Twelve candidates on this year's fast track LPC at BPP have failed part of the course, according to a RollOnFriday source, provoking very different reactions from their future firms. Whilst Herbert Smith has shown its trainees the door; Freshfields and Norton Rose have given theirs a second chance.
The fast track LPC, which takes seven months rather than the usual nine, is provided to around 400 future trainees of Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughters, Herbies and Norton Rose. Every student on the course has already got through A-levels, a degree, and a training contract interview and, for some, the GDL as well. However an unlucky 12 have fallen at the final hurdle, with seven LPC-ers reportedly failing the drafting module and a further five slipping up elsewhere.
The bleakest news is for those who were heading to Herbert Smith. The firm, which has serious form for booting out trainees who fail assessments (even by one mark), appears to have stuck with its draconian zero tolerance policy, booting out the trainees involved. According to a firm spokesman: "the current terms and conditions in our offer of employment clearly state that students have to pass all elements of the LPC course at the first attempt. We look to apply this policy on a consistent basis but do take into account any genuine mitigating circumstances."
But for the future trainees of Freshfields and Norton Rose, there may still be a happy ending. The firms are giving those who didn't make the grade first time around a second chance, provided they pass the resits (although they may still have to defer the start of their contracts). Spokeswomen for both firms confirmed that no training contracts had been terminated.
Still, at a time when firms need only the most fragile of excuses to prune their over-sized trainee intakes, it seems the days when the LPC could be another year of lie-ins and all day drinking sessions have passed.
Tip Off ROF
The fast track LPC, which takes seven months rather than the usual nine, is provided to around 400 future trainees of Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughters, Herbies and Norton Rose. Every student on the course has already got through A-levels, a degree, and a training contract interview and, for some, the GDL as well. However an unlucky 12 have fallen at the final hurdle, with seven LPC-ers reportedly failing the drafting module and a further five slipping up elsewhere.
The bleakest news is for those who were heading to Herbert Smith. The firm, which has serious form for booting out trainees who fail assessments (even by one mark), appears to have stuck with its draconian zero tolerance policy, booting out the trainees involved. According to a firm spokesman: "the current terms and conditions in our offer of employment clearly state that students have to pass all elements of the LPC course at the first attempt. We look to apply this policy on a consistent basis but do take into account any genuine mitigating circumstances."
Herbert Smith yesterday |
But for the future trainees of Freshfields and Norton Rose, there may still be a happy ending. The firms are giving those who didn't make the grade first time around a second chance, provided they pass the resits (although they may still have to defer the start of their contracts). Spokeswomen for both firms confirmed that no training contracts had been terminated.
Still, at a time when firms need only the most fragile of excuses to prune their over-sized trainee intakes, it seems the days when the LPC could be another year of lie-ins and all day drinking sessions have passed.
Comments
491
416
493
418
And it's no different to the Big 4 accountancy firms who boot people out three months in if they fail the so-called "Early Hurdle".
452
443
455
439
Those that aren't at Herbies are going to het a real shock when they start their TC.
467
460
429
444
455
462
I would like to see everyone give that a try. It would certainly sort out the 'wheat from the chaff'
432
489
People can fail a module for all sorts of reasons such as misreading one question (out of dozens), using a marginally wrong precedent, having a bad day, mistiming your answers etc. Sure if someone never turned up tO classes and failed boot them. But a blanket policy of booting people who may otherwise have firsts and distinctions is pretty retarded and a good way to dissuade people accepting tcs at your firm. I turned down the chance to work at hs precisely because of the sort of simplistic and unsympathetic attitude this move exemplifies.
465
430
438
449
457
464
Frankly, I doubt anyone who says the LPC I sat is easy hasn't done the same one. It's not that the content is difficult, it's just there is very little time to take it all in.
Herbert Smith are harsh, all the other firms at least met with students who failed, from what I've heard Herbert Smith didn't even bother.
443
463
What I find most perplexing, though, is the fact that seven or how ever many it was that were mentioned above failed drafting and might now have their TC revoked. Truely isn't the point of the TC to learn how to properly do this in practice? The writing, drafting, interviewing and advocacy although good practice, ultimately it's just that - practice. Knowledge comes from real work experience, not a fictitious interview where it doesn't matter if your legal advice is wrong so long as you know how to greet and talk to someone. It's like modelling school - smile and wave.
And PS to everyone above, the LPC IS taxing. I'd be interested to know if you already had TC's lined up and were doing the course with a nice maintanace grant to boot, because if you were one of those lucky ones then no, the LPC must be a walk in the park. But for those who fit classes into the evening so as to fit round their Monday to Friday 9-5 job, or those that do it at the weekend if they aren't looking after children, and I should say over two years because part-time is the only way to fit it round everything else, I am pretty sure those people would say the LPC is indeed 'taxing.'
454
438
Esp wrt drafting, which is generally taking a precedent off PLC and inserting a few numbers/facts, they could've just used the wrong one.
Not sure it's quite right to say "it's easy" thus "boot out any failures" - if it's so easy, it's not really a test, especially when, as I think the article is getting at, these are students who have got through, among other things, VS and TC applications/actual internships.
Cf. New York, where top tier firms regularly let students who fail the NY Bar resit at least (and even give them paid days off to take the repeat since it'll be after they've started)... NY Bar is at least 3/4 times harder than the LPC.
Suggests to me Freebies are petty, or at least dont have belief in their own recruitment process!!
