As Theresa May’s Britain gears up for a wave of infrastructure investment, Burges Salmon’s Marcus Walters advises students how to get into this fast-moving area

It’s a good time to be working on energy and infrastructure projects. Theresa May’s government seems committed to financing some major new initiatives — and whether that’s by borrowing money to fund direct investment or through public-private partnerships, it looks likely that things are going to happen.

In particular there’s energy, where my firm has been, and is, involved in advising on a number of high profile projects including in the nuclear and renewables sectors, and transport, with various ambitious rail and highways plans. Much of this will tie in with the government’s devolution strategy, the aim of which is to give local authorities more autonomy about how they spend money. The press has seized onto the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ but there are similar devolution plans across the country including in the South West.

For students currently looking to enter the legal profession, some of these projects should be well underway by the time they start their training contracts, with further projects in the pipeline.

That said, it can be difficult to plan exactly what area you want to specialise in as a student. Beyond joining the right firm, and then identifying and approaching the relevant teams within which you would like to qualify, trainees and newly qualified lawyers to a certain extent have to follow demand. Certainly I had no grand strategy and in all honesty rather luckily fell into doing the sort of infrastructure and local government work that I now specialise in.

As a chemistry PhD graduate who was past my mid-20s I think I saw law as a way to grow up. And having ruled out patents — which would have been the obvious choice with my science background — on account of wanting to do something completely different, I secured a training contract with Burges Salmon and found myself getting involved in projects in the emergency services, defence and education sectors. There was a place for me in the department, and I really enjoyed the combination of legal work and project management that you do as a lawyer in this area. You’re a linchpin, holding all the different parts together.

At the same time, the life of a projects lawyer involves a fair bit of upheaval, as the key areas for investment change as a result of market forces or changes to government policies. So you find yourself always looking for the next thing and trying to build a practice with some breadth. That way you don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Sometimes an area can get wiped out overnight because of a government decision (for example, to remove a subsidy on which a sector is dependent). If your specialism is too narrow, you run risks. The other side of the coin is that if you can spot a growth area, and get in there early, your career can rise rapidly with it.

This is why it’s so important for projects lawyers to stay on top of politics and policy. I spend quite a lot of my time thinking about the reasons certain decisions are being made and what these policies are trying to achieve — and by extension considering what that means for my clients. While policy considerations are sometimes key, you always need to keep in mind the commercial considerations of the people you’re representing.

At the moment, the news agenda is dominated by Brexit, but the impact of leaving the EU on the work that we do as projects lawyers is probably overplayed. Naturally it’s big from a financial services perspective, but services like energy and transport will still need to be delivered irrespective of the political climate — and that applies not just in the UK but also internationally in places like the Middle East, the Far East and mainland Europe where Burges Salmon is also currently advising on large-scale projects.

Indeed, the one major area of uncertainty, our procurement laws (which in a large part are EU-regulation derived), could actually be changed down the line to better facilitate the sort of work we do. Perhaps more than ever in my career to date, there are a lot of interesting things on the horizon.

Marcus Walters is a senior associate at Burges Salmon. He will be speaking on Wednesday evening at Legal Cheek’s latest event, How to become a projects lawyer, at Burges Salmon in Bristol.

The post Always looking out for the next big thing: my life as a projects lawyer appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Year-old social media posts come back to haunt City solicitor

RPC has been forced to suspend one of its senior lawyers after reports claimed he had made a number of expletive-ridden comments on Twitter.

Nick Pester — an insurance specialist at RPC — is alleged to have sent several abusive tweets between September and November 2015 from a Twitter account called @NickoAIM. The account in question has since disappeared.

One tweet is directed at an account — which has also disappeared — called @Bucklitsch, which Legal Cheek understands used to belong to controversial ex-UKIP candidate Peter Bucklitsch. The post (screenshot below) appears to reference the Syrian refugee crisis in Turkey, and brands Bucklitsch a “C*NT”.

In another tweet which has been deleted, Pester — whose profile has since been pulled from RPC’s website — embarked on a rant, branding the Daily Mail newspaper, among other things, a “ball of w*nk”.

Despite being over a year old, it appears that the social media posts were only brought to the attention of Pester’s employers after a Twitter user began tweeting RPC’s official account directly.

Taking swift action, a spokesperson for RPC confirmed to Legal Cheek this morning that an internal investigation was underway and that “the employee in question” had been “suspended on full pay pending an expedited disciplinary hearing”. Continuing, the spokesperson said:

Although these comments were made in a personal capacity, the tone, content and language used run completely counter to the culture and values that we espouse here at RPC — there is no excuse for them and we distance ourselves from them unreservedly.

The post RPC senior lawyer suspended over expletive-ridden Twitter bluster appeared first on Legal Cheek.

There were protesters dressed as lawyers outside the High Court

The long-awaited Brexit legal challenge kicked off in the High Court this morning, complete with a star-studded legal team and judicial bench.

In courtroom 4 of the Royal Courts of Justice, three top judges, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, the new Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Sales, heard submissions from Lord Pannick QC.

Acting for the lead claimant, businesswoman and British citizen Gina Miller, the Blackstone Chambers barrister told the bench the case was one of “fundamental constitutional importance”.

Walking through the bustling court, this is clear to see. The courtroom was packed out, while the two overflow courts (courtrooms 20 and 28) were also busy.

Protests outside the High Court this morning, queue of about 50 odd people to get in the building! pic.twitter.com/QgfN9VzOHV

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) October 13, 2016

Outside the iconic, London building — which recently became victim to some creepy graffiti — lawyers, journalists and other interested spectators queued up to enter the court, while protesters gathered outside and handed out leaflets. One read:

Lawyers, hands off our democracy!… [The Miller case] is an outrage against democracy. The Brexit vote is the biggest democratic mandate in British political history. And it must be respected.

Though the political and emotive aspects of the Brexit debate weighed heavy today, Pannick was quick to reassure the court this case isn’t about politics.

According to him, the defendant’s legal team — headed up by attorney general Jeremy Wright QC — is wrong to suggest the judicial review is in any way an attempt by the claimant, Miller, to block Brexit. Instead, the legal challenge is about parliamentary sovereignty; whatever parliament does with this sovereignty is down to parliament.

Later, Pannick told the Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, the new Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Sales that triggering Article 50 would lead to a loss of rights because of the lapse of the EU treaties. A minister of the Crown has no legal power to remove these statutory rights without parliamentary authority, and it is “no answer” to say parliament may take action and be able to somehow get these rights back in the future. On Britain’s withdrawal:

There is no going back.

