Office sub-let deal to leading German bank sparks fears of poolside culture clash

“Don’t mention the war” jokes will be wafting around the corridors of magic circle law firm Clifford Chance this week.

The global powerhouse has hit comparatively hard times — reporting, as one legal profession publication delicately described it last week, “subdued” financial results for 2014-15 — and has therefore had to take in a lodger.

According the Legal Business magazine, moving into the firm’s Canary Wharf 33-storey tower block this autumn will be Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank, with the lawyers subletting up to 400,000 sq ft to the schnapps-quaffing storm troopers of high finance.

CC’s managing partner, Matthew Layton, told the magazine that not only would the deal provide the firm with some useful monthly readies in the form of rent, it would result in the lawyers “using space more effectively”.

And while all Clifford Chance London staff will take some comfort from Layton’s assurance that the accommodation shake-up does not herald a wider programme of redundancies, there is still plenty to cause concern.

Efficient use of space has all the undertones of redesigned floor plans that could lead to battery farm lawyer working conditions.

So just how welcome the Germans will be when they throw their towels down around the prime spots at CC’s renowned staff swimming pool remains to be seen.

But it probably doesn’t help matters that the Bomb Site Project — which maps Luftwaffe attack patterns during the 1940 Blitz — shows that Göring’s pilots dropped at least one special gift effectively on the site of what is now CC’s senior partnership lavatories.

Play nicely in that pool together, boys and girls.

The post Clifford Chance ponders battery farm lawyers appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Will lawyers take a leaf from book of French revolutionaries on Bastille Day?

In Paris 226 years ago today, revolutionaries stormed the Bastille prison and kicked off the French revolution.

Whether criminal law barristers show as much bottle as the Third Estate revolutionaries will become clear over the next day or so as a ballot on further strike action in protest at legal aid cuts closes at 4 o’clock this afternoon.

At least one prisoner in an English prison is hoping that lawyers do discover some backbone and vote overwhelmingly to down tools in the Criminal Bar Association-organised ballot. Two days ago, this unidentified resident of HMP Liverpool took to the roof to display his support for the legal aid system with a banner reading:

No ifs, not buts, no legal aid cuts.

According to the Liverpool Echo newspaper, the hour-long protest sparked chants of “We need legal aid” from fellow inmates before officials cherry-picked the self-styled champion of human rights from the roof.

Farther south, there was an example of a lawyer that appeared to have given up the fight.

Legal Cheek was today sent this image of utter despair — discarded barristers’ bands — which was taken at Isleworth railway station in west London. The pupil barrister snapper suggested it might be evidence that “another criminal barrister packs it in”.

The post Signs of despair as criminal bar strike ballot moves to climax appeared first on Legal Cheek.

As the summer stints draw to a close, Legal Cheek asks the pivotal question: did anyone do any legal work?

A spot of tin foil sculpting was high on the agenda at Osborne Clarke

Not a photocopier in sight at Mayer Brown

Document proofing was put to one side as Bird & Bird vac schemers came over all artistic

The team at Freshfields appeared to be on gardening leave

While those at Clifford Chance simply took in the London sights

It was vac schemers on ice over at DLA Piper

Berwin Leighton Paisner’s mob got some hands-on table footie experience

Slaughter and May’s eager beavers were allowed to draft a complex commercial contract make a salad.

Herbert Smith Freehills wanted to answer that age-old question: how many vac schemers can you fit in a telephone box?

Finally, Shearman & Sterling’s cohort discovered that corporate law is a lot like making pasta in an Italian restaurant

The post Vac schemes: students do everything but legal work appeared first on Legal Cheek.

A leading political thinker-cum-Anglican theologian reckons the legal profession should spend up to 10% of its time on pro bono

A left-of-centre think tank has called on lawyers to do more work for free as the “it’s a business” approach to practice “undermines the profession’s vocation and can grievously harm its ethics”.

In a report released earlier this week, London-based ResPublica acknowledged that pro bono was a “significant” part of the legal profession, but it went on to say that for many lawyers “the law has become … no more than a revenue generating business”.

The “non-partisan” group — launched five years ago by political philosopher and Anglican theologian Phillip Bond — went on to call for the introduction of “a pro bono obligation as part of the professional obligation of all lawyers”.

The report hit lawyers hard, saying:

Many solicitors and barristers undertake a considerable amount of below cost or free work in the course of their professional lives. However, it is also the case that for many lawyers, the law has become for them no more than a revenue generating business.

The authors went on to call for a mandatory pro bono scheme that would be regulated by the professional bodies. Such a programme, said the report, “could help inculcate an understanding across the profession that the law is not just a business but also and most importantly a vocation.”

According to ResPublica, forcing lawyers to do free work “would build public support and provide far greater access to justice”.

Under its proposal, commercial lawyers would be obliged to spend 10% of their time toiling for free, while those in legal aid practice areas — which many already regard as working nearly for free — would be obliged to devote 5% of their time to pro bono activity.

