversial”, says Virtual Internships co-founder Edward Holroyd Pearce. You can say that again: Pearce’s firm is charging students £695 for a remote legal internship in a scheme lawyers have branded “morally wrong”.
Virtual Internships claims that its programme, under which customers pay to work remotely for unnamed companies, offers “real-world, experience” to help “students & recent graduates kickstart their careers”.
The firm recently advertised the legal version of the scheme via careers website The Student Lawyer, touting a £100 discount on the normal price of £695. (On the Virtual Internships website, the package is priced higher still, at £795.)
For that, students get to work unpaid for up to 300 hours, as well as a “comprehensive professional development course”, mentoring and a reference. The company says that typical roles include “Legal Assistant, Legal Researcher, In House Legal Intern, Commercial Exec, Business Development”.
The discount email, seen by Legal Cheek, specifically targets students unable to get a place on vacation schemes or mini-pupillages. Virtual Internships is based at the same London address as The Student Lawyer and the company’s co-founders are both directors of the website’s parent company, GradMedia.
Commenting on its pricey offering, a spokesperson for Virtual Internships told us the fee is required to cover the costs of delivering the programme and “a lot of the students use these internships to gain credit at their university.” They continued:
“We are also committed to making internships more available for traditionally underserved communities such as those with family commitments, disabilities, or those not wishing to relocate to an expensive city for a summer internship.”
In an interview last year, Pearce said that the company had “more than 30 people” signed up as of last October. Legal Cheek asked Virtual Internships which, if any, law firms or chambers were participating in the scheme. On this, the spokesperson added:
“Unfortunately we are not at liberty to disclose these names, without prior consent from the companies themselves.”
Around 80% of legal internships are unpaid or pay less than the minimum wage, according to research by the Sutton Trust. Virtual Internships argues that unpaid interns who have to come to London for an in-office work placement will rack up accommodation and travel costs, so paying for a virtual internship might actually save them money.
Others argue that companies using student labour should pay for it. Crusading QC Jaime Hamilton of 9 St John Street, who has set up a paid internship scheme in disgust at the exploitation of law students, called the Virtual Internships offer “morally wrong”.
Innovation through technology has become more sophisticated and intelligent in recent years, intensifying the threat to lawyer jobs. Yet, it has been suggested that clients are now more fearful of robots handling their work than lawyers are of losing their jobs to machines.
We have seen all manner of ‘rise of the robots’ headlines in recent years and Angus, who holds a PhD in neuroscience, said there had been “a lot of scaremongering” about robot lawyers at the London event. She said “instead of becoming robots”, lawyers can use artificial intelligence (AI) to strengthen their position but noted that “there are still a lot of people who are very scared”.
Failed to act with integrity, according to SRA decision
A former Ropes & Gray London trainee has been barred from working in the legal profession after she was found to have reproduced a client’s signature.
Ex-rookie solicitor Louise Bolderstone printed a share certificate, “traced” the client’s signature onto it and then sent it to a third party reporting it to be the original which had been lost.
She also misled her colleague and a third party in relation to the share certificate, according to a disciplinary decision published today by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
The regulator said her actions breached SRA principle two, act with integrity, and principle six, behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services. Bolderstone was also found to have been dishonest.
She was given a written rebuke and made the subject of a section 43 order, which prevents her from working in a law firm without prior permission from the SRA.
Bolderstone was ordered to pay a financial penalty of £2,000 and costs, including appeal costs, of £1,600.
A spokesperson for Ropes & Gray said: “This is a SRA matter and, as such, it would be inappropriate for us to comment. We can confirm that Louise Bolderstone no longer works at the firm.”
In the latest instalment in our Career Conundrums series, one solicitor needs advice on how to handle a colleague’s follow request on social media.
“I am a solicitor at a regional firm who recently received a follow request on Instagram from a colleague (also a solicitor but in another team). We speak quite regularly and have a good, professional working relationship. Here’s my problem: I want to keep my work and private life separate, so accepting the request is not an option. But at the same time, I don’t want things to become awkward. What should I do?”
But two senior judges quashed the summons today after a judicial review hearing.