EU law fans will be thrilled to know the court was also treated to a whistlestop tour of the supremacy of European law, courtesy of Pannick, featuring cases including Simmenthal and Van Gend en Loos. And yes, Factortame got a mention too.

Court just mentioned Factortame #BrexitCase

— Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) October 13, 2016

The hearing continues on Monday and is expected to conclude on Tuesday. It is understood the case will be leapfrogged to the Supreme Court by the end of the year once a decision has been given by the High Court; expect lots more Article 50 derring-do.

The post ‘There is no going back’: Lord Pannick QC kicks off Brexit legal challenge appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Workload, client demands and billing targets are to blame

Nearly 70% of lawyers believe they work in the most stressful profession, according to research published this week.

A study — undertaken by virtual outfit, Keystone Law — questioned more than 300 legal professionals (predominantly associates and partners) from top 50 to 100 UK firms, and it would appear — somewhat unsurprisingly — that being a lawyer is pretty stressful.

According to the stats, 67% of lawyers felt that they were more stressed than those working in other professional sectors such as accountancy or banking, while just 4% believed they had it easier. Only 22% of respondents thought their stress levels were about the same as other professionals.

A whopping 80% of lawyers surveyed cited workload as the number one source of their stress. Other causes mentioned included client demands, billing targets, lack of support, competition and partnership issues.

One ex-City lawyer, who now works flexibly at a new-model law firm, told Legal Cheek:

Lawyers feel constantly stressed out because they can’t afford to take their time with their work. They are under pressure from their clients to get things done quickly (and as cheaply as possible) and from their firms to make as much money as possible.

Interestingly, the research also revealed that a little more than a third of those associates and partners questioned felt that a more flexible approach to working hours would help combat stress. Other changes which lawyers suggested might make their job more “enjoyable” included lower billing targets, better management, more support, and — of course — more cash.

Earlier this week Legal Cheek revealed the results of its exclusive research into the working habits of corporate lawyers. Surveying over 1,500 trainees and junior associates across 56 UK-based firms, Legal Cheek was able to create a comprehensive list of average office arrival and departure times for lawyers.

Among the hardest-working lawyers were those based at the London office of US giant Kirkland & Ellis. According to the stats, associates will arrive in the office around 9:44am but won’t leave till roughly 9:14pm. But before you feel too sorry for them, newly qualified lawyers are — thanks to a dollar-pegged salary — pocketing a whopping £140,000 a year.

The post Research: Almost 70% of lawyers believe they work in the most stressful profession appeared first on Legal Cheek.

It’s not all photocopying and filing

Nine law firms have been rated outstanding for quality of work in Legal Cheek’s exclusive survey of over 1,500 trainees and junior solicitors.

The study canvassed the views of rookies at nearly 60 top UK corporate law firms in order to provide students with objective information about where to start their careers. Earlier this week we revealed the results for longest hours having announced the best firms for training last week. And today we’re turning our attention to the tasks that young lawyers are handed.

Respondents were asked to rank their quality of work on a 1-10 sliding scale, with one defined as ‘Shouldn’t they be outsourcing this stuff to a robot’ and ten as ‘Everyday is a vigorous yet wonderfully enriching intellectual workout’. They were also encouraged to write comments, several of which we have included below.

In no particular order, the firms which received A* grades are…

TLT

TLT’s formula partially works by undercutting leading City firms on the less glamorous aspects of banking transactions, which are then handed to teams of enthusiastic youth in Bristol, Manchester, Belfast, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
This translates into some highly stimulating work for trainees. One TLT youngster describes it as “proper work”, while another goes further to describe it as “10 out of 10”.

But in a disclaimer for entitled millennials, it’s also worth noting that at times starting your career at TLT can be “like any job” and indeed “you do have to go looking for [work] on occasions”. Still, there’s no doubt that this is a firm that gives its young lawyers plenty of responsibility.

TLT firm profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Trowers & Hamlins

It’s not easy when your next door neighbour is Slaughter and May, but when it comes to quality of work for trainees and junior lawyers Trowers & Hamlins is the leading law firm on Bunhill Row.

High levels of responsibility are the norm, with “really varied and interesting work” quite common. “I have lots of my own files to run,” an insider tells us. With many of Trowers’ clients based in the Middle East, that work often has an international flavour and a high proportion of trainees get some travel during their TC.

Trowers & Hamlins profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Shearman & Sterling

Trainees at the London office of elite US giant Shearman & Sterling can expect to “run the entire gamut of tasks”. OK, so there is the inevitable lowest rung of the ladder page-checking stuff, but it’s balanced out by a significant proportion of work that really matters, such as “drafting the near-final version of a document”.

A non-hierarchical culture that sees “associates make a conscious effort to give trainees more interesting work” means that there is less sense of new starters having to serve their time on drudgery than at many firms, with those who have made it through the rigorous recruitment process trusted to handle challenging assignments. “Oftentimes you feel a great sense of reward,” discloses one London-based Shearman rookie with a taste for American vernacular.

Shearman & Sterling profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Mills & Reeve

“The good far outweighs the bad” for trainees and junior lawyers at Mills & Reeve, the national firm with a large presence in delightful Cambridge and other offices in Birmingham, Manchester, Norwich, London and Leeds.

That good apparently includes “lots of research on technical areas of law”, with trainees said to be valued for their freshness out of legal education and natural affinity with newer research techniques. A warm and friendly culture where “there is a real lack of hierarchy” precludes the dumping on trainees of too much mindless work.

Mills & Reeve profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Kirkland & Ellis

The money is wonderful, the hours are long and the work is top notch. Kirkland’s “young entrepreneurial team” in London are very much of the view that if you’re good enough you’re old enough. Trainees won’t have their hands held, but they can expect to “get as much as you’re willing to take on” from “oracle”-like supervisors who are keen to delegate.

Insiders report that work “changes on a day to day basis” and, although there are some low level admin tasks, junior life at the firm can at times stray into the realms of the sort of intellectual challenge nirvana that magic circle kids can only dream of.

Kirkland & Ellis profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Burges Salmon

Befitting of a firm that also scored an A* for its training, Burges Salmon thinks harder than most about what sort of work it gives trainees. New starters can expect a highly varied buffet of tasks, with one rookie telling us that “every piece of work is different”. As with all firms, on some days the selection is rather more chips and potato wedges, to stretch the buffet analogy dangerously close to breaking point, with “those all important but deadly boring bundling or admin jobs” also part of Burges Salmon trainee life.