That structure, according to the think tank, would produce some 30 million hours annually of free legal advice for the public in England and Wales.

Predictably, the legal profession establishment did not greet the report with unalloyed glee. In a measured and diplomatic response, new Law Society President Jonathan Smithers said “the legal profession is committed to providing free legal advice to those in need”.

Smithers went on to summarise the society’s view of the efforts already being made by the profession:

On average each solicitor provides more than 50 hours a year of free advice benefitting some of the most vulnerable people in our society who would not be able to access legal help in any other way. We know of no other profession doing so much. All of this is on a voluntary basis and reflects solicitors’ commitment to the communities they live and work in and to our wider society.

He continued:

From young families facing eviction to charities dealing with the legal complexities of delivering their services, solicitors giving legal help for free helps so many people, directly and indirectly.

Bond co-authored the ResPublica report with Elena Antonacopoulou, a professor of organisational behaviour at the University of Liverpool Management School, and Adrian Pabst, a senior politics lecturer at the School of Politics and International Relations at Kent University.

Read the report in full below:

In Professions We Trust

The post Oi lawyers — do more free work, demands think tank appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Herbert Smith Freehills and Travers Smith join three magic circle players in mentoring and advice scheme

Square Mile law firms Herbert Smith Freehills and Travers Smith are the latest to sign up to a programme aimed at boosting the marketability of socially underprivileged law students.

The two firms have joined the magic circle trio of Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy and Slaughter and May on the Discuss programme, a scheme launched two years ago by recruitment consultancy Rare.

The Discuss scheme aims to improve participants’ technical knowledge and understanding of commercial law through targeted support from senior Rare staff and two former leading City lawyers.

The programme includes group sessions at each of the now five participating City firms, where partners, associates, trainees and graduate recruitment teams brief students on corporate law issues. They also explain the firms’ specific application processes.

HSF’s graduate recruitment partner Veronica Roberts described the Discuss programme as one that:

Truly levels the playing field for candidates who may lack access to the information, networks and insights that might have been afforded to others.

While Travers Smith partner Caroline Edwards said her firm was:

Looking to recruiting candidates who are brilliant, motivated and committed to a career in law. These qualities are not defined by socioeconomic background. We believe that Discuss is the perfect platform for identifying excellent candidates who will thrive at Travers Smith whatever their circumstances

Today’s announcement from the two firms follows on the heels of Herbies signing up to Rare’s “contextual recruitment” tool.

At the beginning of last month, HSF and Ashurst joined the London office of Baker & McKenzie and Hogan Lovells on a programme that is designed to weed out social prejudices in the trainee recruitment process.

The post Two City firms back latest bid to ease law firm recruitment path for socially underprivileged appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Exclusive: Transatlantic player overtakes some big names in the salary league tables

Transatlantic giant Norton Rose Fulbright has boosted junior lawyer salaries and soared past several big names on the pay league table.

The firm has increased newly-qualified pay from £65,000 to £70,000, putting it level with magic circle players Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May, as well as with Anglo-US rival Hogan Lovells.

The pay boost means that qualifying lawyers at NRF will earn more than counterparts at magic circle firms Allen & Overy, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Linklaters.

The move also makes them one grand richer than NQs at Anglo-Australian mega-firm Herbert Smith Freehills.

Trainees have also benefited from a rush of generosity at the senior partnership table at NRF. First year trainees have seen their pay rise by £1,500 to £41,000.

That increase puts newbie trainees on the same level as counterparts at Freshfields, Slaughter and May and Hogan Lovells. But the will remain £1,000 poorer than first-year trainees as Clifford Chance and Herbert Smith Freehills.

NRF trainees see their salaries increase significantly in their second year, up to £46,000.

Lak Purewal, the firm’ human resources chief for Europe, commented:

It is essential that we attract and retain high quality people, and ensuring our salaries are competitive is one of the ways to achieve this goal.

The post Norton Rose Fulbright boosts junior lawyer pay to match magic circle competition appeared first on Legal Cheek.

A conversation with two Norton Rose Fulbright trainees-to-be

In common with most students, before doing vac schemes last year, UCL law graduate James Dadford and Lancaster Uni law graduate Marley Ali had a limited idea of how an international law firm works.

Legal Cheek‘s Alex Aldridge last week visited Norton Rose Fulbright — where the duo are working as paralegals before starting their training contracts — to meet them and listen to their reflections about what they have learned.

There is an element of truth in legal dramas

Alex Aldridge (AA): Is life at Norton Rose Fulbright like Suits?

Marley Ali (MA): No, no, although I do wish we had Louis Litt as a partner!

James Dadford (JD): You do get that question quite a lot from your friends and family… There’s obviously much less drama, but it can be a bit like Suits in the sense that there is an element of glamour. People doing high profile things. Certainly, having meetings with CEOs of huge companies and mixing in those kind of circles is inherently glamorous. But it’s all underpinned by a lot of hard work.