Legal Twitter was glued to live coverage of the hearing throughout the morning, including that of honorary QC and Legal Cheek contributor Joshua Rozenberg.
Court confirms that it is quashing the decision of the district judge, on the assumption that the summonses have not yet been issued. Either way, the case is over. Court thanks both counsel for speedy submissions.
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) June 7, 2019
The omens looked grim for Ball from early on, with Mr Justice Supperstone seeming “very sympathetic” to Adrian Darbishire QC’s submissions on behalf of Johnson.
Darbishire, of QEB Hollis Whiteman chambers, argued that the criminal offence of misconduct in public office did not cover political lying and that the prosecution was politically motivated.
Defending the decision to issue the summons, 11KBW silk Jason Coppel tried to persuade the court that Johnson’s duties in public office — he was an MP and Mayor of London at the time — included a duty “not to make apparently factual statements which are known to be false”.
But Supperstone slapped him down, pointing out that there was no precedent for prosecuting misconduct in public office in this way and that the judge was expanding the scope of the offence.
Lady Justice Rafferty, also on the bench, joined Supperstone in quashing the summons. The court will give its reasons in writing later.
The common law offence of misconduct in public office has never been used to criminalise political speech and has been criticised by the Law Commission as “ill-defined”. Many lawyers were taken aback when the district judge took the case seriously and issued the summons.
Johnson, a former foreign secretary, is considered the front runner in the race to succeed Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister.
Clifford Chance has followed Freshfields’ lead and upped newly qualified (NQ) solicitor pay to £100,000, it emerged this morning.
Junior lawyers at Clifford Chance’s Canary Wharf HQ will now start lawyer life on a hefty £100,000, up from a previous salary of £91,000 including discretionary bonuses. It is worth noting, however, that Clifford Chance’s new and improved figure still includes bonuses, meaning Freshfields‘ NQs still have the potential to out-earn their magic circle counterparts, with discretionary bonuses on top of their £100,000 rates.
Today’s money move will pile further pressure on the rest of the elite fivesome to follow suit. As it stands, NQs at Allen & Overy, Linklaters and Slaughter and May receive base rates of £83,000 respectively.
Assuming Clifford Chance’s lot receive their discretionary bonuses, Legal Cheek‘s Firms Most List shows that they’re now on a pay par with their opposite numbers at US outfit Covington & Burling (£100,000).
Ahead of our ‘Innovation and the law’ event on Wednesday in Reading, ULaw campus dean Sarah Pooley reveals how it’s long been a feature of legal practice and what it now means for future lawyers
When Sarah Pooley switched from history to law in 1991, looking for a “profession, not just a job”, in some ways legal practice didn’t look too dissimilar from today: the recession that followed the booming 1980s meant that finding an article clerkship (later re-branding as training contracts) was just as competitive as now. In many ways too life as a Slaughter and May lawyer as Pooley was, had similar themes: “It was a very hardworking culture and the hours were quite long. But, as is the case now, the rewards were high — both in terms of personal satisfaction and personal remuneration,” she reveals.
Unbeknownst to Pooley at the time, working practices for lawyers and firms were about to undergo a period of profound change. “When I first arrived at Slaughter and May, I would dictate letters that a legal secretary would then type up,” recalls Pooley, who later qualified in 1995. Soon enough, this archaic method was abandoned in favour of a new disruptor: the personal computer (PC). “Hugely bulky, like an old television set almost”, the PC redistributed administrative tasks among the magic circle outfit. “Fee earners, like myself, were encouraged to do their own word processing. I remember thinking, “The days of the legal secretary could be numbered,” Pooley says. While inevitably divisive among the more traditional lawyers — whom likely “took a good while to change over, or possibly retired before it became necessary to do so” — most lawyers, like Pooley, embraced this new-found independence.
The University of Law’s Sarah Pooley
Throughout the decade, traditional legal practice was rewired. Before online legal databases came into play in the late-1990s, lawyers heavily relied upon hard copy to conduct legal research. As an articled clerk, Pooley recalls often visiting the firm’s library to peruse printed volumes of Halsbury’s Laws, a legal encyclopaedia, and the monthly updated ‘noter-up’ to see if anything had changed. Although Pooley was well-equipped with research skills, having studied history at the University of Sheffield and later at Cambridge University, it was a laborious task — one that computers now “bear the brunt” of.