The good news, one insider tells us, is that, “As I get further through my TC, the work is progressively more engaging as we get more competent. There are lots of members of support staff and we are encouraged to utilise their services so we aren’t stuck photocopying for hours”.

Burges Salmon firm profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Mishcon de Reya

According to the firm’s rookies, the Mishcon de Reya training contract experience exposes youth to levels of responsibility so great that not only does it create “fully rounded trainees” but it makes “thought leaders”.

Certainly there is a lot of hype around this firm right now, but it seems that the quality of work it provides is genuinely something to be celebrated. A steep learning curve sees “work get far more interesting as you adapt to the seat”, even in areas like litigation which are heavier on bundling. Less glamorous seats can be the most rewarding of all; apparently “in private tax all work is stimulating”.

Mishcon de Reya firm profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Bristows

With all those science PhDs kicking around among the Bristows trainee cohort it’s no surprise that the work is among the most intellectually nourishing out there. A compulsory intellectual property litigation seat is said to offer “fascinating” insights into the slightly geeky world of patents. And it’s always nice when your clients are the likes of Google, The Guardian and the BBC.

But even Bristows’ superbrains have to do grunt work sometimes. Those IP cases aren’t going to bundle themselves…

Bristows firm profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

Osborne Clarke

There is a strong feeling among the Osborne Clarke trainee and junior cohort that they are being challenged in a way designed to boost their development.

One member of that group tells us that they “definitely had much more responsibility than my friends at other firms and also was doing work that qualified new joiners hadn’t done in their previous firm!” While another says that their supervisors “have always been open to listening to the types of tasks I’d like to get exposure to and actively searching it out”. Expect some typical trainee tasks too, like attendance notes, document lists and board minutes, but the general mix is geared towards development over drudge.

Osborne Clarke firm profile [Legal Cheek Most List]

The rest

Overall the standard of training among the 56 firms surveyed by Legal Cheek was very high. Looking beyond the nine above which secured A*s, 42 got an A-grade, while five received a B. Unlike in the other categories of the survey, no firm scored a C or D grade for its quality of work. Check out all the firms results by accessing their profiles through the Legal Cheek 2016-17 Firms Most List.

If you would like to purchase a report containing a full breakdown of Legal Cheek Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey results for your firm, benchmarked against the other participating firms and a custom selected group of peer firms, please contact Legal Cheek Research for more details.

The post The law firms that give trainees and junior lawyers the best quality of work appeared first on Legal Cheek.

MPs say they want to steer clear of “for and against” arguments

While the media recovers from Tesco’s shock Marmite shortage, caused — it is alleged — by price rises stemming from the referendum result, parliament itself has already moved on, it seems.

This week, the House of Commons’ justice select committee launched an inquiry into the implications of Brexit on the UK’s civil and criminal justice systems and the legal sector in general.

The committee, headed by Bob Neill MP, is seeking written submissions from “expert and affected parties” on the key areas of concern which it will put before the government as the latter enters into Brexit negotiations. The committee reiterated that it wants to steer clear of any arguments about the fact of Brexit itself. It stated:

The purpose of the inquiry is to establish those questions affecting the justice system which it will be essential for the government to resolve during its negotiations on the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU, and not to revisit arguments for and against that departure.

The committee is hoping to get views on the likely effects of Brexit in three areas: first, the UK criminal justice system, where the UK participates in a range of EU-based mechanisms such as the European Arrest Warrant and access to Europol and Eurojust. Second, the civil justice system where there are reams of EU laws on dealing with cross-border disputes, jurisdictional disputes, enforcement rules and so on which will have to be considered.

Last but not least it is canvassing for an impact assessment on the legal services sector, worth £25.7 billion to the UK’s economy in 2015. Feedback is requested on “passporting” as well as both “threats and opportunities” for the future of the legal sector.

The commons joint human rights committee last month also launched an inquiry into the implications of Brexit, this time on human rights. Given that Brexit has been rebranded as “eurocide”, it looks like there are plenty out there who believe the human rights implications may be great indeed.

The post Beyond Marmite: justice committee invites views on implications of Brexit appeared first on Legal Cheek.

And they spend the most amount of money in the process

Law firms recruit graduates from, typically, only 19 different universities compared to accountancy and other professional services firms which recruit from around 50 universities, according to a recent survey.

Moreover, firms spend on average £6,811 per hire compared with the average graduate hire-spend of £3,383.

The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) report — which surveys 208 employers in the United Kingdom from 17 different sectors — also shows that law firms are among those employers which visit the least number of universities during the recruitment process. Law firms typically visit 17 universities, only marginally more than investment banking firms which visit only 12 institutions.

There may be a logical explanation for this, however, as AGR’s chief executive, Stephen Isherwood, tells Legal Cheek:

Unlike other sectors in the UK, law firms recruit from all disciplines. This means they are are more likely to target their marketing efforts at certain universities rather than just recruiting by discipline.

Isherwood says that the headline figure of 19 universities from which firms hire is an average so that larger firms may well be recruiting from 30 or 40 different universities.

The report also highlights the ever-growing use of video interviews as part of the recruitment experience, including by law firms. Around 42% of firms surveyed currently use Skype or other video-based interviews.

The report quotes one law firm which lists a number of benefits of video interviewing including flexibility and time-saving but also says that it ticks the diversity box:

[Video-interviewing] increases the number of candidates we take through from application form stage and thus increases the diversity of individuals who we see.

The post Law firms hire from the most limited university pool, research finds appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Being “polished” is overrated

The London office of global law firm Mayer Brown recently sent out a strong message about its commitment to diversity by hiring as trainees three out of the four winners of a commercial awareness competition for students from non-traditional backgrounds.

Portsmouth University grad James England, LSE grad Rhys Morgan and UCL grad Roxanna Sarkar-Patel emerged triumphant from diversity network Aspiring Solicitors’ ‘UK Commercial Awareness Competition’ — and having accepted training contract offers from Mayer Brown will begin their legal careers in 2018.