Top lawyers are often surprisingly nice

AA: This glass and steel building on the banks of the Thames we’re sitting in is beautiful but also slightly terrifying.

MA: I know what you mean. Coming to London from the north of England it can feel intimidating. But what I noticed early on in my vac scheme here, which I did in December, was how nice and down to earth everyone was. They were very approachable. They were normal people. That puts you at ease.

JD: I agree, the atmosphere is unthreatening.

There are subtle codes of behaviour that govern how a big firm works

MA: My advice to students doing vac schemes this summer would be to be confident and approach people. If you are interested in a particular area of law, go and knock on the relevant person’s door.

AA: Is there a danger of being too keen?

JD: The general rule is that if someone’s door is open, then go for it. If it’s closed, or someone is on the phone or looking stressed, perhaps don’t go for it. Another thing is that as a vac schemer it’s usually better to approach trainees. They’re the ones you should be asking for work.

MA: It’s true — trainees tend to have the time speak. They also often have been given various tasks by their seniors which they are in turn looking to delegate.

AA: What about your fellow vac schemers — what’s that relationship like?

JD: It’s really friendly. The core part of the selection process has taken place before that stage, so most will get training contracts. It’s actually nice to think that you are one of those people. Even if you are the least interesting person on the scheme, you know that you have been judged to be on their level and you deserve your place. I’ve become really good friends with some. We still have a WhatsApp group.

MA: I had a similar experience. We also have a WhatsApp group.

With two trainees to be at Norton Rose Fulbright

A video posted by Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) on Jul 9, 2015 at 9:08am PDT

Every time corporate lawyers use the law, they have a purpose

AA: How true is the stereotype that big law firms don’t actually do that much law?

JD: Not very. You obviously need to think about everything you’re dealing with in a commercial way, but the law is always there. However, you’re not coming at the law in an academic way like you do at university. At Norton Rose Fulbright everything you do in respect of the law has a purpose. You are always building towards something.

AA: Can you give an example?

MA: One thing to bear in mind is that if associates ask you to research a legal point, which is a fairly common task assigned to vac schemers, they expect bullet points not an essay.

International law firms are part of a market that towers over everything else

AA: Has doing a vac scheme in the City changed your understanding of the way the world works?

MA: It has made me more conscious of how the UK economy is structured. Experiencing the City of London, this physically quite small place that accounts for such a high proportion of this country’s economic output, has made me think. This is where all the big deals are, in this country at least. And being part of that at Norton Rose Fulbright has probably made me re-evaluate the placements I did at a medium sized firm in the regions and a barristers’ chambers . I really enjoyed those experiences but this is the place I want to be.

JD: The other day I overheard two partners discussing a “small deal” worth £23 million. Even the small transactions are worth huge amounts of money.

AA: What about the international element of the job? Does the fact that your organisation has offices across the planet impact on your day-to-day life?

JD: Yes. Every deal on which you work has international elements. So the emails which you receive will have people included in from all over the world. And the London office always has people from different offices passing through. It doesn’t quite feel like an airport, but there’s a lot of through-traffic. And as part of that culture trainees are encouraged to spend a seat abroad. I’m looking forward to that.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

The post International law firms are ‘a bit like Suits’, yet contain normal people and are part of a market that towers over everything else appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Durham grad speaks to Legal Cheek about battle to land a training contract — or perhaps even a pupillage

Laura Collins does not live up to the stereotypical image of an airhead beauty queen.

The 22-year-old Miss England finalist is hell bent on qualifying as a lawyer, although she is undecided on which branch of the profession best suits her.

Regardless, she is prepared to take on the perceived wisdom of the law faculty at Durham University, where she received a 2.1 in law last year.

At Durham, everyone made it seem a complete impossibility that you could get a bar pupillage unless you had a first-class degree,” relates the current Miss Bolton and Bury. “But having been in the real world of work,” she continues, “I don’t agree with that. I know that I’m good at my job.

Collins went on:

And as I’ve worked the entire time I’ve been at university I am confident that I can compete for a pupillage with those that had a better quality degree on the basis that I have a solid experience of the commercial world.

Her route to the bar — if that is where Collins finally lands — will have been unconventional.

She received four A-levels — in law, politics, history and religious studies from Runshaw College, a state school in Lancashire. After graduating from Durham, Collins headed for the University of Law’s Manchester branch, where she is currently enrolled on the part-time Legal Practice Course and LLM.

Collins is scheduled to finish that course next year. But a summer vac scheme at the Manchester office of global law firm DLA Piper during her final year at uni taught her that she did not fancy a career in corporate law.

I want to go into property or employment,” says Collins. “I know I want to work in the law, but I’m not sure I want to be a solicitor. I’m considering doing the BPTC once I’ve completed the LPC, as I’d quite like to be an advocate.

