Over Christmas, the announcement by minister for skills Matthew Hancock that school-leavers students will soon be able to become lawyers grabbed the national headlines.

At first, I assumed newspapers' enthusiasm for the story was based on the traditional festive lull. After all, only a few months earlier Hancock's colleagues in government had announced that they are to fund 750 new higher legal apprenticeships via a £1m investment.

Then I spotted the difference between the two pieces of news: Hancock was talking about training apprentices up as solicitors, while the apprentices whose funding was earmarked over the summer will become legal executives. I sense a storm brewing...

Of course, these days the distinction between legal executives and solicitors is less meaningful than in the past, with the former now able to become partners – a route that was closed to them until 2009 when the Legal Services Act removed the barriers preventing anyone other than solicitors taking ownership rights in law firms.

And, irrespective of that rule change, legal executives can become solicitors if they choose  to complete further study (despite not possessing a degree). Not that they necessarily need to, as District Judge Ian Ashley-Smith, the first legal executive to have risen to become a judge without qualifying as a solicitor, proves.

Still, to most people the title of 'solicitor' continues to carry more kudos than 'legal executive'. Accordingly, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) must be concerned about losing out to Hancock's grand plan – which may appeal more to wannabe lawyers (and the status-conscious firms which hire them). The solicitor-apprentice scheme, which is to be delivered by BPP Law school, is expected to commence in September.

For the moment, CILEX chief executive Diane Burleigh is putting on a brave face and hoping everything will turn out OK – while getting in an early jab against the other side. On Monday she had this to say to The Lawyer about solicitor-apprenticeships: "Whilst there may be financial benefits [for students], what I think will limit take up of this as a route is the length of time it is likely to take to qualify."

Burleigh added: "Certainly some people will be interested in this as an alternative but I don’t see this challenging either what we do or the university degree route."

Hmmm...I'm not so sure.

Law students signing up as Free Representation Unit (FRU) advisers have been surprised to find that the cost of both the social security and employment adviser training days have risen from last year's price of £32.50 to a substantial £40 – an increase of 23%. And as they have parted with their pennies, they have noted that despite the great work FRU does, there are only three law firms listed as donors in the cash-strapped charity's most recent annual financial report...

The timing of the increase – which was implemented in September but is being keenly felt now as students sign up to FRU in the popular January registration round – is particularly bad: legal aid is being cut from social security tribunals this year, with FRU representatives among those the government is hoping will help fill the "justice gap". Not that the government actually gives FRU any money.

Arguably most galling, though, is that the price rise could easily be reversed with some pretty minor help from the wealthy City branch of the legal profession.

FRU's financial report for 2011-12 – which is publicly available on the Charity Commission website – lists Linklaters, Freshfields and Herbert Smith as the only law firms contributing to the donation-starved charity's coffers. Linklaters and Freshfields gave £37,000 and £10,000 respectively, with the amount of Herbert Smith's donation not disclosed.

In addition, the Employment Lawyers Association, whose members include City solicitors, contributed £20,000.

Law students affected by the FRU training day price rise labelled City law firms' over all very limited involvement with FRU as a reflection of their "stinginess".

One commented: "I would have thought the threat of having to pass the cost on to law students would have been a good way of helping leverage law firms into helping out with funding."

In addition, surprise been expressed at FRU's payment of almost £7,000 in auditors' fees last year.

"One would have thought that they could have got some help from the 'Big Four' [accountancy firms] if nothing else," said a student.

For its part, FRU stresses its gratitude to its donors while pointing out how a structural deficit has compelled it "to maximise all our income streams". Speaking to Legal Cheek, the body's chief executive, Karen Mackay, explained that its training income stream is very important to FRU, accounting for 17% of its income in 2011-12.

She added: "In order to ensure that FRU continues as a going concern, we very reluctantly decided to increase the training fee for FRU volunteers from £32.50 to £40 with effect from September 2012. We undertook that this fee would not increase further for at least a year. The increase in fee over a year will bring in an estimated £15,000, which will go to addressing FRU’s structural deficit. It should be noted that we have not had any noticeable falling off of bookings for the training courses or any complaints about the increase in fees."

Mackay also said that FRU "will be looking at means of increasing other income streams, including extending and strengthening our existing donor base."

Donations can be made to FRU through JustGiving.

When pushed to get out and flaunt their wares, many lawyers tend to think (but rarely say) stuff like: "I did not go into law to become a salesperson." These snobs are doomed for the scrapheap, reckons legal careers guru Heather Townsend – although she puts it rather more diplomatically than that, as she tells Legal Cheek's Kevin Poulter how ambitious young lawyers like him can make it to the top...