Means of communication, too, received a drastic update. Traditionally, clients were spoken to by means of a letter or over the telephone (but the latter was, of course, actually physically connected to an associate’s office desk); if a partner wanted to contact you, they would send across a hard copy memo.
Compared with today’s tech, the innovations of the 1990s hardly feel like innovations at all (when quizzed about the tech-on-hand at the magic circle firm at that time, Pooley quips: “What tech?”). Today’s science fiction-esque talk of machine learning, automation and artificial intelligence (AI) was then regarded as exactly that: science fiction.
And yet, during this period of rapid refresh the drive towards PCs and online research tools was designed with much the same purpose as now: freeing lawyers of basic and repetitive office drudgery, saving time and so saving costs. These basic changes relied on the same definition of innovation, Pooley says. No different from today’s magic circle, firms were asking themselves, ‘How can we save money, quicken work processes to save time and become more competitive?’
Of course, tech has its negatives such as over-connectedness. Back in the day, “once you left work you didn’t expect to be readily contacted. Clients couldn’t easily reach you at home as they can now,” Pooley remarks. The subsequent arrival of, albeit “relatively embryonic”, mobile phones and email signalled this era’s end — unwittingly paving the way for today’s 24/7 hour connected-working culture. Today’s lawyers grapple with the drawbacks of the digital age — especially the blurred line between ‘work’ and ‘life’.
Indeed, it’s easy to reminisce about simpler times. Asked if a lawyer’s day-to-day life has taken a turn for the worse, Pooley disagrees. “What you lose on the one hand, you gain on the other,” she says. Sure, today’s tech can make switching off from work a difficult task. At the same time, connected working offers lawyers flexibility and has forced the profession to have an open conversation about mental health.
In 1997, missing the challenge of academia, Pooley joined the College of Law (now The University of Law) bringing valuable practical experience into her business law classes. Although different to working in the magic circle, her new job teaching students shared similarities with the rigours of client service. “Spending the duration of a two-hour workshop performing in front of 20 students, with everyone counting on you, listening to you, hanging on your every word, it can be mentally and physically tiring,” Pooley says. And yet, she adds, “helping students reach their full potential is a very rewarding job to have.”
Over twenty years later, Pooley now heads up ULaw’s Guildford and Reading campuses as dean — and hasn’t looked back. Central to her role is preparing aspiring solicitors for the increasingly tech-savvy profession — whether it be through vocational tech-focused programmes or extra-curricular opportunities allowing students to speak with lawyers and hear “right from the horse’s mouth” about lawtech in practice.
This begs the question, is the profile of the ideal candidate radically changing? Pooley doesn’t think so. Although City law firms compete in the lawtech race, with regional firms not far behind, legal practice is ultimately still a client service industry that demands knowledge of the law, interpersonal relationships and the ability to communicate — on paper and in person, Pooley says. Tech serves to support and supplement, rather than replace, the modern lawyer she adds.
That said, lawyers-to-be must get with the latest tech trends if they hope to stand out. According to Pooley, this means going beyond using online legal databases and touch-typing with ease — skills familiar to even the most inexperienced digital native law student. But can you impress employers by speaking authoritatively on lawtech? Do you know your robotic process automation from your virtual assistants, your connected working from your case management software? As Pooley puts it:
“Be aware what you’re entering into. You’re entering into a legal profession at a time of change, so you need to be aware of that and how it will impact the role. Law firms are interested in candidates that understand legal innovation and might want to get involved in their innovation hubs, not to code but to work with tech specialists to develop new innovations.”
Regulators like the Law Society not doing enough on dodgy non-disclosure agreements, report says
Regulators should clamp down on lawyers who draw up dodgy non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to cover up workplace discrimination, a parliamentary committee has said.
In a report published today, MPs say that “allegations of unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace are routinely covered up by employers with legally drafted non-disclosure agreements” — and want regulators to pull their weight.