Collins has self-financed her way through all higher education and is currently an associate at tax advisory business the OneE Group.

But it is her interest in beauty pageants that has caught the attention of the mainstream press, who have labelled her the “real-life Legally Blonde”.

Having been originally scouted in a local Manchester shopping centre, Collins recently finished in the top 10 of the Miss England semi-finals and will compete in the finals at Coventry on 13-14 August. If she takes the crown there it will be off to the Miss World event.

Collins is dismissive of those that dismiss beauty competitions as one of the worst examples outdated sexism, explaining:

It is not an obvious interest for someone that is keen on going into the legal profession. However, it has given me a degree of confidence that reading textbooks and studying would never have given me.

The law student continues:

And it has also given me an opportunity to meet many different types of people and provided me with a platform to say what I want to say.

What Collins wants to say is something that will undoubtedly raise the hackles of many.

Women don’t need to be non-feminine to be feminists. I’m a feminist and I chose to be feminine. And I am keen to encourage other girls not to be afraid of being feminine while at the same time having strong feminist views.

The post Uni of Law LPC student bids to win Miss England title before qualifying as a lawyer appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Row with your client? Insult the size of his manhood and then figuratively slap him in face with a silk glove

An Illinois lawyer has invoked the spirit of early 19th-century US vice-president Aaron Burr by challenging one of his clients to a duel.

But Donald Franz — whose firm, Donald Franz Law Offices, is some 40 miles northwest of Chicago — has taken the tradition a step further, spicing up the “glove slap” with a pejorative reference to his adversary’s manhood.

According to papers filed with the Illinois state supreme court’s Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, this epic tussle is rooted in a mundane dispute over a fee for tax law advice.

Suffice it to say that lawyer and client fell out, resulting in an entertaining email from the former. A report from US legal news service Law360 (£) quoted an extract in which Franz is alleged to have called his client a “small penis asshole”.

According to the papers filed with the authorities, Franz is then alleged to have ramped up the dispute:

…there is only one man involved between us. I challenge you to a duel, you pick the time, place and manner.

Franz maintained that he was not literally calling his former client out for a session of pistols — or rapiers, for that matter — at dawn. Instead, he was suggesting the more modern duelling ground of the Illinois small claims court.

Probably for the best. As students of immediate post-colonial American history will know, Burr’s challenge didn’t work out so well for Alexander Hamilton. The US’s first Treasury Secretary (pictured below) died from Burr’s pistol shot during their 1804 contretemps in the New Jersey woods.

The post Lawyer calls client a ‘small penis as*hole’ — then challenges him to a duel over billing dispute appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Survey of City and regional commercial firms reveals young solicitors still aspire to the big money

A lack of worthwhile bonus schemes is the biggest complaint junior lawyers have with City law firms, research released yesterday revealed.

Inadequate, or non-existent, remuneration top-ups were cited as a significant problem by nearly 40% of respondents to a survey of more than 2,000 junior level solicitors at large Square Mile and global law firms.

That figure compared with only a third of young lawyers reporting they were satisfied with the bonus reward structures at their practices.

The research — conducted by online magazine Legal Week in association with leading employee survey specialist Best Companies Group — questioned lawyers at 16 top firms in the City and the regions.

Ranking after concerns about pay packet extras came the broader issue of general advancement in law firms. More than a fifth of young lawyers told the researchers they were dissatisfied with internal promotion and progression opportunities.

That figure coincided with a desire to join the partnership table being the biggest career aim of the young lawyers surveyed. Despite growing suggestions among legal profession watchers that the lure of partnership has lost its lustre, the researchers found that 42% of respondents said it was their biggest career aim.

Only 19% aspired to a senior role just below partnership, while 5% said they were perfectly happy being relatively lowly associates.

The survey produced another result that conflicts with other recent research. The Legal Week team found that slightly more than 40% of junior lawyers said the “intellectual challenge” of legal work was their most important motivator, with only 15% citing financial reward.

However, 97% of lawyers at all levels told a Money Magpie survey last March that the prospect of buckets of cash was their main reason for joining the legal profession.

That survey also found that only a third of lawyers said that the job had lived up to expectations, while 14% described being a member of the legal profession as a “world away” from what they had hoped.

Significantly more than half reported that they wished they had chosen a different career path.

The post Junior lawyers’ biggest complaints: rubbish bonuses and poor partnership chances appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The best from below the line

To highlight the breadth and tone of the conversation going on around Legal Cheek‘s articles, the editor is launching this weekly round-up of selected readers’ comments.

And indeed, the first two categories — Most Liked and Most Disliked — are in fact chosen by the readership itself through the miracle of our online like and dislike buttons.

