Last week's podcast on whether getting a 2:2 is fatal for wannabe lawyers got me thinking. Obviously, those in possession of a Desmond need to do loads of extra-curricular activities and work experience to make up for their poor uni results, but that will only get them so far. They also, probably more importantly, need a compelling explanation for their rubbish academic performance...
Mulling this over made me recall an article I did for Legal Week (£), where I interviewed various lawyers who had made it into top jobs at City law firms after inauspicious starts.
One of them, Linklaters co-head of private equity Richard Youle, had got a 2:2. Unable to get a job elsewhere, Youle did his training contract at a high street law firm in Hull, from where he gradually moved up – getting an associate role in Eversheds' Leeds office, before moving to London with SJ Berwin. Finally he made it to Linklaters when his boss was poached by the magic circle firm and took Youle with him.
What I remember most about Youle is his great explanation for getting a 2:2. This is what he told me:
"I've always been motivated and ambitious. But those characteristics express themselves in different ways at different stages of your life. At uni I suppose my energy went into playing football and going out, then after that I realised I had to work, so I focused on my career instead."
Genius! Rather than make some excuse about poor teaching/doing the wrong course/bad luck, Youle turns the question around and uses it to show that he possesses the most important qualities for City lawyers: drive and – as demonstrated by the skilful nature of his response – intelligence.
OK, so a compelling explanation for getting a 2:2 isn't going to propel wannabes directly into the magic circle as trainees. But it might get them there eventually.