Acculaw launches trainee temping agency

A new training scheme for wannabe lawyers has been launched by Acculaw. The scheme involves recruiting LPC graduates without training contracts and seconding them to law firms as temporary trainees.

The scheme is the brainchild of ex Hogan Lovells' lawyer Susan Cooper. The LPC grads signed up to the scheme will be farmed out to firms as and when business need dictates and on salaries "in excess of" £20k. Firms commit to employing the temporary trainees for chunks of three months or more, while trainees are promised that they will work for no more than three firms during their training contract, which they'll complete in a maximum of two years and three months. Plus, Acculaw will pay them even during any downtime between placements.

The scheme will certainly make sense to the pool of talented wannabe lawyers who, for one reason or another, have yet to land full time jobs. And Acculaw - despite sounding like a contact lens provider - does seem to provide a better option than slogging away as a paralegal for years in the hope of one day being upgraded to trainee.

And for firms it seems a no-brainer: flexible access to decent candidates who, in the hope of impressing a potential employer, will work their arses off for less wedge than most paralegals (and no overtime). Which is presumably why Olswang - which recently deferred its trainees and nixed its entire 2013 recruitment round - was the first to jump on-board according to a Lawyer report. That or maybe it's just desperate to cut junior lawyer costs. As Olswang refused to comment, we'll just have to assume it's the latter.

An Acculaw trainee getting settled into his new firm yesterday

But is the deal really so sweet for the trainees? They get no maintenance grants, no law school sponsorship and salaries far lower than the £30k+ that most City trainees pocket. Which doesn't square well with Acculaw's liberal use of diversity buzzwords. Then there's the issue of working environment. Acculaw trainees - basically outsourced temps - may find themselves treated like second class citizens. And what chance do they have of being retained on qualification, when retention rates for trainees specifically selected, sponsored and nurtured by firms are still fairly wobbly?

But ultimately any scheme which gives law firms access to good candidates on a low cost, flexible basis is likely to be a commercial success. But whether a scheme under which trainees are denied sponsorship, shipped around different firms, paid less than current rates and face slim prospects of a job on qualification is a good thing is another question altogether.

UPDATE

Acculaw is now known as Accutrainee. Which is way more snappy and is bound to get the applicants flooding in.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Of course its a good thing - something's better than nothing. If they don't like the terms, don't sign up.

Ok, so the salary is sub 30k for seat 1, but in excess of the Law Society minimums; there's also no LPC sponsorship.

Can somebody tell me how different that is to the position with a number of training contracts offered up and down the land by numerous high street practices that still make up a significant majority of the profession?

The model isn't all that flawed as some in the legal press suggest. As a trainee, one might be inclined to accept high street pay for city work if there was no joy in the dispiriting applications process...

Having been slogging away at a firm for 5 years and having absolutely no joy with obtaining a training contract (damn you 2:2!), this sounds like the ideal prospect for me. I will be reading into this in more detail this weekend.

its easy to poke holes at how its inadequate. But for someone who desperately wants a training contract, at least its another way in.

I wouldn't expect Acculaw trainees to be treated like second-class citizens in the firms taking them on. However, using Acculaw suggests that a firm is less willing to invest in its trainees as long term parts of its future than where it recruits directly. It isn't a bad thing for the individual trainee who at least manages to get qualified this way and would therefore have the chance to make their own way in their career.

http://botzarelli.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/risky-business-becoming-a-solicitor/

If they are treated as 2nd class citizens in relation to basic employment terms (including pay) compared with directly employed trainees at their firms,they are likely to have claims under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.

Just moves the bottle neck of wannabe lawyers with no hope of ever having a qualified career from a pool of post law school, no trainee contract, heavily in debt people to a pool of post rubbish trainee contract, no permanent position, heavily in debt people.

As someone who paralegalled for 3 years before I got my training contract this looks like a lifeline to many LPC graduates.

However I think that the prospects of employment after training would be low. Basically this just moves the bottleneck from trying to get a training contract to trying to get an NQ position 2 years on.

Shoudln't there be a law student somewhere saying "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!". This just means that trainees get paid less for doing the same job whilst firms pay the same as they did before but effectively outsource their recruitment process. There is no suggestion that there will be more training contracts as a result of Acculaw so there is literally nothing to get excited about.

Anybody cracking jokes along the "don't like it/ don't sign up" lines ignores the obvious fact that you have to commit a lot of money and effort years in advance of actually being paid to do anything. So of course, it's fine if your degree and LPC were paid for by rich parents or your employer. Bit different if you can't push the bill on to someone else.

The law used to be a way for bright people without a lot of money to join the middle classes. This scheme debases the quality of the workforce and if it takes off we'll be regretting the lack of decent, ballsy associates in 5-10 years time.

I think it's a good idea if law firms approach it as a way of getting some temporary extra capacity. I just hope it doesn't become the norm and signal the end of sponsorship and decreasing trainee salaries.

It would be a way in for those who cannot find a law firm to sponsor them. I think the bigger firms would still prefer to build up a relationship with a trainee and assess them over 2 years, let lots of people in the firm see them etc etc.

However the scheme will have its place. Plenty of trainees are seconded anyway to clients as it is.

Perhaps they should totally free the market and allow trainees to pay to be trained for 2 years at a firm.

Don't think this would necessarily move the bottleneck from trying to find a TC to finding an NQ position. The extreme competitiveness of the TC search is partly due to law schools having basically no admission criteria. Acculaw however isn't going to accept any old candidate as the law firms will still have their standards.

Brilliant concept - and I would argue that a trainee on a scheme like this would get a much broader experience, working in different types of firms and different markets etc. To be honest - this is how it should have been organised by the Law Society/SRA, as opposed to leaving things "to market forces".

Shame that the e-mail address on the Acculaw website has just bounced back though. Does give the impression of a start-up not fully in control......