The Women and Equalities Committee warns of a “cover-up culture”, saying that “employers and their legal advisers should not be complicit in using NDAs to cover up allegations of unlawful acts”.
The report notes some evidence that the SRA’s warning has had an effect. The committee reckons that “there has been some change in approach, with attempts to insert more egregious clauses becoming less common”.
But it says that the Law Society’s effort needs some work. Legal ethics professor Richard Moorhead, giving evidence to the committee, criticised Chancery Lane’s gagging guidance as “a disappointing document that shows no ethical leadership in the field”.
“We agree”, the MPs say, “that the Law Society’s guidance on NDAs needs revisiting”.
The committee recommended that: “Regulators of members of the legal profession must make it clear to those they regulate that they will take rigorous enforcement action in this area if they become aware of actions and behaviours that do not meet the high ethical standards expected of legal professionals. This should be set out in guidance and followed up by appropriate action.”
Gagging orders in employment settlements hit the headlines in a big way during the Harvey Weinstein #MeToo scandal, when it emerged that the Hollywood mogul had used the controversial legal weapon to silence an alleged victim of sexual harassment. An Allen & Overy partner who drew up the Weinstein gagging agreement has been hauled before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, although his appearance has been delayed.
“We have sought to lead an open and frank discussion within the legal community about the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and confidentiality clauses. This includes supporting solicitors to navigate the complex legal, regulatory and ethical boundaries,” said a spokesperson for The Law Society of England and Wales.
“As the Women and Equalities Committee report sets out, a number of improvements can be made to protect employees more effectively – such as widening access to legal aid and improving the tribunal process. We regularly review our guidance to solicitors and update as law and regulations evolve.”
An SRA spokesperson said:
“We welcome this report, which reminds everyone that NDAs have valid uses but must never be used for covering up serious misconduct or potential crimes. We have been clear with the profession about our expectations, and will take action against solicitors who fall short of the standards we set. We look forward to working with others on next steps.”
However, the London offices of US firms including Akin Gump, Debovoise & Plimpton, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins continue to top the NQ pay league. English-qualified rookies at these firms earn a salary of £143,000 straight out of their training contracts.
Trainee salaries have also increased. Those in the first year of their training contract now earn £50,000, up from £45,000, while those a year ahead now receive £55,000, up from £50,000 — rises of 11% and 10% respectively. The 22-office-outfit takes on around ten trainees in London each year.
Matters of cold hard cash aside, Skadden scored well in our Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, notching up an A* for perks, as well as As for quality of work, peer support, office, canteen and social life.
£48,000 in year one, rising to £53,000 in year two
The London office of US law firm White & Case has upped trainee solicitor pay by as much as 6%.
The firm, which dishes out around 50 training contracts each year, confirmed year one trainees will now earn £48,000, up from £46,000 (a 4% bump), while those a year ahead will pocket before tax £53,000, up from £50,000 (a 6% rise). Newly qualified (NQ) lawyers at the firm receive a salary of £105,000.
The boost puts the firm’s first year trainees on the same levels of cash as their equivalents over at Akin Gump (£48,000) and Cleary Gottlieb (£48,000), while second year trainees are now £500 better off than their opposite numbers at magic circle player Linklaters (£52,500).
“The London office of White & Case offers a compensation package (salaries, bonuses and benefits) that is designed to be highly competitive in the London market,” a spokesperson for the firm said. “We constantly monitor the market, and discuss compensation with our lawyers and partners on an ongoing basis throughout the year to maintain that position.”
White & Case is one of a number of firms to throw extra cash at its young lawyer talent in recent weeks.
Diversity hiring specialist Rare wants to help outfits unearth ‘historically hidden talent’ and boost social mobility
A graduate recruitment company has launched a new online portal which it says will help law firms recruit students who did well at uni against the odds.
Rare Recruitment says that the database will help talented grads from less well-off backgrounds get a foot in the door at top firms by highlighting how well they performed considering where they came from. The company, which has signed up some of the City’s top brass, wants to “break the artificial barriers putting legal careers beyond the reach of many talented candidates”.