Legal Cheek Careers caught up with the trio, alongside Mayer Brown’s graduate recruitment chief Danielle White and Aspiring Solicitors founder Chris White, to get their advice for current students. Here are their top tips:

1. Students from humble backgrounds are driven and focused

Mayer Brown’s White has noticed a trend among students who come through diversity networks like Aspiring Solicitors. “They are very driven, focused — in some cases, more so than the average graduate that comes through the application process,” she says. That means they tend to do more research about the firms which they apply to and have developed their knowledge of the sector more thoroughly. Trainee-to-be Morgan gives an insight into this mindset as he explains the “two-pronged approach” he followed to develop his own commercial awareness ahead of the competition win:

First, identify the big underlying trends (say for instance, the rise of Asia, Brexit/Eurozone, emerging markets, and oil prices) and try to track and form an opinion on these,” he advises. “Once you have these main trends it’s much easier to analyse the opportunities and threats that companies face. Second, track a few specific stories/companies so that you have areas you can talk about in depth. In general, it’s easiest if you choose companies that you are in contact with, as then you’ll have a deeper understanding of their situation.

2. Unglamorous work experience can be better than fancy gap year jobs

While students from non-traditional backgrounds aren’t necessarily more commercially aware, the higher likelihood of them having jobs while at uni means that they will have had more exposure to the business world — even if it’s just on the til at Tescos.

Portsmouth grad England suggests that “previous employment in a commercial organisation can make a difference”, while UCL grad Sarkar-Patel expresses a similar sentiment as she indicates that “being within a commercial environment can definitely help to improve and strengthen commercial acumen”.

Certainly, adds Morgan, “non-traditional backgrounds can be helpful in giving students a wider range of experiences from which to draw”.

3. Don’t worry about what uni you are at

Over the last few years Mayer Brown has significantly increased the breadth of its graduate recruitment. Its latest intake of trainees — who’ll commence their training contracts in 2017-18 — come from 20 different universities (11 of those Russell Group universities), including Nottingham, Liverpool, York, KCL, St Andrews, Kent and Newcastle upon Tyne. The firm has also launched an alternative route to qualification, which allows students to earn while they learn — both on the job and via a part-time LLB at the University of Law.

White outlines her philosophy: “If they can get through our online tests and assessment day, they are good enough.” To that end, she encourages students who don’t meet Mayer Brown’s official minimum entry requirements to drop her a line if they think they have what it takes and have been held back by mitigating circumstances.

4. Being “polished” is overrated

There is a perception that privately educated and Oxbridge students possess a “polish” lacked by their less privileged counterparts. This isn’t a view to which White subscribes, but she acknowledges that “in some cases students may not have had the same exposure to corporate environments or had the support required to practice for interviews/assessment days/interviews.” That, however, is “a development point which will come over time”, she continues, adding: “Preparedness can be just as impressive as polish”. Aspiring Solicitors’ White has a similar take:

Being professionally prepared is much more valuable to a law firm than being polished, although to some it may mean the same thing. What does being polished actually mean? Without an accepted ‘polish’ standard for aspiring solicitors, this phrase can be applied to unfairly discriminate against some aspiring solicitors. The Aspiring Solicitors Commercial Awareness Competition places everyone on a level playing field with its CV blind format. The only trait we are concerned with is whether you are professionally prepared for commercial questions and challenges.

5. Get involved

The 2016-17 law firm graduate recruitment season gets underway from 1 November, with some fantastic opportunities awaiting switched on students who hit the ground running. A good place to start is by applying to take part in this year’s Aspiring Solicitors’ ‘UK Commercial Awareness Competition’.

Morgan has this to say about what he got from it:

The Commercial Awareness Competition helped in several ways: it provided a great platform on which to demonstrate skills in presentation, teamwork, and commercial awareness, it incentivised learning about commercial awareness, and it landed us work experience. It was through this work experience that we were able to secure training contracts with Mayer Brown.

Sign up for Aspiring Solicitors’ 2016-17 Commercial Awareness Competition here ahead of the deadline this coming Monday.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

The post How to get a training contract when you’re from an ordinary background appeared first on Legal Cheek.

It’s basically an Oxbridge-educated RoboCop

Four Cambridge University law students have created a new online system called ‘LawBot’ which is designed to help the victims of criminal offences get justice.

LawBot — which is the brainchild of Ludwig Bull, Rebecca Agliolo, Jozef Maruscak and Nadial Abdul — took just six weeks to build. It uses Artificial Intelligence Markup Language (AIML) to “provide confidential, non-judgmental, free, easy to understand legal knowledge”.

Currently, LawBot can offer advice in relation to 26 “major criminal offences”, including sex offences, property offences and offences against the person.

Keen to put the robot through its paces, Legal Cheek visited the site pretending to be the victim of an assault.

Having answered a number of LawBot’s questions — such as the type of injury sustained and the state of mind of the perpetrator — the system quickly advised that an offence against the person contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 had been committed. Armed with this information LawBot advised that Legal Cheek contact the police.

The clever system — which is based on Joshua Browder’s parking ticket appeal robot ‘DoNotPay’ — can currently only advise on criminal offences committed in England and Wales. However, according to its creators, there are plans to extend LawBot’s capabilities so it will be able to tackle civil law in the near future.

Ludwig, who is the project’s founder and director, told Legal Cheek:

LawBot bridges the gap between legal information (which exists aplenty on the web) and legal knowledge. LawBot secures equal access to justice by explaining in simple questionnaires how the law might apply to a specific situation.

But lawyers can breath a sigh of relief. According to LawBot’s marketing director, Rebecca Agliolo, the system is “not in contention with the legal profession” and has been designed to “complement” the fine work undertaken by criminal solicitors. Continuing, the fourth year Cambridge law student told Legal Cheek:

We don’t believe that programs like LawBot will displace lawyers — in fact, we hope it would compel more people to seek qualified legal advice. By incorporating technological innovation, the law is better equipped to fulfil its (arguably most important) function: the provision of access to justice.

You can put LawBot through its paces here.

The post Cambridge University law students create crime-identifying ‘LawBot’ appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Access to justice will not be compromised by threats

It’s day two of the Brexit High Court challenge, and the Lord Chief Justice kicked off proceedings by issuing a stark warning to people abusing the case’s parties.

Counsel for lead claimant Gina Miller (who was in attendance today) told the court on Thursday his client had been subjected to “abuse” because of her involvement in the contentious judicial review challenge. Viewers of Legal Cheek’s Friday Facebook livestream will recall protesters gathered outside the court and handed out leaflets to passers-by accusing both Miller and her lawyers of trying to block Brexit. Instructed law firm Mishcon de Reya has also reportedly been on the receiving end of abuse.

Though there were no anti-lawyer protesters outside the High Court when Legal Cheek arrived this morning, the Lord Chief Justice’s message suggests the abuse is continuing.