This podcast is also available on iTunes.

For more from Heather, check out her recent books 'How to make partner and still have a life' and 'The Financial Times guide to business networking'.

Brilliant stuff from former Skadden associate Rob Pollak.

There's more from Pollak on his blog, Rob Complains About Things.

Pursuing your dreams can come at a price. Deidre Dare (real name: Deidre Clark) used to earn over £130,000 a year as an associate in Allen & Overy's Moscow office. Then she started blogging, publishing erotic fiction that was heavily influenced by her experiences as an expat lawyer. She accompanied her prose with pictures and videos of herself in transparent nightwear. As the blog caught the media's attention, Fifty Shades of Grey-style literary success beckoned. But three years after being sacked by Allen & Overy for bringing the firm into disrepute with her sexy writing, life for Dare seems tough...

Over to the Mail on Sunday, which yesterday described Dare’s new residential situation in her native US, where she has since returned, as follows:

“Today, she lives in the Hamptons, the picturesque playground of New York’s elite, two hours’ drive from the city, where wealthy Manhattanites own sprawling second properties. Deidre’s address, however, is somewhat misleading; her ‘home’ is, in fact, a tiny, two-room cabin off a busy highway, which she shares with Bonnie, a large and lumbering rottweiler, and rents by the night on a credit card.”

The paper proceeds to explain how Dare – who stayed on in Moscow for a year after losing her job as a lawyer, writing a weekly column called Sexpat for English-language newspaper The Moscow News, before penning a novel called 'Slut' – is staking everything on her ongoing £22 million(!) claim against Allen & Overy for sexual harassment and unfair dismissal.

"'Do you have a plan B, or a plan C? There is no plan B, there is no plan C,' she says, with some exasperation. 'I really don’t have a plan should I fail to win the case, because I am going to [win it]. It’s just a question of endurance.'"

Dare, 47, believes that the firm didn't really get rid of her for bringing it into disrepute with her writing, but because she spurned the advances of its then Moscow office chief Tony Humphrey, with whom she says she previously had a drunken liaison.

The case against Allen & Overy was given the go-ahead to be heard in New York in April, and is expected to take place this year. In the meantime, here’s a video of Dare dancing to Coldplay with her Rottweiler in what appears to be the aforementioned cabin.

The average female lawyer is paid £51,396 less per year than the average male lawyer, according to a new survey. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the survey – by legal recruiter Laurence Simons – is of just 988 predominantly fairly senior UK lawyers; 63% of which work in-house and 37% in private practice. A full breakdown of the results is below...

According to the research, in 2012 women lawyers received total remuneration of £111,293, compared with £162,689 for men. When divided into salary and bonus, women earned an average of £87,671 basic (compared with £115,193 for men) and £23,622 in bonus (compared with £47,496 for men).

The good news is that the gap is narrowing, with male lawyers seeing a fall in total remuneration of £5,228 (from £167,917) since last year, and women enjoying a rise in total pay of £1,391 in that period (from £109,912).

There's more on the disadvantages faced by women in law in our podcast this afternoon with new Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff.

Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff raised eyebrows in the City last week when she suggested that some of its law firms had promoted "mediocre men" who in a true meritocracy "would never even have seen the paintings on the boardroom wall". And Scott-Moncrieff is in no mood to backtrack as, in an exclusive interview, she tells Legal Cheek's Kevin Poulter how flexible working is often used against women...

The Law Society head honcho goes on to explain why she believes gender "targets" should be used to help talented women break through City law firms' glass ceilings, before, on a lighter note, sharing details of her recent visit to Buckingham Palace with an audibly impressed Poulter.

This podcast is also available on iTunes.

Ed note: This is the latest post in the 'If I knew then what I know now' series, where leading members of the legal profession share their wisdom with the next generation of wannabes.

If I knew then what I know now, I’d have been keener to study law. At school I’d wanted to study history at university and only ended up reading law after an unforeseen episode, writes Professor Gary Slapper.

When I was in the sixth form, I went to have the designated 'career interview' with Mr Sharman. I can remember it clearly as it was an odd event at which one’s path from seventeen to senility was about to be set...

The office was filled with smoke as Mr Sharman constantly smoked a pipe. I could barely see him. As I entered, he puffed another cloud, ruffled some papers and said, "Right Slapper, you’re head of the school Debating Society?" I agreed I was. "Well, that’s marvellous. Good society. So then, we’ll put you down for law?" I told him I wanted to read history. "Nonsense. Nonsense Slapper. Never mind history. Are there any lawyers in your family?"