The platform, known as Vantage, uses “advanced analytical techniques to match firms with historically hidden talent”. Students and graduates put their details into the database, and recruiters can use it to search for students from less well-off backgrounds who still did well in their studies.
The portal builds on Rare Recruitment’s existing contextual recruitment software, which helps firms look at how well students have done at school and uni considering where they came from in life. For example, someone who went to a school where exam results are well below average and still came out with AAB has done, in context, outstandingly well — arguably better than someone from a private school with AAA grades. Many of the biggest City players announced that they had begun using contextual recruitment systems several years ago.
Vantage allows firms looking to expand their horizons to filter those registered on the platform by 23 different characteristics, such as postcode, school quality, eligibility for free school meals, refugee status and time spent in care.
There are, according to Rare Recruitment, 100 schools in the UK where only one in forty students with an A in English applies for a training contract with a law firm. The equivalent figure for “elite schools” is one in three, the firm says.
Deborah McCormack, head of early talent at Pinsent Masons, said that “via Vantage we can cast our recruitment nets to an even wider candidate pool, making opportunities more accessible to those outside of the major cities. Vantage also enables students to put themselves in front of firms, which previously, they may not have applied to”.
The City is under increasing pressure to do more on diversity and social mobility. Twenty-nine per cent of solicitors at very large firms (50+ partners) attended fee paying schools, compared to only 7% of the UK population, according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Only 1% of lawyers at these mega-firms are black.
Vegan workers should be legally exempt from doing the office tea round on the grounds of discrimination, a London lawyer has argued.
Employment law specialist Alex Monaco claims vegans shouldn’t be put in a position at work where they are required to handle cows’ milk. The lawyer, who is vegan himself, goes as far as arguing that veganism should be treated as a legally “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act 2010.
“If you were Jewish or Muslim and told to get a round of bacon sandwiches in, no one would bat an eyelid if you refused,” Leeds law grad Monaco told The Sun newspaper. “But if you’re vegan and refused to buy a pint of milk to make tea because you believe the dairy industry is torturing cows, then you would be laughed out of the kitchen.”
Continuing, Monaco said many vegans feel they’re not adequately catered for in the work canteens whilst the “sandwiches all have butter in them”.
The 38-year-old lawyer, who founded London outfit Monaco Solicitors, added: “Vegans do get bullied — I was even bullied on a holiday with friends when I couldn’t eat anything from the butchers or pizzeria.”
But not everyone agrees. While accepting plant-based options in her office canteen can be limited, one anonymous City-working vegan told Legal Cheek:
“I don’t believe I should be exempt from making the office tea just because I don’t drink cows’ milk. The idea of trying to make veganism a legally protected characteristic is ludicrous.”
Monaco, however, remains undeterred, telling the newspaper: “The tide is changing now. It’s a movement. If we can get the law changed, people’s views may follow on from that.”
UK player to merge with shipping specialist to create new £90 million outfit
Top 50 UK law firm Penningtons Manches has confirmed it is to merge with shipping law specialist Thomas Cooper. The new outfit, Penningtons Manches Cooper, will have combined revenues of over £90 million.
The more recognisable of the two names, Penningtons Manches, has six UK offices (plus one in San Francisco) and covers a broad range of practice areas including private client, M&A, family and employment. The firm, which is itself the product of a 2014 tie-up between Penningtons and Manches, offers around 15 training contracts annually and pays a newly qualified (NQ) salary of £60,000.
Meanwhile, Thomas Cooper takes on around three trainees each year and is known for its work in shipping, international trade and international arbitration. Founded in 1825, it has offices in London, Paris, Madrid, Piraeus, Singapore and Sao Paulo.
Penningtons says it hopes the deal will build on the growth of its international litigation and arbitration practice, providing access to key legal hubs including Paris and Singapore, while also marking an expansion into the shipping sector.
David Raine, Penningtons Manches’ CEO, said: “This is a very exciting and historic day for both our firms. Thomas Cooper has a long and proud history in shipping, maritime and cross-border work, with a strong client base served by highly skilled specialist lawyers.”