Sat between his colleagues Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales, he lambasted the abusers’ actions and said “the full vigour of the law” will be used to ensure the public has access to the court system.

In terms of substantive submissions, first up this morning was Matrix Chambers’ Helen Mountfield QC, acting for the People’s Challenge — a claim crowdfunded by Devereux Chambers tax specialist Jolyon Maugham QC.

In a similar vein to the claimant counsel that addressed the bench on Thursday — Lord Pannick QC and Dominic Chambers QC — Mountfield said triggering Article 50 without a parliamentary vote would be unlawful.

The European Communities Act 1972, she submitted, shows that parliament wills for UK citizens to benefit from the rights, and be subjected to the obligations, of the European treaties. The Crown does not have the legal power to remove these rights or obligations as a matter of domestic law.

Next to take the stand was Henderson Chambers’ Patrick Green QC, acting for intervening party Fair Deal for Expats — a pan-European group which recently issued separate legal proceedings against the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker.

In and among some confusion about the contents of the judges’ bundles, Green told the court that there are “rights at stake that parliament cannot itself replace” on our withdrawal. The 1972 act, he said, made a structural change to our constitutional settlement, conferring certain powers that pre-1972 were parliament’s only to the EU (think Costa v ENEL). These powers are parliament’s to exercise or to confer.

Green also stressed it is quite extraordinary that a decision of both such incredible constitutional importance and such ambiguity has come to court in this way. In cases of less significance, the court is well aware what is being judicially reviewed. In this case, we haven’t seen and don’t know what the decision even is.

At 11am, it was the turn of Manjit S Gill QC from No5 Chambers to address a hushed courtroom 4 (which, fun fact, seats 76 people). Representing two interested parties who are both minors and known only as A and B, the immigration specialist focused on the impact of our withdrawal on the rights of children.

The moment the UK leaves the EU, the rights of children from European Economic Area countries living here “all fall away.” They will be in the UK without leave and given that there’s no mechanism in place to give them the necessary leave, these children will be in the UK illegally. Prerogative powers, Gill argued, cannot be used to expose children to criminal liability and Article 50 cannot be used unless steps have been taken to protect affected parties.

Gill’s submissions conclude the case for the claimants. The next day and a half will see attorney general Jeremy Wright QC lead for the defence, so stay tuned.

The post Brexit legal challenge: Lord Chief Justice condemns ‘abusers’ targeting claimants appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Legal Cheek Careers meets two solicitors leading the way in lawtech and fintech

Ahead of ‘FinTech, AI and online justice: what technology means for the next generation of lawyers’, Legal Cheek Careers caught up with Pinsent Masons’ director of knowledge and innovation delivery, David Halliwell, and the head of the firm’s fintech propositions, Luke Scanlon.

The pair shared their views about artificial intelligence (AI), the fintech revolution and the coming together of data science and legal services — and considered what opportunities these trends will create for lawyers-to-be.

Legal Cheek Careers: What will AI mean for junior lawyers?

David Halliwell (DH): Artificial intelligence is an enabling tool, which will in the medium term stretch lawyers and require them to master new skills and techniques. It will open up new opportunities to provide value to our clients.

Luke Scanlon (LS): I subscribe to the idea put forward by Professor Richard Susskind (one of the UK’s leading voices on legal technology and a consultant to Pinsent Masons) that AI will mean more of a focus on interesting work for lawyers and less time spent on mundane tasks.

Will this change the typical profile of a lawyer?

LS: To a certain extent it could. Students with coding or data analysis skills are going to be in high demand, because these are areas where the legal profession has an opportunity to build on what it currently offers.

DH: I couldn’t agree more. Think about when a large corporate is buying another organisation. Today every organisation generates a huge amount of data — and the company looking to buy a new asset is increasingly seeking to look at that data to get a better idea of what they are purchasing. Ultimately, it boils down to assessing risk, which is lawyers’ specialty. So I think we’ll see a lot more coming together of the provision of legal advice and data analysis.

So should law students be learning data science and coding?

DH: Certainly I’d snap up the coders — partly because it’s a signal that they are technically savvy. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw more courses like the combined law and computer science degree that the University of Strathclyde used to run.

LS: It’s also a mindset thing. When I talk to junior lawyers about tech they tend to be excited about it and get it. They want to be involved. Quite understandably, some older lawyers who have spent many years working a certain way, and may have to start fundamentally changing the way they think about delivering legal services, sometimes feel rather differently. But this in itself gives those at the start of their careers an advantage.

How big a game-changer is fintech?

LS: There’s no question that it’s transforming financial services. Fundamental changes like blockchain — a digital ledger that removes the need for a trusted third party, like a bank, which underpins traditional finance — are creating a lot of regulatory questions and to a large extent have outpaced the law. Lawyers’ role in this is now in one sense to help the law catch up and fill in those gaps. So this is a very legally interesting area, which involves tech start-ups, the large banks and also governments and regulators.

Broadly speaking, how do you get into this area as someone at the start of their career?

LS: There’s a fintech community in London, with regular meet-ups with lawyers, venture capitalists and technology people. Going along to one of these events is a good way to gain an insight into it. At the same time there is so much hype around fintech now with many people just jumping on the bandwagon. To get an idea about which law firms really have expertise in this area, I’d start by looking at the strength of their technology practices.

DH: You need to look at the awards firms have won, and the job titles. Pinsents is one of the few to have a director of innovation and a head of research & development, and we are the only firm to have built our own AI tool.

What does the future hold for technology and law?

DH: At the moment law lags behind banking in the experience it gives its customers. With online banking, for example, if you go onto your portal everything is in front of you as a customer. With legal services we are still not there yet. But soon corporate clients will expect similar user interfaces. At the same time, there is a generation of young people coming into the legal profession who have grown up understanding technology – and they will be driving the change.

LS: In five years time, or sooner, fintech and financial services will probably be seen as one and the same thing.

Luke Scanlon will be speaking at ‘FinTech, AI and online justice: what technology means for the next generation of lawyers’ on the evening of Thursday 27 October. Apply to attend here.

The post Why it’s a great time to be a junior lawyer who understands tech appeared first on Legal Cheek.

There’s a photo of him doing the splits on a beach

Need something to brighten up your day? Take a look at “international lawyer” Altaf Hussain’s LinkedIn profile.

Hussain, who works at full service international law firm Addison Aaron, has made Legal Cheek smile with his quirky LinkedIn posts, like this one of him doing the splits.

Birmingham City graduate Hussain has also used LinkedIn to give us this James Bond-themed gem.

