Most firms try to indoctrinate you with the idea that the measure of success in your career is becoming a partner.  Many partners try to fook with your head to make you feel like you aren't cutting it and you need to try harder so that you will remain malleable.  

It's a legal ponzi scheme...

Now this isn’t one of those shady pyramid schemes.

its more like a trapezium

The problem with law is you peak too early. Does anyone really materially improve after 10 years? This means that just being a good lawyer becomes devalued and all you are left with is politics, perception and power games.

"If you are highly trained and are paid for your time, you probably have a relationship to a pyramid scheme where the demand for training outstrips real demand for the trained. This leads to sharp elbows over sharp minds."

In law the demand for training definitely strips the demand for the trained.

At the Bar 20% get pupillage of which half get tenancy.  So about 10% of BPTC graduates 'make it' into practice.

The figure fluctuates on a year-to-year basis but around 50% of barristers leave the profession within 5 years of commencing practice.  

So statistically speaking a BPTC student has about a 5% chance of qualifying as a barrister and building a successful practice.  

In solicitor world I think around 40% eventually get training contracts, but many have to parablozza for several years before they get one.  

The possibility of becoming an actual (i.e. equity) partner is so low these days that it's mainly luck rather than design.  On the other hand, working as a non-partner is a much more accepted career choice, and pays well enough that you'll be able to afford everything you'll ever really need to have a comfortable and fulfilling life.  I would advise anyone starting out in the law to assume they will never make partner and plan accordingly, and if it does look like working out (and that's what you want) then so much the better. 

And by 'assume it won't happen' I mean don't think you can put things off until the big bucks come in:

1) start contributing to pension as soon as you get in the door at whatever rate needed to get max employer contribution;

2) buy a house/flat as soon as you can, regardless of the % mortgage/equity;

3) Do not delay family stuff (settling down, kids) unless that's what you want to do regardless of work  

+1 for what Warren said.

Also try and buy somewhere half-decent even if it involves stretching your budget for a few years.  

Your mortgage / salary ratio will improve as you climb the career ladder plus you won't be living in a 1 bedroom flat in some stabsville borough of SE London. 

Escaping Puppy11 Apr 20 13:48

In solicitor world I think around 40% eventually get training contracts, but many have to parablozza for several years before they get one.  

Bollocks. The number of LPC passes is about 95% that of training contracts. Even allowing for the odd foreigner etc, that's a huge number.

How many people do the LPC and how many TCs are on offer a year?  

I did the LPC back when it all crashed in 08-09 so my perception of the statistics might be somewhat skewed as training contracts were like gold dust at the time.

Pupillages were like rocking-horse shit.  I am told that there were 4 pupillages awarded in the whole of Leeds that year.  

That said 9,500 TCs on offer per year?  Really?  Given that there are 'only' around 100,000 practising solicitors in England & Wales I don't see how the need to train nearly an extra 10,000 people a year.  

I remember a firm in Nottingham which claimed to have over 1500 applications for a 3 training contracts.  

The average number of applications per pupillage was sitting around 350.  

"I did the LPC back when it all crashed in 08-09"

Ditto, I think there were three or four in my LPC class of about 16 with TCs. Not sure how many eventually got a TC, but I wasn't among them either.

Similar statistic in mind.  I think 2 had TCs when we started and another 2 or 3 got them during the course.  I was one of the lucky ones, even if I did train on the 'high street'.  

I’m astounded by those figures. I did the LPC at Nottingham, so didn’t have any firms tied in to sending their trainees there unlike BPP or UoL.

I think that 3 of us in our class of 25 or so had TCs. The rest were predominantly complete and utter fookwits who had more chance of stepping in rocking horse shit than getting a TC.

Definitely about 50% of people on the course were just wasting a year of their life and £10k in fees to try and join a profession they had no realistic prospect of ever joining.  

In my experience the ones who make equity are the ones who bring in clients and work (notwithstanding laterals and their dubious promises).

When I did what was then the BVC there were 120 in total . One had pupillage at the start of the course, he subsequently went on to take silk in one of the shortest times ever on record . Another dozen or so by the end of the course and a handful to start a year or so later .

dozen or so returned home , half or so became solicitors ,two became academics and the rest gave up altogether, including one who became a law librarian at a MC firm . She when I last saw was doing very well at it as head of library and information for a SC firm , earning a good six figure sum for 9-5, whilst doing a PhD 

Teclis11 Apr 20 16:00

In my experience the ones who make equity are the ones who bring in clients and work

Not where I trained.  The people who made partner where those who were part of the coterie of one particular partner who was politically powerful.  New partners were given the work of whichever partner they were demoting to salary to make room for them. Any associates who brought in new work were not credited for it otherwise.