Tim Kelleher, senior partner at Thomas Cooper, added: “Penningtons Manches has a thriving, robust business and we’ve been seriously impressed with the senior team’s vision and strategy throughout this process. By joining forces, our clients will benefit from a wider service offering both in the UK and internationally – in particular they will have access to skilled teams specialising in immigration, private wealth, corporate and project finance, tax and insolvency and restructuring.”
The London office of international law firm Mayer Brown has chalked up an autumn retention score of 82%.
Of the 11 trainees due to qualify this September, nine will be staying on as newly qualified (NQ) associates. Mayer Brown confirmed it received ten applications and made nine offers. None are on fixed-term contracts.
The firm’s finance and litigation teams will receive three rookies apiece, two will join corporate, and one will start lawyer life in employment.
Legal Cheek’sFirms Most List shows that Mayer Brown’s new recruits will start NQ life on a salary of £78,000, while trainees receive £44,000 in year one, rising to £49,000 in year two.
Commenting on the autumn result, Stuart Pickford, training principal at Mayer Brown, said:
“It gives us huge pleasure to once again retain the majority of our autumn qualifiers. We are incredibly proud of our strong record for attracting and training talented people for a career in law, which reflects our ongoing commitment to excellence across our practice. Many congratulations to all our September qualifiers; I wish them the very best for the future.”
As for its performance in our latest Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, Mayer Brown scored A*s for training and peer support, as well as As for quality of work, partner approachability and perks. It offers around 15 training contracts each year.
What we learned from an hour listening to five top lawyers
Ahead of the summer training contract application deadline, five lawyers gathered at the latest Legal Cheek and The University of Law (ULaw) Secrets to Success event in Leeds to share their wisdom.
Four were solicitors, from respectively Pinsent Masons, Walker Morris, Womble Bond Dickinson and ULaw (via DLA Piper and Addleshaw Goddard), while one was a barrister from Broadway House Chambers. An audience of 40 students asked the questions in a discussion chaired by Legal Cheek reporter Aishah Hussain. Here are the best bits.
1. Which animal is your future law firm?
One of the students asked the lawyers on the panel which animal each of their law firms most resembled. This seemingly jokey question proved to have a serious side as the speakers were forced to think about what made their respective firms different.
Peter Morley, a tax partner in Pinsent Masons’ Leeds office, drew upon his firm’s reputation for quality work, tech savvy and efficiency to liken it to a panther (which also happened to be his ten-year-old son’s favourite animal, he admitted).
Aaron Dixon, a commercial solicitor at Walker Morris, focused on his firm’s independent status (the single office outfit operates internationally through alliances with other independent law firms) and resourceful nature, to liken it to a shark.
Meanwhile, Womble Bond Dickinson managing associate and commercial property litigator Fiona Graham suggested that her firm’s friendly culture and popularity with its transatlantic client base gave it Labrador puppy-like qualities.
2. Standing out from the crowd
Joining the solicitors on the panel was Niall Carlin, a criminal barrister at Broadway House Chambers who is also a senior lecturer at ULaw Leeds. Carlin had some great advice for pupillage and training contract hunters about standing out from the crowd: “Find a USP [unique selling point] to sell yourself around.” For Carlin, that USP was an interest in criminal law that went beyond mini-pupillages to see him do an internship through the UK charity Amicus ALJ where he worked on behalf of a law firm in Houston, Texas that represented indigent defendants on death row. “I’ve been asked about it in every interview ever since,” he recalled.
Before finding that USP, all the speakers agreed that it was important to find the confidence to “be yourself” in applications and at interview. For those from ordinary backgrounds without lawyers in the family, this can often mean first having to overcome “imposter syndrome”. Matthew Tomlinson, dean of ULaw Leeds, who appeared alongside Carlin, Graham, Dixon and Morley, pointed out that “educators have an important role to play in this respect, and indeed have a duty to help students build their confidence making applications as they progress through law school”. Tomlinson highlighted ULaw’s employability service as a key link between students and mentorship programmes and bursary schemes.
Graham, the comprehensive school-educated daughter of a miner, had some encouraging words to close this section of the discussion, telling the audience that “the opportunities are there for students who are not afraid of who they are and where they come from”.