Then there’s this rather fetching shot of the human rights specialist clutching a tennis racket. His opponent better watch out: according to his firm profile, Hussain is an “avid sportsman” who has played “various sports at county level”. #win #win.

Plus this shot of a rather pensive looking Hussain hanging out in front of some boats.

Amazing stuff.

The post Everyone, stop what you’re doing and look at this international lawyer’s LinkedIn profile appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Shearman & Sterling graduate recruitment chief Paul Gascoyne and trainee solicitor Danielle Altink share their pearls of wisdom with Legal Cheek’s Tom Connelly and Katie King

As the deadline for applications fast approaches, Legal Cheek Careers sat down with Shearman & Sterling to talk all things winter vac scheme.

What do you actually do on a vac scheme? Is it all free food and Christmas parties? What’s the best thing you can do to make your application stand out? Find out the answers to these questions and more from Paul Gascoyne, Shearman’s London graduate recruitment manager, and Danielle Altink, who recently began her training contract at the US-headquartered firm.

Applications are now open for Shearman & Sterling’s winter vac scheme. The deadline for applications is 4 November. The vac scheme takes place on 5-16 December.

The post Legal Cheek talks… winter vac schemes appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Newspaper published an article suggesting the Republican had touched two women inappropriately

A legal letter penned by The New York Times’ lawyer David McCraw to Donald Trump’s legal team has taken the internet by storm.

The two-page letter is a response to a legal threat received by the newspaper from Trump’s lawyer last week. The Republican presidential candidate was unhappy about a profile of two women, Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks, who claim he touched them “inappropriately”.

Trump’s lawyer — Marc Kasowitz, who is described on his firm’s site as the “toughest lawyer on Wall Street” — sent a letter to the newspaper on behalf of his client, stating the article was “defamatory” and should be removed immediately.

McCraw, who is assistant general counsel at The New York Times, responded to Trump’s threat in epic fashion.

In a letter to Kasowitz, McCraw — who spent a year as an associate at the New York office of Clifford Chance — quickly pointed out that “the essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation”. He added:

Mr Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr Trump’s own daughter as a ‘piece of ass.’ Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

Continuing to lay the legal smackdown, McGraw suggested that if “Trump disagrees” and “believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say” then The New York Times welcomes the “opportunity to have a court set him straight”.

Astonishingly, McGraw — who has been at the newspaper for over 14 years — claims the letter took just 45 minutes to write.

Read the letter in full here:

The post New York Times in killer response to Trump legal threat appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Charlotte Proudman even hung up phone in radio interview bust-up about the issue

Footballer Ched Evans was controversially acquitted of rape earlier this month, and lawyers are still squabbling over whether this was the right decision.

Welsh sportsman Evans served two-and-a-half-years in prison for the rape of a 19-year-old woman in 2011. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction in April this year, and Evans was eventually acquitted of rape at his retrial.

The acquittal has prompted polarised opinion about the law of rape, the way in which rape complainants and defendants are treated in the criminal justice system and how criminal trials are conducted. There is particular contention surrounding victims’ sexual history and whether this should be disclosed in court.

Among the loudest voices in this debate are the lawyers, like Vera Baird QC. The Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria has penned a strongly-worded article in The Guardian in which she argues:

By clearing the way for two men to tell the jury they’d had sex with the complainant, the Court of Appeal effectively converted [Evan’s] earlier conviction into an acquittal. Some lawyers say this was a rare case and doubt that, as a precedent, it will affect many future cases. But other lawyers — and I am one of them — fear that rape trials could become inquisitions into the complainant’s sex life.

This comment has riled some lawyers.

Criminal barrister Douglas Lloyd, for one, described Baird’s opinion piece as “complete drivel” and “dangerous scaremongering”.

This is complete drivel & dangerous scaremongering from someone who should know much better. https://t.co/h6utPqY8Bk #ChedEvans #Rape #law

— Douglas Lloyd (@DouglasLloydUK) October 17, 2016

The article, he said, paints a misleading picture of the criminal justice system and its treatment of rape complainants. He also said her piece “stinks of jumping on a bandwagon”.

@carolgair I understand. Articles like this paint a misleading picture. Sexual history is rarely admissible. This case didn't change that.

— Douglas Lloyd (@DouglasLloydUK) October 17, 2016

In response to Lloyd’s criticism, fellow criminal lawyer Nicholas Diable took the opportunity to slam Baird for her involvement in the “destruction of legal aid”.

@DouglasLloydUK ahh Vera Baird… made a fortune from legal aid then joined govt & started destruction of legal aid system.

— Nicholas Diable (@Defencebrief) October 17, 2016

Another barrister questioned whether Baird had read the full Evans transcript, while Simon Myerson QC suggested her views are not based on knowledge.

Any chance Vera Baird might read it? https://t.co/acmBQ78ou9

— Barton Bank (@BartonBank) October 15, 2016

@BartonBank @LJD1977 @CrimeLineLaw Views so pure and certain should never be tainted by knowledge.

— Simon Myerson QC (@SCynic1) October 16, 2016

Though the jibes from the legal profession are coming thick and fast, it’s worth noting many spectators have shared Baird’s article on social media, perhaps in solidarity with her viewpoint.

And take Charlotte Proudman. The family law barrister and feminist commentator spoke via telephone on a radio show hosted by Julia Hartley-Brewer this weekend. The forthright broadcaster repeatedly interrupted Proudman — who notably made public a private, sexist message she received from a senior solicitor — when she attempted to voice her concern about Evans’ acquittal. Proudman eventually hung up the phone when Hartley-Brewer called the complainant “a slut”.

The post Lawyers split over Ched Evans rape acquittal debate appeared first on Legal Cheek.

It has been redrafted but it’s still nonsense

Facebook users are once again sharing a completely useless privacy notice over fears the social media giant is about to make their posts public without their consent.

The ‘legal status’ — which has been shared by thousands of Facebook users over the last few days — warns that “everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from tomorrow.”

Citing recent privacy changes, which were apparently covered extensively on “Channel 13 News”, the legal nonsense continues:

I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents.

This time last year a similar status did the social media rounds. On this occasion Legal Cheek revealed how a lawyer — fortunately from the USA — had fallen for the useless privacy notice.

But clearly the lawyer idiot author of this latest update has taken some pointers from his predecessor. Once again — striking fear into the hearts of Facebook’s lawyers — the status quotes and namechecks the “Rome Statute”:

The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute).