I told him my mother’s brother was a lawyer. "Well then!" he exclaimed, "there you are, you’re all set! Where did he study?" I told him it was UCL. "Perfect!" he declared, and oddly for someone so used to being contrapuntal in debates, I followed the path signposted by Mr Sharman.

To begin with, I studied law in a simply dutiful way and with limited enthusiasm other than in some subjects, such as legal history, Roman law and jurisprudence. But the more I studied, the more fascinated I became by law in a very slow, incremental way. After graduating and doing some part-time tutoring, I went on to study for an LLM and then I read and researched for a doctorate. It was a very slow climb. If I’d have had a chance to see a snap of the view of the subject from high up when I was low down, I’d have clambered up more briskly.

I was lucky to be taught by some formidable and inspiring teachers, but even so I had no idea, really, how important and scintillatingly interesting law is while I was studying it in individual slabs. A lot of what I learned was duller than it would have been if I’d have had a greater grasp of law as a ubiquitous, organic body.

If I could speak now to myself as a 17-year old, or to all people considering the study of law, I’d tell them that law is a subject of a hundred colours and of immeasurable importance. Every particle of everyone’s life is governed by laws. So, who makes the law, what it says, how it is interpreted and applied are questions with colossally important answers.

When you breathe, you breathe air governed by law. When you eat, you eat food governed by law. When you drink, go to school or university, become an employee or an employer, go on the internet, play sport, drive, have sex, buy a book, or become Prime Minister, you’re in circumstances controlled by laws. The law controls every piece of the jigsaw of personal, social, and political life. It controls life from conception to the coffin. It controls disputes from quarrelling neighbours to warring nations.

When you see that big picture, and how law is so reverberatingly important, it makes the study of its different topics decidedly stimulating. Studying law repays the scholar with an exceptionally wide general knowledge, advanced skills in argument and the use of evidence, clarity of reasoning, acute powers of analysis, and knowledge of the rulebook for every game. What’s not to like?

Professor Gary Slapper (@garyslapper) is Global Professor at New York University and director of NYU London. He writes a weekly column for The Times.

On Wednesday, Law Society chief Lucy Scott-Moncrieff revealed to Kevin Poulter that the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) is "almost certain" to identify non-graduate routes to qualification as a lawyer. With skills minister Matthew Hancock last month announcing a plan to develop a qualifying-apprenticeship for solicitors (in addition to the school-leaver route already open for legal executives), Scott-Moncrieff's words are the latest sign that entry to the legal profession will soon get more flexible. There is concern among some, however, that this could lead to the title of solicitor being cheapened...

Journalist Hannah Gannagé-Stewart, who edits Young Lawyer magazine, joins Legal Cheek duo Kevin Poulter and Alex Aldridge to discuss this thorny issue – and give her advice to wannabe lawyers weighing up which training route to take – in the cosy confines of Hoxton's Rosemary Branch pub.

This podcast is also available on iTunes.

Solicitor and New Statesman legal correspondent David Allen Green suffered a bruising weekend on Twitter after Assange supporters took umbrage at his views on the high profile extradition case.

The altercation even saw one of the pro-Assange group turn to Photoshop to create this mock-up of Green with Borat-style hair and moustache.

But the most memorable bit of the two-day war of words occurred at its outset on Saturday, when Christine Assange (aka Julian's mum) went on the anti-Green offensive...

To which Green responded:

This displeased Mrs Assange, who proceeded to post a series of tweets criticising Green and calling into question his journalistic credentials.

Mrs Assange then lent her support to the aforementioned Borat jibes with this retweet of the Twitter user behind the Photoshopped image of Green.

At this point Green went for the nuclear option: threatening to involve his own mum in the bust-up. To which, as we went to press, there has still been no response.

Every year The Lawyer magazine butters-up a bunch of upwardly mobile solicitors and barristers by including them in its 'Hot 100'. As part of the fun, the chosen few get to enjoy a celeb-style photo-shoot. But something seems to have gone wrong this time around. Several of the snaps, like this one of CBS Outdoor legal director Grainne Brankin, are just plain weird...

Others, like these of Kirkland & Ellis' Dan Oates and Ashurst's Peter Roberts, somehow escaped the cutting room floor and made it into the main feature.

In case you haven't already seen them, the full selection – which has inspired much chortling among members of the legal profession – is here.

All the pictures used above appear courtesy of photographer John Millar.