3. Commercial awareness: Brexit and a late cycle economy
The current uncertainty shrouding the UK as a result of the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, and subsequent political logjam over how Brexit should be enacted, continues to hang over the commercial world. So far this hasn’t been too problematic for law firms, which remain busy as their clients turn to them for advice on their Brexit strategies and contingency plans. But a slowdown in transaction volumes if Brexit keeps dragging on risks filtering through down the line, noted Pinsent Masons’ Morley.
If a so-called hard Brexit does ensue, which appears more likely in the midst of the rise of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, then Womble Bond Dickinson’s Graham predicts a rise in litigation to offset a slowdown in transactional work. “In the event of a major event like that it would be normal to see some businesses looking to get out of obligations, such as commercial leases. Litigation tends to follow,” she said.
As to hedging against a downturn of the wider global economy that is in a late cycle phase following ten years of expansion, the speakers agreed that students would be best served by keeping an open mind about which practice areas they qualify into once they start their training contracts. ULaw’s Tomlinson told his own story of qualifying into a recession in 2009 as a junior lawyer at DLA Piper in this interview with Legal Cheek, while Walker Morris’ Dixon recalled how a secondment as a trainee to Jet2.com set him on the path to specialising in commercial law despite previously “having no clue” about which practice area was for him.
4. Legal tech
Whatever unknowns the future holds, the speakers agreed that a sure bet is that technology will dramatically change the legal profession in the years ahead.
Morley noted a shift in law firms “being reactive on legal tech to now moving much more onto the front foot”. It’s fair to say that his firm, Pinsent Masons, has been ahead of the game in this respect, with its longstanding research and development team having developed artificial intelligence tools (AI) before the technology went mainstream. As we heard from Pinsent Masons previously the AI is being used to drive significant efficiencies in practice areas such as banking & finance.
Tomlinson added that tech skills are becoming ever more important for future lawyers, a trend ULaw has responded to by launching new LLB and LLM programmes that bridge innovation and technology with law.
5. New ways of working
One of the most significant advances of recent years has been a new freedom to work from anywhere thanks to high-speed internet.
All the lawyers on the panel reflected that these days they could be acting as much for local clients as companies based long distances away. Morley’s team at Pinsent Masons, for example, is split between Leeds, Glasgow and London, with location largely “irrelevant”. Graham spends her time working seamlessly between Womble Bond Dickinson’s offices in Leeds and Newcastle, while Leeds-based Dixon has a diverse client base that reflects Walker Morris’ local, national and international links.
Still, there was agreement that it helps to be located in a thriving local economy — a term that clearly applies to Leeds right now as Channel 4’s move to the city sees it become an increasingly important digital media as well as commercial and finance hub.
6. A closing thought
With all the pressure to become a tech-savvy commercial awareness guru who understands law firms perfectly, it’s easy for students to lose perspective on their training contract quest. To anyone in this position, Graham had this message:
“Don’t take yourself too seriously and remember to enjoy your life. Look up at the sky, smell the roses, because before you know it, you’ll be in your 50s wondering how all this happened.”
Allegedly told sexual harassment claimant’s lawyers she’d be ‘toast’
An alleged victim of sexual harassment who brought legal action against her former employers has accused Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) and one of its partners of “aggressive and intimidating behaviour”.
The complaint is in connection with the HSF’s work on behalf of Australian fund manager IFM Investors, which until recently was being sued by Nathalie Abildgaard, a former employee, who claimed she’d been sexually harassed by her boss. The 27-year-old London-based analyst eventually secured a £270,000 settlement.
In written evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) as part of an inquiry into enforcing the Equality Act, Abildgaard said she “had to spend in excess of £100k in legal fees (which I will not be reimbursed as part of the settlement), take a full year leave of absence from work, as well withstand aggressive and intimidating behaviour by IFM Investors and their lawyers, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP”.
Abildgaard said that on 17 January 2019, at around 9pm on the evening before she was due to be cross-examined, a lawyer from HSF, whose name has been redacted, called her lawyer and “said something to the effect of: ‘If Nathalie goes on the witness stand tomorrow, her… credibility will be so shuddered they will never be able to work in the financial industry in London again’ and that ‘Nathalie is toast’”.