Most liked

From ‘Anger and confusion as hundreds of students unexpectedly fail the BPTC ethics module’

The most surprising thing about this, frankly, is the fact that the continued uselessness of the BPTC and everything associated with it is still considered newsworthy. The course, including the centrally set exams, is an appalling farce. And BPP’s response is pretty shameful too. If there’s a possibility of litigation with a reasonable prospect of success then they should fund it out of their enormous, ill-gotten profits.

SodsLaw — July 13, 12:32pm (38 likes — at time of publication)

Most disliked

From ‘Anger and confusion as hundreds of students unexpectedly fail the BPTC ethics module’

I’m afraid I have little sympathy for these BPP students. The ethics exam was difficult and so it should be. The BPTC should be a hard course to pass and incredibly hard to get top marks. I attended at Northumbria University sat the exam this year and got 84% and many of my colleagues did similarly well if not better. It’s about the quality of teaching and hard work. BPP is only making such a fuss because it’s pride it hurt.

Anonymous — July 13, 1.06pm (34 dislikes — at time of publication)

Longest

From ‘Anger and confusion as hundreds of students unexpectedly fail the BPTC ethics module’

I should declare an interest as someone who has passed. I can understand that it is upsetting to fail the module; and that it may seem particularly egregious that the failure rate is so high. If I put myself in that position, I would be unable to start pupillage this September; all because of a fail in one part of Professional Ethics… continue reading

Chancerypupil — July 15, 3:01pm (662 words)

Editor’s choice

From ‘Oi lawyers — do more free work, demands think tank’

It is terribly strange how the law is the only profession expected to work for free. You never hear of a school teacher being asked to teach for free, or a surgeon expected to hack off limbs gratis. But I suppose we are all fat cats and can bear it.

Quo Vadis — July 15, 3:49pm

Weirdest

From ‘From Arts students work harder than law students, stats reveal’

There are outfits in the UK that pay for this kind of ridiculous quantity = quality nonsense – damn, looks like I lucked out on the country lottery.

Per_incuriam — 14 July, 12:39pm

The post Comments of the week appeared first on Legal Cheek.

English firm now paying close to US levels for rookies — but bonuses are slashed

Global law firm Allen & Overy has issued a robust message to magic circle rivals by giving its junior lawyers pay rises of up to 25%.

Along with being handed their practising certificates, freshly minted solicitors at the £1.23 billion revenue firm will bag salaries of £78,500, an increase of £12,000. Associates in the year above will see salaries rise from £72,500 to £92,000. Those at two years post-qualification experience (PQE) go from £82,500 to £104,500, while three-year PQEers jump from £93,500 to £115,000.

Trainees also get a boost, albeit of much more modest proportions of about 5%. From this September, first-year trainee pay rises from £40,000 to £42,000, while second-year salaries also rise by £2,000 to £47,000.

While the NQ and associate pay rises appear at first glance to shake the City market, A&O’s move is not as straightforward as the firm’s junior lawyers might initially think. Firm managers have stirred the pay pot in a different way, binning the lowest level of the three-tier bonus scheme.

The upshot is that while NQs and other junior lawyers trouser a significant rise to basic pay, fewer associates will be handed bonuses this financial year.

A&O’s global managing partner, Belgian lawyer Wim Dejonghe, attempted to sweeten the pill of shrinking bonuses, commenting:

By adding our standard bonus to base salaries we provide our associates with more certainty as to their pay and more consistent recognition for the work they do every day.

Nonetheless, from the all-important recruitment market perspective of NQ starting rates, the move puts the Spitalfields Market crowd at the top of the English law firm pay table — £8,000 above magic circle competitors Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May.

And the two other magic circle players — Linklaters and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer — are left trailing even farther behind, on £68,500 and £67,500, respectively.

The gap between A&O and the rest of the magic circle is even greater at one, two and three PQE level, with the firm paying around £16,000 more than its rivals.

A&O’s dramatic move follows pay rises at transatlantic duo Hogan Lovells and Norton Rose Fulbright. Within the last few days, both transatlantic firms had boosted their NQ pay packets to £70,000.

The magic circle firm’s munificence comes on the heels of release at the beginning of the month of the firm’s latest financial results. Those figures showed turnover had increased by 4%, or £47m.

However, pre-tax profit rose by 7% to £570m; while profit per equity partner — the average amount senior equity individuals lug home in their wheelbarrows every year — also rose by 8% to an eye watering £1.21m.

The magic circle as it stands:

The post Allen & Overy ups junior lawyer pay by A QUARTER to blow away rest of magic circle appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Silk who defended the Krays also aggrieved by modern law firm tendency to “tie papers with rubber bands instead of tape”

Crown Court criminal advocacy standards are tumbling, and it’s all the fault of solicitor-advocates, claims a Conservative Party bar grandee this week.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC — renowned for defending Kray brothers before becoming the MP for Burton — fired a broadside that highlights the delicacy of relations between the two sides of the profession as they fight the government’s legal aid cuts through strike action.