Encouraging to see Private Eye making an appearance in the UK Supreme Court Justices' library. Disappointingly, though, Heat was nowhere to be seen. There's more on the Supreme Court this afternoon with an exclusive interview with Lord Neuberger's judicial assistant, who reveals what it's like to work for the president of the highest court in the land.

Over the weekend, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) president Nick Hanning was snapped shaking his booty with a belly dancer at the Junior Lawyers Division's (Moroccan-themed) annual dinner. The complex series of hand gestures employed by Hanning during his performance apparently left onlookers mystified.

Amid the glow of the UK Supreme Court's psychedelic carpets (the work of Sgt Pepper's album cover designer Peter Blake), former Linklaters trainee Cameron Sim tells me what it has been like to spend the last year working as the judicial assistant to Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger...

In three snappy minutes Sim recalls the terror of being interviewed by two Supreme Court judges for the job, charts the delights of assisting the "very entertaining" Lord Neuberger, and explains how the experience has made him want to switch from being a solicitor to the Bar.

With Sim and his fellow judicial assistants coming to the end of their year-long posts, the UK Supreme Court has this week launched a hunt to find seven recently-qualified barristers and solicitors to replace them. You can apply here.

As the legal world reverberates with the extraordinary news that Cobbetts is set to enter administration, the firm may want to consider revising its tagline.

This week we received a cry for help from the wannabe lawyer grandson of the late, great "gorgeous" George Carman QC. Charlie Carman's email is below, followed by advice from Legal Cheek's world-weary elder statesman Alex Aldridge and its bright-eyed rookie Lucy Pether.

ALEX'S ADVICE

Dear Charlie,

Whatever they might claim, magic circle firms prefer to recruit Oxbridge graduates. So look at it this way: which university, Durham or UCL, can you weave the most persuasive story around about why you chose it over Oxford or Cambridge?

I'm not saying that's what you'll have to do directly in your training contract application forms or interviews, but it's a good starting point for making this decision.

As far as I'm aware, never in the history of mankind has anyone ever gone to Durham when they had an undergraduate offer from Oxbridge. Why go for a replica when you could have the real thing?

UCL, on the other hand, offers something different to Oxbridge in the sense that it's located in an big, international city – and benefits from its close links with all the interesting people who live in it or pass through regularly (including lots of magic circle lawyers). To choose UCL over Oxford or Cambridge is a plausible thing to do.

Having said all that, you've got to consider where you'd be happiest and able to work to the best of your abilities – because, generally speaking, what result you get at university is more important than where you went. And top law firms would prefer a 1st from Durham than a 2:1 from UCL.

Alex

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LUCY'S ADVICE

Dear Charlie,

I was faced with a similar conundrum when picking my LLB course. I chose LSE and have no regrets.

Though some may find London overwhelming at first, its size means you’d be hard pushed not to find people you fit in with or an interest that can’t be indulged. You can find these things too in smaller university towns, but it may be harder. And students in these places stick out like a sore thumb, which is less of a problem in London. Though this may mean local businesses are desperate for your custom – spoiling you with drinks deals and dodgy theme nights, it can mean you live within an unrealistic bubble.

Plus in London you’re spoilt for choice in terms of ways to unwind after a day cramming in the library. You can pop to the Tate between lectures, or catch a West End show after class. If this doesn’t tickle your fancy and you want to stick to law after-hours, there are countless public lectures throughout the year offered by the likes of UCL, LSE and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. This sort of thing gives your studies an extra dimension, and it's a real thrill to be able to reference extra-curricular debates you’ve attended in an essay or exam.

Then there is the all-important careers question. Studying in London means that City firms are on your doorstep. You will find your diary quickly becomes packed full of open evenings and careers fairs, and they’re all just as accessible as a trip to your local pub. This is great for networking, and you’ll inevitably find that you’ll keep bumping into the same people again and again.

Best of luck with your choice!

Lucy

For more on George Carman QC, check out 'No Ordinary Man', the brilliant biography of the legal legend penned by Charlie's dad, journalist Dominic Carman.

In the latest instalment of the 'If I knew then what I know now' series, Financial Times general counsel Tim Bratton laments worrying so much about his early job hunt failures.

I wish I'd known then...

...that those law students with the loudest voices do not have an exclusive right to be lawyers. My university certainly had more than its fair share of students whose confidence was not always proportionate to their ability. I wish I'd known that those with louder voices than mine in tutorials did not necessarily know more than me – and certainly had no more chance than I did of being a lawyer.