Although not named in the evidence, HSF confirmed that employment partner Andrew Taggart has been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Legal Cheek understands the complaint was made earlier this year and has now been passed on to an investigation officer at the regulator. There is no suggestion that he has been found in breach of professional standards.
A spokesperson for HSF said: “We are aware that Ms Abildgaard has made a complaint to the SRA. This process is at its early stages and we will be fully co-operating with the SRA.”
The SRA said: “We are looking into the information before deciding on any next steps.”
A listing on the parliamentary website shows that Taggart gave evidence last year before WEC. The session covered, among other things, the law and guidance relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements.
Ultimately, failure to change could spell “doom” for traditional partnerships, the paper reckons.
New law businesses using technology to boost efficiency and the legal arms of the ‘Big Four’ accountancy firms could be the beneficiaries, predicts the FT’s editorial board.
And then “[w]ith the help of the junior lawyers who chose a different path, these new competitors will eventually grow big and well-qualified enough to pitch for the high-end business that, for now, traditional law firms consider to be their exclusive domain.”
This ‘RIP big law firms’ theory is a neat one. But from what Legal Cheek’s journalists see on the ground money talks more loudly among future lawyers than the FT realises. Let’s not forget that since 2012 graduates have been lumbered with at least £27,000 worth of tuition fee debt while also facing the challenge of getting onto the bottom rung of the mad London housing market.
So what could change all of this? My money would be not on the sort of business-friendly disruption approved of by the FT, but rather growing inequality facilitating the rise of extremist politics and leading to a no deal Brexit or a Corbyn government. That’s about something much bigger than lawyer salaries — and it certainly won’t just be the law firms facing armageddon.
Ex-magic circler Dominic Raab MP came under fire from lawyers on social media for his questionable performance during Channel 4’s Tory leadership election debate.
Taking to the stage alongside his fellow Tory leader hopefuls (minus Boris who declined) yesterday evening, former Linklaters‘ lawyer Raab claimed he was the only candidate who can be trusted to take the UK out of the EU by the end of October.
However, Raab’s performance didn’t go down well with lawyers on Twitter.
“As a barrister I occasionally meet opponents like Dominic Raab in court,” wrote St John’s Buildings’ Douglas Lloyd. “They have incredible, intimidating levels of confidence and talk a tough game but then the case starts and you quickly realise they have no idea what they’re doing.” The barrister’s critical post has since garnered over 2,300 retweets and 11,000 likes.
As a barrister I occasionally meet opponents like Dominic Raab in court. They have incredible, intimidating levels of confidence and talk a tough game but then the case starts and you quickly realise they have no idea what they’re doing.#C4Debate#ToryLeadership
Responding to Lloyd, social media heavyweight The Secret Barrister branded Raab a “charlatan whose cross-examination is constantly interrupted by a despairing judge as he demonstrates that he doesn’t have the first clue about rules of evidence.”
That is just so spot on. He’s the charlatan whose cross-examination is constantly interrupted by a despairing judge as he demonstrates that he doesn’t have the first clue about rules of evidence.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) June 16, 2019
In another tweet, the criminal barrister and successful author went on to draw comparisons between Raab and “Patrick Swayze’s evil workmate from Ghost“.
I mean, Dominic Raab is just awful, isn’t he? There’s not actually any debate to be had on that point. He’s basically Patrick Swayze’s evil workmate from Ghost.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) June 16, 2019
Raab, a Tory MP for Esher and Walton since 2010, studied law at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, before going on to complete a masters at Jesus College, Cambridge. Raab went on to train as a lawyer at magic circle outfit Linklaters, before specialising in project finance, international litigation and competition law.
Other lawyers to criticise Raab included Ed Hayes, legal director at TLT, who described the ex-Brexit Secretary as “every shit self-satisfied magic circle trainee every other lawyer has ever dealt with.”
Raab is every shit self-satisfied magic circle trainee every other lawyer has ever dealt with. This debate is basically him boasting on a Friday night in the Pitcher and Piano about the latest deal he’s done the photocopying on #C4debate
> 