Lawrence (pictured below) — who spent 23 years in parliament and is still, at the age of 78, practising at the criminal bar — spoke out in the House of Commons against elements of the Courts and Legal Services Åct as it went through enactment a quarter of a century ago.

And the intervening years have not dulled his opposition to the role of solicitor-advocates.

“We are trained advocates, whereas solicitors have to combine it with other things,” Lawrence told a new blog called Legalhackette’s brief launched by non-practising barrister and leading legal affairs journalist Catherine Baksi.

“Advocacy is putting your best points forward persuasively in the shortest available time,” continued Lawrence, who remains in chambers at 5 Pump Court in the Temple. “It’s an art that has to be learned and practised. Solicitors can’t do it if they are doing other things.”

Lawrence was also damning of the modern criminal law firm practices.

They pile it up and do not do a proper job,” he told Legalhackette’s brief. “They tie papers with rubber bands instead of tape — always an indication of slackness — briefs are not prepared, proofs are not taken and the work that solicitors used to do in advance is being left to the advocate to do in conference with the client.

Despite taking pot-shots at the larger branch of the criminal law profession, Lawrence maintained that he is four-square behind barristers taking strike action to support solicitors in their bid to defeat a second tranche of government legal aid cuts.

Nonetheless, the veteran silk is pessimistic about the chances of success. Having warned in the Commons 25 years ago that the creation of high court solicitor-advocates would lead to a fused legal profession, Lawrence now says he is more convinced than ever that such an evolution is the aim of ministers and their mandarins.

The [publicly-funded criminal] bar’s fees are set by civil servants who have an agenda,” he relayed to Baksi. “Fusion of the solicitors and barristers professions.

As harsh as Lawrence’s assessment is of the solicitor-advocates, his comments are in line with elements of official Bar Council thinking on the issue.

At the beginning of April, the council’s criminal justice reform group, chaired by the former circuit judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, launched a blistering attack on solicitors in the Crown Court, accusing them of “dumbing down” advocacy standards at that level.

The post Solicitors are rubbish at the ‘art’ of Crown Court advocacy, says top Tory QC appeared first on Legal Cheek.

The euphemisms that keep the deals moving

They don’t necessarily mean what they say in the partnership boardrooms in the Square Mile — as a bunch of City lawyers have been noting on a highly amusing “work euphemisms” thread that has been doing the rounds online this month.

We’ve celebrated our 14 favourites through the medium of corporate stock images…

‘In a meeting’

‘Quite challenging’

‘One or two issues’

‘I welcome any advice’

‘Of course we agreed compound interest’

‘I look forward to hearing from you’

The promotion to ‘legal director’

‘Apologies for the urgency’

‘I am on speaker phone’

‘Where would the firm be without her?’

Retirement best wishes

‘Thanks for the helpful comments’

‘The life and soul of the Christmas party’

‘A commercial solution’

Hat tip to the RollOnFriday messageboard — the full thread is here.

The post What corporate lawyers say Vs what corporate lawyers mean appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Top silks call on Ministry of Justice to launch a review of courtroom standards as public is in “danger”

Another war of words broke out yesterday between the bar and solicitors — this time over advocacy in the family courts.

Resolution — the body that represents family law solicitors — fired off an angry letter to a government minister in response to the bar’s call for a high-profile review of advocacy standards.

Tempers flared after the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA) and the Bar Council wrote two days ago to justice minister Shailesh Vara, alleging that many family law solicitors were not up to the job.

The barristers’ complaint coincided with an interview with former minister and Conservative Party grandee, Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, in which the silk slammed the performance of solicitor-advocates in the Crown Courts.

And now the verdict seems to be similar regarding family law advocacy in the county and high courts. Indeed, according to the bar, it is worse.

In their jointly signed letter to Vara, Bar Council chairman Alistair MacDonald QC and Susan Jacklin QC, chairwoman of the FLBA wrote:

The position in the family court is undoubtedly worse than in the criminal court. Solicitors require no advocacy training in order to appear either in the County Court, where the vast majority of children cases are conducted at circuit judge level or below, or the High Court.

The letter continued:

It is undeniable that the training undertaken by solicitors is limited compared to the extensive training undertaken by the bar.

The two silks went on to maintain that the disparity in solicitor-advocate training had been of little importance until the latest slashing of the legal aid budget. They pointed out that until the recent funding cuts, poor solicitor-advocacy was only an occasional problem, “as solicitors conventionally instructed counsel on all matters of complexity”.

However, said the letter:

Since the 10% cut in representation fees was imposed in 2012, followed by the significant reduction in legally aided work brought about by [the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012], more and more solicitors have found it difficult to make a living from publicly funded work. This has led to … many more solicitors than previously had been the case … conducting hearings themselves, or using members of their firms, so that the family advocacy scheme payment can be claimed.

The upshot, the barristers told the Ministry of Justice man, was that solicitors are producing increasingly poor advocacy in family law hearings. They fired off one more broadside:

Serious damage to the public interest has been caused by this situation.