Like Legal Cheek pointed out last time round, Facebook’s intellectual property policy isn’t straightforward. Subject to individual privacy settings, Mark Zuckerberg and co can — in accordance with the sites “IP License” — pretty much do what they want with the content you upload. If Claire who you go to Zumba with decides to invoke the Rome Statute, that probably isn’t going to make blind bit of difference.

The post It’s back! People are once again sharing a useless legal privacy notice on Facebook appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Unacceptable brashness or praiseworthy initiative?

In the latest instalment in our Career Conundrums series, one aspiring lawyer ponders an unusual route into solicitor qualification.

I have a question regarding the profession and career plans. I am currently undertaking a law degree and have two years until I finish and then start the LPC. My plan is to open my own high street firm and work there either during my LPC or my degree (depending on finances and the answers given to this question). If I open my own firm and hire a solicitor with three years+ experience (in compliance with profession rules), can said employee then offer me a training contract at my own firm? Or is that an unacceptably cheeky way of securing a training contract?

If you have a career conundrum, email us with it to careers@legalcheek.com.

The post Are my plans for securing a training contract too cheeky for the legal profession? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Ahead of the Women in Law student conference next month, Shearman & Sterling partner Susanna Charlwood reflects on her career journey and explains why her gender has never held her back

A first class degree, distinctions in both her GDL and her LPC and experience in some of the country’s top law firms — Susanna Charlwood has had a career aspiring lawyers dream of.

Reflecting on her journey, Susanna is open about the demands of working in the profession. But she is quick to tell Legal Cheek Careers that her gender has never been a barrier to her progression. She has seen a real increase in efforts by City firms to support women the effects of which, she believes, are starting to be realised.

Educated at Durham University, Susanna had an interest in law but only focused on a career in the City when, two years into her history degree, the opportunity arose to apply for placements at City firms. She liked what she saw, and a few years later found herself training to be a solicitor at Allen & Overy. She spent four-and-a-half years there as well as several years at fellow magic circle outfit Slaughter and May.

Susanna joined US giant Shearman & Sterling about three years ago. Though the culture of American firms has a reputation for being demanding, Susanna rejects the stereotype that working hours are so much higher when compared to UK firms as “completely untrue”. She explains:

I’ve worked, and have seen my colleagues work, at least as many hours at magic circle firms as we do here.

By the time she jumped the magic circle ship, litigation lawyer Susanna had been contemplating a future as a partner for a few years:

I really liked what I did and I was pretty sure I wanted to keep working even though I was also thinking about having a family.

And that she has done. Susanna was promoted to litigation partner in January of this year and — true to her word — her personal life has rumbled on too. The banking and finance specialist is currently expecting her second child with her lawyer husband (he’s at Freshfields). The pair already have a young daughter together, born 18 months before Susanna was made partner.

It sounds hectic, but Susanna doesn’t feel motherhood has compromised her career. When asked if she’s ever considered quitting the law to focus on her family, she responds:

It wasn’t something I considered seriously. I’d invested an awful lot in a career I enjoy and while as a working mother I can’t always do everything I would like with my daughter, I am happy with the choice I made for me and for my family.

Key to successfully juggling clients and childcare, Susanna says, are being organised and having a steady support network of whatever form:

My husband and I both contribute to our daughter’s upbringing and we are lucky to have found childcare arrangements which work well for our daughter and for us. Exactly how you make career and family work is a very personal decision but from my own experience and that of my close friends in the profession, I can say it is possible to manage both and to enjoy both.

It sounds hard work, but Susanna is living proof that women can forge extremely successful careers for themselves. She has never felt as though her gender has held her back, though she does recall a distinct male domination at partner-level when she was starting out:

I certainly noticed there were more male partners than female partners and it was a subject of discussion, but I don’t remember seeing it as a barrier to my progress.

Susanna is concerned that some women may be unnerved by the fact that women are in the minority at the senior levels of many law firms and by the daunting task of navigating promotions processes (tough for male and female alike) at the same time as major changes in personal lives. She explains:

The last thing law firms want is to lose female talent. This is now properly recognised and there is a lot being done to try to address the reasons why some excellent female lawyers who would have liked to continue may have felt unable to do so.

To the aspiring female partners of tomorrow, who may still be concerned about making it big in the profession as a woman, Susanna offers these words of wisdom:

Believe in yourself and recognise your value, don’t assume people don’t want to see you flourish and won’t go out of their way to help you — even if initial discussions may seem awkward. If you are thinking about a family, have a realistic plan about how you think you will continue a demanding, sometimes erratic, job. And communicate confidently on the subject. A mentor of mine told me, ‘Don’t ask permission; just do it.’ As long as you get your work done, it doesn’t matter where you are and people will just accept you may leave and work later from home or not schedule meetings very early in the morning.

Thankfully, diversity statistics are gradually improving across the profession. People, Susanna observes, make decisions about their careers for all sorts of reasons. What she hopes is that gender in itself will increasingly cease to be one of those reasons.

Shearman & Sterling will be hosting its annual Women in Law conference on 3 November at the firm’s London office. The event is aimed at students and the deadline for applications is this Friday. Apply to attend here.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

The post A partner’s advice to aspiring female lawyers appeared first on Legal Cheek.

No Hunger Games vibes here

It is one thing to bag a top training contract, quite another to mix and mingle with your fellow TC-baggers. Will your cohort be competitive or collaborative? Supportive or superior? Have your back or cut your throat? Few things are likely to make more of a difference to the quality of your working life than how your firm rates in this category.

Yes, it’s Legal Cheek Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey results time again.

Having so far revealed the best employers for quality of work, training and hours in our survey of over 1,500 trainees and junior lawyers at nearly 60 top UK law firms, today we’re unveiling the outstanding performers in the vital category of peer supportiveness.

Without further ado, therefore, the nine firms which scored an A*, in no particular order, are … drum roll …

Dentons

If you think that the world’s largest law firm by headcount lacks the personal touch, then think again. Dentons’ tightly knit band of around 50 trainees (30 are being recruited this year into the firm’s London, Watford and Milton Keynes offices) are among the closest in Britain, bound together by quirky extra-curricular activities like pumpkin carving competitions and hiking weekends.

This self-described “great group” apparently “get on really well” — and can be regularly spotted around the pubs of Farringdon.

Read Dentons’ full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

Baker & McKenzie

Again, one of the world’s biggest law firms bucks expectations and comes up trumps for trainee and junior lawyer collegiality.

“A truly nice bunch throughout,” gushes one insider.