That playing the networking game is important even when a student. I can remember a morning spent in a hotel meeting room, where about 30 of us had been invited by a City law firm following a drinks event the night before. I naively had no real idea what for. When I arrived I found a clearly quite forced and artificial debate in full flow between some students and representatives of the law firm. I froze, not really seeing how I could contribute to such a manufactured conversation, nor having any desire to do so. The outcome was that many of my peers got summer placements with said firm, but I did not. I wish I'd known that superficial networking is occasionally necessary to get noticed, however unfair that may seem.

That I would eventually get a training contract. Like most law students, I found it difficult to get one. Multiple applications, multiple interviews, multiple rejections, deferring a year etc...It is difficult not to become disheartened and think that you will never find the holy grail. Some degree of failure is almost inevitable for everyone except the very top applicants. You have to keep plugging away – that won't guarantee success, but nor will giving up. While it is important to tailor applications and interviews for the individual firm, there is no escaping the fact that getting a training contract is to some degree a numbers game. I wish I'd known that a lot of rejected applications didn't necessarily mean I would not eventually secure a training contract.

That joining a law firm does not mean you need to want to be a partner. Let's be honest, how many students interviewing for training contracts even know what it means to "be a partner". Yet it's kind of assumed when you join a firm that you must aspire to be one. And so as a trainee or a junior lawyer you kind of have to pretend – even make yourself believe – that you too want to join this hallowed club. Here's a tip: get a job in a law firm, enjoy it for what it is, get some cracking experience and don't even think about whether or not you want to be a partner until you are five years or so into it. If you then decide that's what you want to do, great: go for it. If you decide it isn't, that's equally fine. I wish I'd known that it was okay not to think too hard about what a long-term career in a law firm would look like.

That corporate law is important, fundamental to the way the world works and can even be fun. As a junior lawyer I shied away from corporate work. I avoided it until my last training seat, at which point I was grateful to find myself working for a partner as keen as me to watch World Cup '98. My dislike for corporate work continued when I qualified, generally loathing the support role I provided on acquisitions via my developing my IP/IT specialism. Certainly, I didn't take the trouble to think about why 'corporate' was the biggest department in the firm, nor how all the different parts of an acquisition fitted together.

It was only years later when I was in-house that I began to understand what all the fuss was about. I now find the conclusion of a corporate project one of the most satisfying things to do as a lawyer. I wish I'd known that corporate law shouldn't be viewed in isolation, and as completely distinct from IP, IT or media. I wish I'd known my way around a share purchase agreement before I moved in-house.

That lawyers don't tend to run companies. Accountants and MBA grads do. Just think about that when submitting your application for a training contract. Really!

If I'd known all these things then I might have stressed just a tiny bit less about my law studies, a lot less about obtaining a training contract and a lot lot less when a trainee. Oh yes, and it might have taken me less time to know my escrow from my earn-out (look it up!).

Tim Bratton is the general counsel of the Financial Times and author of thelegalbratblawg.

9-12 Bell Yard silk Herbert Kerrigan QC is taking legal action against a solicitor for comments made about him during a guest lecture at Edinburgh University.

Robin Davidson, who works for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, is said to have made a derogatory remark about Kerrigan’s integrity to the students. He is also alleged to have told them that the QC is nicknamed "Two Wigs"...

According to the Scottish Sunday Mail, a "furious" Kerrigan – pictured here, here and here – heard about the comments through a relative of a student who attended the lecture.

The QC, who combines his London work with a high profile criminal law practice at Edinburgh’s Black Chambers, has hired Scottish law firm Balfour Manson to act for him. A defamation action was lodged with the Court of Session in Edinburgh on December 17.

Damages are being sought not just from Davidson but also from the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

In July we revealed that 4 New Square had rejected Henry Mostyn for tenancy following his arrest with cocaine and ecstasy while queuing outside a Shoreditch nightclub.

What was next for the Eton and Oxford-educated son of High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn QC, we wondered?

Would a caution for possessing drugs mean an end to his legal career?

Well, the good news for Mostyn is that top US firm Cleary Gottlieb has decided to give the kid a second chance...

After a period killing time following 4 New Square's decision to let him go, Mostyn is understood to have joined Cleary's Brussels office at the end of last year. He will focus on competition law in his new associate role, practising as a barrister rather than a solicitor.
Salaries for newly qualified associates at Cleary are a whopping £95,000.

The move may represent a slight step down from the pinnacle of the commercial Bar, but it's a way better outcome than Mostyn's brief, Richard Todd QC, dared hope for in May when he stated at his Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary hearing that "Mr Mostyn wants to work in commercial work and it may well be he’ll have to forget about that."