"The possibility of becoming an actual (i.e. equity) partner is so low these days that it's mainly luck rather than design"

Literally 10 years ago I would have said the same thing. So.…..

Agreed

"3) Do not delay family stuff (settling down, kids) unless that's what you want to do regardless of work "

Sadly yes do put off having a family.  I certainly would in this current climate (and I am female).

Orwell was your firm you trained at quite “small” sub 50 partners ?

BPTC seemed like actual hard work. People had to wear suits and shit for pretend advocacy. The GDL seemed easy but quite a lot of work.

The LPC was the easiest year of my life, by an absolute country mile. I went in for the minimum 9 hours per week, did about 4 hours outside that to catch up on the lectures they put online. Did a few hours work a day before exams. Not sure it’s possible to fail an LPC module as long as you turn up for the exam. 

Ebitda - was this back in the day where you could sit the BVC, take 2 short exams, do 2 years as a parablozzer and get admitted as a solicitor?  

That was a proper loop-hole that was quite rightly closed.  

(Because no pupillage was required so the candidate was never a fully qualified barrister in the first place).  

I’ve made a few mistakes and none have been disastrous for the firm or my career.  The sign of a good firm is that you’re supported if you make a mistake rather than being thrown under the bus.

Puppy yes , as I recall they were paralegals for a year or two whilst looking for a pupillage, when that failed they did the QLTT, the biggest firms asked them to do a truncated TC, typically a year , some allowed them NQ status on completion of the QLTT .

Yeah I’m not sure that the comparison of doctors getting off lightly with their mistakes shows a great deal of perspective.

If you’re particularly unlucky, it will be a financially significant mistake with a big client and where you get caught. Worst case scenario you lose a client. If you’re a doctor, any significant mistake is going to result in death or permanent life-changing injuries.

Ive been dragged into two compliance/prof neg internal investigations in my career, and both have been partners ranked Band 1 in both legal directories. 

The real BVC wheeze was inhouse as failed bazzas could be legal counsel but failed sollys could only be parablozzas. I think this still exists. It may harder now to get taken on on that basis biut once you have one role under your belt you are golden.

ebitda11 Apr 20 16:22

Orwell was your firm you trained at quite “small” sub 50 partners ?

No, it was MC.  I'm referring to my particular department, which was one of the larger ones.

Key point is that there is plennty of talent around,  so the people who really get ahead are the moderately talented, moderately harworking bastards who are good at (1) sales; and (2) messing with the heads of the clients and staff to keep them on the track that suits the firm.  

Being a good lawyer or a good manager is totally irrelevant to getting ahead.  

Or those that don't define career success by becoming a partner.  Who wants to win a pie-eating contest where the prize is more pies?

EP - I was 08/09 in Leeds, were you at BPP? 

PP is all about pies though. Why on earth would anyone put up with working in a law firm and not be a partner? The only reason being you are not one yet.

And anyone who says "quality work" gets a kicking.

As training to do something more interesting than being a brainwashed sheep. 

I think the point others are trying to make is that it’s possible to have some of the pies without having to eat all of the shit which comes along with having all of the pies

I don’t think city law is anxiety inducing. It’s just giving advice fgs.

The anxiety for some comes from feeling like you haven't succeeded if you haven't made partner.  Which you well know.

Hmm. Not an issue for me I guess

i think the issue arises in the (at times helpful) portrayal of lawyering as arcane and difficult

that helps justify to clients high fees. it helps successful partners justify their earnings by believing themselves highly skilled and having pulled themselves up by the bootstraps. it helps them justify “constructively” criticising other lawyers

the problem is lawyering isn’t actually that hard. it’s quite hard, such that it requires a degree of intelligence. and extra intelligence helps make it easier and more efficient.

but it’s really not hard - it’s just about being thorough and patient

wot that means is lawyers who perceive themselves not to have “made it [yet]” put undue pressures on themselves and believe that success is not about luck but that the last step to what they perceive to be successful to be so very difficult

i don’t think it is all that difficult. it’s mostly about being lucky

and in all things one should strive to be always the luckiest

City lawyering does not seem particularly difficult.  

I once looked at changing specialisms and spent a week doing 'work experience' with a department that seemed to do little more than draft and negotiate commercial contracts and provide the odd bit of business advice.  Most people were being paid north of a ton.

I was bored to tears by the end of the week and decided to stay in crime on 50% of the salary.  

Actually I agree that law is good training for a fresh grad but i think you need to get out at 1PQE before it changes you. Deffo dont stay beyond 3 if the pie comp isn't for you.

"but it’s really not hard - it’s just about being thorough and patient"

agreed.

there is a degree of intelligence but (solicitors at least) the main thing is stamina and a very high level of patience and an a meticulous attention to detail.

And to some degree after a few years PQE a propensity to generate business of your own (that might mark you out but I agree with the "element of luck" thing).