“Even during qualification I never felt anyone was wishing me to fail,” cascades another.

“I wouldn’t want to be a trainee anywhere else because we hire the best trainees!” bursts forth a third Baker rookie.

Phew! Legal Cheek understands that the peer supportiveness extends to the firm’s rather impressive social scene. The Blackfriar Pub is apparently “B&M HQ after 5:30pm on a Friday”, while the firm’s rookies are said to be “close to arranging a permanent trainee secondment to Book Club in Shoreditch”.

Read Baker & McKenzie’s full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

Osborne Clarke

The firm’s recent switch to a single trainee intake has apparently done wonders for integration, with regular after work meet-ups ensuring everyone gets to know each other. The ‘Friday Breakfast Club’ cements the bonds.

Other trainees are “lovely”, one tells us, with the gaps in geography between the firm’s offices in Bristol, Reading and London apparently proving no barrier to friendships. As one recent qualifier recalls: “My trainee intake across the three offices was relatively small, but we all got on well and kept in touch. When we qualified, we celebrated together with a meal out in London and we’re hoping to get together for drinks again soon.”

Read Osborne Clarke’s full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

Berwin Leighton Paisner

BLP insiders tell us that fellow trainees “are an amazing support network” and that “everyone is quite similar and extrovert” and “always ready to chat”. The vibe is said to be in “stark contrast” to some of the more cut-throat magic circle firms.

Could the exceptional closeness of Berwin Leighton Paisner’s trainees be related to the ‘Live Escape Rooms’ team-building session that the firm sends new recruits on?

Read Berwin Leighton Paisner’s full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

TLT

A firm that makes a virtue out of the high levels of responsibility that it gives to its trainees has managed to foster a culture of mutual supportiveness. “Everyone makes time to explain and answer questions,” one insider tells us.

A “very supportive” vibe is said to pervade TLT’s offices, with most juniors more than happy to take the time to sit with each other and discuss the work they’ve completed. Outside the office, the rookies can be found hanging out at Bristol Zoo — free entry to which is one of the firm’s top perks.

Read TLT’s full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

Travers Smith

Travers is on a great run right now, with its stellar growth since 2010 one of the corporate law success stories of the decade so far – and the mood of happiness has clearly trickled down to the trainees.

“People at Travers are great and [that’s] what makes so many people want to stay,” reports one happy Travers youth. The firm’s recent trainee retention rate percentages have been in the 90s, by the way.

The bonds are deepened through regular social events, including trips to the pub, visits to the Globe to see Shakespeare and ‘decathlon day outs’.

Read Travers Smith’s full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

Bristows

It’s no surprise that this firm is famously nice.

A policy of paying associates entirely on the basis of seniority rather than perceived merit sets the tone, as does Bristows’ admirable commitment to work-life balance. An upshot of this is one of the highest long term trainee retention rates in the business, and top marks in the Legal Cheek Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey.

Read Bristows’ full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

Trowers & Hamlins

Legal Cheek’s data scientists can’t be sure whether it’s the free breakfasts before 8:30am or the swanky new Manchester office that swung it, but Trowers trainees sure are smiling.

“A really good and friendly work environment” is how one insider describes the firm, which also scored very highly in the ‘quality of work’ category.

Perhaps, though, it’s simply astute graduate recruitment, with one Trowers rookie insisting that despite the many things going for the firm it’s ultimately “the people who make it!” Awww!

Read Trowers & Hamlins’ full Legal Cheek scorecard here.

Taylor Wessing

“Great intake,” says one TW rookie of their peers, summing up the prevailing sentiment of mutual friendship and admiration that pervades among trainees as they wander happily around the halls of 5 New Street Square.

Doubtless the firm’s top-rated training plays a part, with Taylor Wessing’s youngsters able to feel more relaxed than most on account of the open door policy and plentiful support on offer. “The trainees in my year and the year above are brilliant,” another Taylor Wessing insider tells us, continuing: “The great thing about moving departments is becoming friends with new trainees and they are always there for support.”

Read Taylor Wessing’s full Legal Cheek survey scorecard here.

The rest

This was not a stellar category for the magic circle firms, with none of them finishing in the top 20 and three of them (sparing blushes and mentioning no names) flirting with the relegation places. Having said that, none scored lower than a B. The main reason for the slightly disappointing grades was that peers seem to be less comrades and more competitors. As one magic circle insider put it: “Hmmm…. peers or competition?” And another: “Based on seats: 75% great, 25% genuinely awful. That 25% really killed it.”

You can access all of our law firm profiles through the Legal Cheek Most List.

If you would like to purchase a report containing a full breakdown of Legal Cheek Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey results for your firm, benchmarked against the other participating firms and a custom selected group of peer firms, please contact Legal Cheek Research for more details.

The post The law firms with the friendliest trainees in Britain appeared first on Legal Cheek.

But fresh-faced law students have until third year to accept

Magic circle giant Clifford Chance is offering training contract positions to “exceptional” law students as young as 18-years-old, Legal Cheek has learnt.

As part of the firm’s first year work experience scheme, top performing students — who are often fresh out of college — are being handed training contracts.

On the scheme, what Clifford Chance describes as “exceptional first year students” will spend five days completing classroom-based tasks and shadowing some of the outfit’s leading legal minds. Those who perform well will be invited back to the firm at a later date to complete a training contract assessment day.

Despite being just several months into their undergraduate law degrees, it’s at this stage students who have impressed the firm’s recruiters and lawyers are offered training contracts.

However — seemingly acknowledging this is a huge decision to make at such an early age — a spokesperson for Clifford Chance revealed to Legal Cheek:

For any offers that are made, we give the students until 15 September of their final year of study to decide if they will accept.

This gives students a few years to mull over the offer, one which — if accepted — includes a trainee starting salary of £43,500, rising to £85,000 upon qualification. Not a bad position to be in at just 18.

Most City law firms operate similar work experience programmes for first year students. But, unlike Clifford Chance, Legal Cheek understands these usually lead to a summer vacation scheme offer and not a training contact.

The radical recruitment move comes almost two years after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) revealed it had ditched the “code of good practice in the recruitment of trainee solicitors”. Prior to the decision, law firms were unable to make training contract offers before 1 September in the student’s final year of undergraduate study.

Code now abandoned, law firms can offer training contracts at any stage. Even 18-year-olds who have yet to discover the joys of Donoghue v Stevenson.

The post Clifford Chance is offering training contracts to ‘exceptional’ 18-year-olds appeared first on Legal Cheek.