476
428
People with TCs at the top firms should be going for distinctions IMO. If you mess it up you should still be getting a commendation or pass. I really don't think there is much excuse for failing the LPC.
468
442
455
451
454
449
446
464
One is failing a core module (property, blp, civ lit, debt, equity, CT) which is, to me, inexcusable and for which any firm is well within its rights to retract a TC offer. These are proper 3 hr written exams.
The second is failing a skill which is much less serious and could happen to anyone. These 'examinations' are often so short that one foot wrong can deny you a TC. For that reason, I believe, they should have a in-course retake option.
For those that are interested let me explain the particular unfairness of losing a training contract by failing 'drafting' in this round of the LPC. The 4 drafting questions (split across 3 exams) were.
1. Draft a Defence (good question)
2. Draft an AP1 form (terrible question. filling in a form is not drafting and rightly or wrongly many of us had not memorized an AP1 form by heart and had no idea what went in half the boxes)
3. Spot errors and amend a written resolution circular (unusual question for which no practice had been provided and was very tough to score well on)
4. 'Explain what these 4 clauses mean' (shocking, shocking question which was so poorly worded I had no idea what was expected and is not a drafting question. there was a good drafting question at the end of the exam (amending clauses) which did not carry any drafting marks. In hindsight I believe this was designed to be a summarising question though nobody I spoke to realised this!)
3 out of the 4 questions therefore were bad questions and many of us voiced concern over our drafting marks before results.
The poor 7 who failed drafting (an unprecedented number) were mostly just victims of a selection of questions which were badly designed and spread through 3 time-pressured exams. That is an examination failure and should be treated as such. IMO no firm should be allowed to retract a TC for this.
apologies for the wall of text
420
463
Personally I have turned down a job there in the past precisely because this rather 'macho' approach came through when I interviewed. It seems to be a firm culture thing.
As above, the LPC is an absolute pain in the behind because it is so unbelievably tedious (and of course largely pointless). That can cause even very able candidates to fail a module. Herbies should frankly be rather ashamed of themselves.
422
461
One is failing a core module (property, blp, civ lit, debt, equity, CT) which is, to me, inexcusable and for which any firm is well within its rights to retract a TC offer. These are proper 3 hr written exams.
The second is failing a skill which is much less serious and could happen to anyone. These 'examinations' are often so short that one foot wrong can deny you a TC. For that reason, I believe, they should have a in-course retake option.
For those that are interested let me explain the particular unfairness of losing a training contract by failing 'drafting' in this round of the LPC. The 4 drafting questions (split across 3 exams) were.
1. Draft a Defence (good question)
2. Draft an AP1 form (terrible question. filling in a form is not drafting and rightly or wrongly many of us had not memorized an AP1 form by heart and had no idea what went in half the boxes)
3. Spot errors and amend a written resolution circular (unusual question for which no practice had been provided and was very tough to score well on)
4. 'Explain what these 4 clauses mean' (shocking, shocking question which was so poorly worded I had no idea what was expected. there was a good drafting question at the end of the exam (amending clauses) which did not carry any drafting marks. In hindsight I believe this was designed to be summarising question though no-one I spoke to realised this!
3 out of the 4 questions therefore were bad questions and many of us voiced concern over our drafting marks before results.
The poor 7 who failed drafting (an unprecedented number) were mostly just victims of a selection of questions which were badly designed and spread through 3 time-pressured exams. That is an examination failure and should be treated as such. IMO no firm should be allowed to retract a TC for this.
458
438
445
429
438
452
I suspect a lot of these people talking tough on the RollonFriday website, of all places, are fairly pathetic prospects in the flesh.
447
436
436
474
No, I would take the 90% into account. But this would be a very unusual situation - people who fail an exam usually do badly in all of them.
I did the Accelerated LPC and I got a distinction. It is pretty easy. You have one 2-hour SGS a day with a few lectures and a bit of preparation. The exams are straightforward and you are told exactly what you are being tested on. It is a walk in the palk compared to the actual TC. If you don't pass the LPC you should be aiming for the high-street, not the Magic Circle.
450
438
3. Spot errors and amend a written resolution circular (unusual question for which no practice had been provided and was very tough to score well on)
4. 'Explain what these 4 clauses mean' (shocking, shocking question which was so poorly worded I had no idea what was expected. there was a good drafting question at the end of the exam (amending clauses) which did not carry any drafting marks. In hindsight I believe this was designed to be summarising question though no-one I spoke to realised this!"
There is nothing remotely difficult or ambiguous about any of those questions. Frankly even if you hadn't done any revision they should be a walk in the park. It is absolutely nothing compared to what candidates in the US have to do for the bar exam. If you can't cope with the such basic tasks I don't see how you can expect to do well on a TC with a top firm.
You were taught about the AP1. It even has boxes and guidance notes telling you what to put. If you do a real estate seat do you really think your supervisor is going to coach you through filling in a form?
In your corporate seat you will be expected to draft basic resolutions. Spotting errors in an existing draft should be a walk in the park. For goodness sake you have the Companies Act with you in the exam, all you need to do is open it and read the section on written resolutions.
I'm not sure why you think "explain what these clauses" mean is an ambiguous question. It seems pretty clear to me. If you can't explain what a few simple contract clauses mean, how would you cope if a client telephoned you and asked a contract you are working on?
462
435
No, this wrong. We were told we could be tested on any of the subject matter we'd covered. There was absolutely zero steer in terms of topics likely to come up in the core modules over others on the Accelerated LPC.
476
429