MacDonald and Jacklin called for a review forthwith. And not surprisingly, the bar letter has gone down like a cup of something cold and nasty with the solicitor side of the profession.

Resolution chairwoman Jo Edwards reached for her quill and scrawled a fuming letter to Vara yesterday.

Our own anecdotal reports from our members,” she said, “ including barristers and leading judges, do not suggest that the concerns expressed by the FLBA and Bar Council are widespread.

Edwards went on to acknowledge that in a post-LASPO world more solicitors are conducting family law advocacy. However, she said:

The judges to whom we have spoken suggest that whilst more interlocutory hearings are being done by solicitors … this is not obviously having a detrimental impact on the preparation or disposal of cases.

The Resolution leader went on to criticise the FBA for conducing a survey of its members earlier in the year and then not releasing the results. Edwards also slammed the bar for framing the survey questions “in such a way as to elicit examples of poor solicitor advocacy, rather than ascertaining whether members perceive there to be a problem with quality”.

The post Latest advocacy row — bar leaders slam solicitors for poor family court work appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Kiss good-bye to lawyer civility

Relations between advocates at one south of England court seem to be on the verge of all-out war.

A Legal Cheek reader submitted this image to our tip line yesterday, explaining that the image was taken in the “passive-aggressive goldmine that is the Milton Keynes County Court advocates’ room visitors’ book”.

And judging by the use of the vernacular, it appears that MKCC was playing host to a guest American advocate on the day.

The post War of words at Milton Keynes County Court appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Exclusive: Graduate offers students an “unfair advantage” in return for cash

It has never been more difficult to secure a training contract at a top City firm. With an abundance of well qualified, eager applicants leaving university and fighting over fewer positions, it can be a gruelling process for any aspiring solicitor.

So a website claiming it can provide candidates with a “unfair advantage” in the application process for just £20 seems too good to be true.

However, that’s exactly what website ToughLoveGrad is offering — or was offering until it was pulled overnight (it remains in the Google Cache).

Hidden among careers advice and various blogs, the site, for just £20-a-go, was claiming to provide City TC applicants with model answers for firms including Ashurst, Baker & McKenzie, Berwin Leighton Paisner, Clifford Chance, Clyde & Co, CMS Cameron McKenna, Bond Dickinson, Burges Salmon, Covington & Burling and Charles Russell.

The website — which has been paying for advertising slots on Facebook to target aspiring lawyers — claims to be run by Asare Nicholls, who maintains in his bio to be on a graduate scheme at the Financial Conduct Authority, one of two City regulators that took over from the Financial Services Authority.

Nicholls (pictured below in a shot taken from ToughLoveGrad.com) sympathises on his site with those chasing training contracts. He explains that he too has been “in the trenches”, but stresses to students that they must be willing to sacrifice “money, time and recreational activities”.

However, Nicholls plays certain cards close to his chest. For example, he does not disclose which university he attended or degree he obtained. But he does reveal to potential buyers that:

I’m just a normal guy, I didn’t go to a red brick university and I didn’t have sky-high UCAS points but I still made it and so can you.

His inspirational sales patter continues as he tells readers that he applied for several graduate schemes over a 16 month period and began to see familiar patterns in his applications where he was invited to interview. He boldly claims:

This site will not be politically correct, it will tell the truth and get you where you want to be.

This is Nicholls’ pitch in full:

The FCA — which may have other things on its mind right now following the shock exit of its boss Martin Wheatley on Friday — told Legal Cheek:

While we will not comment on any individual, we are looking into the issue.

Nicholls did not respond to Legal Cheek‘s attempts to contact him.

Previously:

The Freshfields trainee selling insider training contract interview tips for £150 a pop [Legal Cheek]

The post Financial Conduct Authority trainee flogs top City law firm training contract application answers appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Four lawyer lobbying groups will meet Justice Secretary — but Law Society and Bar Council are in the cold

Four pressure groups will trudge into the Whitehall offices of the Ministry of Justice tomorrow to have a chinwag with the Secretary of State about a tiny disagreement over crime legal aid rates.

The event could be a craven example of window-dressing by Lord Chancellor Michael Gove, an attempt to appear to be negotiating while not really giving a monkey’s about lawyer concerns. Or it could result in an honest deal.

Some legal profession commentators have been slightly charmed by Gove and are keen to give him the benefit of the doubt so far. There are suggestions that the lobby groups — the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, the Big Firms Group (a collection of the country’s largest crime specialist solicitors’ practices) and the Criminal Bar Association — could find him in compromise mode.

For example, in his own Jack of Kent blog published yesterday, the Financial Times’s occasional online columnist David Allen Green waxed:

Michael Gove has made fine speeches since his appointment. He has said many of the right things.

However, Green went on to warn:

Thursday will be perhaps his first real test of substance: can the crisis be resolved so that the criminal courts can work again?

Judging by the mood of a demonstration outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London this morning (pictured), not all lawyers share Green’s sanguine view of the Lord Chancellor.

But whatever happens at tomorrow’s meeting, neither of the legal profession’s big trade unions will be in the room to witness the discussion. The Law Society and the Bar Council are both NFI (that’s “not fucking invited” for anyone born pre-1990), with neither commenting on the reasons for their absence.

That lack of participation is more interesting in relation to the Law Society. On the face of it, the society’s members — criminal law solicitors — have more skin in this game and therefore Chancery Lane officials should be clamouring for a seat at the table.

Solicitors face a second round of 8.75% fee cuts in the span of less than a year, so it would stand to reason that the society’s Grand Poobahs would want to be seen to be in the ring throwing punches.

But the Law Society is scarred by experience. Around 18 months ago, criminal law specialists organised a successful vote of no confidence in the Chancery Lane leadership.

Their gripe was that the outfit’s then president and chief executive — Nicholas Fluck and Des Hudson, respectively — had effectively crawled inside the pocket of Gove’s predecessor, Chris Grayling.

The argument ran that Chancery Lane played softball with Grayling because the society feared that if it irritated ministers, the government would pull the plug on the long-standing deal that allows the organisation to fund its activities through an effective mandatory tax on practising solicitors.

Fluck and Hudson argued vehemently that the softly, softly diplomatic approach with Grayling would result in the profession catching its monkey. But criminal law solicitors didn’t buy that line and slapped the society with a verdict of no confidence.

Fluck limped on for another six months until his one-year term finished; Hudson resigned — or “retired”, claiming that he had been planning to leave for months and that his departure had nothing to do with being humiliated by Grayling and solicitors alike.

Against that backdrop, it’s not difficult to understand why the Law Society hierarchy would probably rather be anywhere on Thursday than sitting around a Petty France table with Gove.

But what about the Bar Council? At first glance, criminal law barristers have not piled nearly as much opprobrium on it as their solicitor counterparts have on their representative body.

However, the council seems happy to let the Criminal Bar Association lead on negotiations with the government, probably reckoning that while it would be nice to bag brownie points if détente is reached, it’s not worth the risk of catching the flack if the talks fail.

For the time being, neither of the legal profession big beasts is commenting directly on their absence from tomorrow’s gathering. But while the Bar Council remained completely schtum, a Law Society spokesman issued a broad statement:

Solicitors are facing difficult decisions about what to do in the short term and the long term in view of the government’s cuts. It is good that those who have been balloting for action have the chance to speak direct to the government. We work closely with the practitioner groups to reflect the concerns of criminal defence solicitors in our discussions with the Ministry of Justice. We continue to have regular meetings with the ministry on a range of issues.

Images via @JoanaRamiro and @MaryRachel_McC

The post Gove calls make-or-break meeting in bid to resolve crime legal aid dispute appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Shock discovery reveals secret legal profession culinary habits north of border

That great bastion of British liberalism and political correctness — The Guardian newspaper — jumped on a story yesterday that highlighted those at times conflicting positions.

An article in the paper’s food and drink section reported on what at first seemed like an egregious attack on freedom of expression — a Scottish council’s clampdown on a chip shop promoting itself as the birthplace of that north-of-the-border delicacy, the fried Mars bar.

However, as devout proponents of healthy living, the Guardian’s editors might have had some sympathy with efforts — whatever their motivation — to eradicate what many see as a culinary embarrassment.

But that’s the Guardian’s conundrum. What’s interesting about this story is the claim made by Massimo Andreucci, who runs the Clam Shell chippy (pictured above) in Edinburgh’s Royal Mile.

I’ve got Scottish judges and lawyers who love them,” Andreucci told the newspaper, before qualifying that statement slightly. “Actually they tend to prefer a Snickers.

There are currently some 11,000 solicitors practising in Scotland along with a tight-knit band of about 460 barristers. Throw in a few judges and that’s clearly enough to keep the deep fat fryer bubbling away.

The post Fried Mars bars — Scottish judges and lawyers love ‘em … appeared first on Legal Cheek.

There are many ways to exhibit commercial awareness…

With legal profession career prospects in a state of semi-permanent flux, it’s no wonder that wannabe and junior lawyers are looking for opportunities to diversify their talents.

Earlier today this suggestion was mooted for legal aid lawyers suffering under the cosh of yet another round of rate cuts. (Hat tip to that bible of legal affairs coverage, Viz.)

#LegalAid lawyers Diversification opportunity pic.twitter.com/v2MRczcI9a

— The Bounder (@The_Bounder) July 21, 2015

And then there’s this recent posting on social media site Imgur, in which an enterprising and commercially savvy trainee solicitor illustrates that one should never miss a business opportunity.

The post From wasps to car-hire — junior lawyers need to diversify appeared first on Legal Cheek.