DWF has threatened an ex-trainee with court action if he does not repay £12,000.
The firm's training contract contains a clause stating that trainees are liable to repay the money it expends on their LPC fees if they leave before they are two years qualified. Such clauses are not uncommon these days, and unsurprising given that firms invest thousands of pounds in each trainee and would rather they didn't move immediately to a competitor on qualification. Which is apparently what happened to DWF, and this time it decided to play hardball.
According to RollOnFriday's source, the former trainee claims that he only learnt about the clause during an induction session at the beginning of his first seat. Though as a nascent lawyer he possibly should have read it in his contract before he signed it two years earlier. Prior to qualification he accepted a job from another firm because DWF was "dithering" about making an offer, and he has now been told to repay his benefactor.
DWF's spokeswoman told RollOnFriday that although the firm has never taken a trainee to court, "there’s no point having a clause in a contract if you are not prepared to enforce it". She confirmed that "in one recent case we did look to do so", due, the firm said, to the particular circumstances.
The firm claimed that the repayment clause is made "very clear" in offer letters which are "only two pages long" and usually sent to prospective trainees two years before they join.The spokeswoman added that "if they’ve not properly read the letter or the contract during that time we’d suggest they might want to perhaps consider a different profession".
Tip Off ROF
The firm's training contract contains a clause stating that trainees are liable to repay the money it expends on their LPC fees if they leave before they are two years qualified. Such clauses are not uncommon these days, and unsurprising given that firms invest thousands of pounds in each trainee and would rather they didn't move immediately to a competitor on qualification. Which is apparently what happened to DWF, and this time it decided to play hardball.
According to RollOnFriday's source, the former trainee claims that he only learnt about the clause during an induction session at the beginning of his first seat. Though as a nascent lawyer he possibly should have read it in his contract before he signed it two years earlier. Prior to qualification he accepted a job from another firm because DWF was "dithering" about making an offer, and he has now been told to repay his benefactor.
 |
A model trainee yesterday |
DWF's spokeswoman told RollOnFriday that although the firm has never taken a trainee to court, "there’s no point having a clause in a contract if you are not prepared to enforce it". She confirmed that "in one recent case we did look to do so", due, the firm said, to the particular circumstances.
The firm claimed that the repayment clause is made "very clear" in offer letters which are "only two pages long" and usually sent to prospective trainees two years before they join.The spokeswoman added that "if they’ve not properly read the letter or the contract during that time we’d suggest they might want to perhaps consider a different profession".
Comments
Anon 2: Are you joking? He's a qualified lawyer who didn't read his TC.
Most firms only make you repay if you bail mid-training contract to go off and be an investment banker or something. No way they should be able to golden handcuff students into a 4 year stint.
Entirely reasonable, no?
It is nto an unreasonable clause given the cost of training someone and a lot of the time they make very little if any profit for you as a trainee so it is perfectly justifiable. I would have thought a year PQE would be easier to justify as longer might be a bit too much like a disguised restriction on trade and the clause might be void for being in restraint of trade. If his new employer wants him that much they can pay the fee.
The dithering is interesting though as if the firm led him to believe he might well not be made an offer it was perfectly reasonable he then looked elsewhere and helps his case that is a clause which acts as a restrictive covenant which is could be found to be unfair. Although is he an employee when a trainee and subject to laws on restraint of trade? I suppose so because they are in common law and would not require that you be employee, self employed partner or whatever and generically apply.
Its designed to stop people leaving by unfairly penalizing them
If it was generally reasonable then the repayment would be on a sliding scale - unless DWF are trying to assert that the training costs are all fully recouped on the last day of year 4.
If they sue, argue restraint of trade.
If you win, happy days.
If you lose, you've at least bloodied the nose of "the man" by giving DWF a load of negative publicity which will damage their business for years as it will highlight the unfavourable term and prospective trainees with an alternative TC offer will go elsewhere.
Anyway, irrespective of the contractual position, it's an incredibly shoddy and classless tactic from DWF. 12k is sod all from their perspective but probably the best part of a year's post-tax salary for the individual concerned. And the patronising attitude of the spokesperson stinks.
All that would of course depend on the trainee having read their TC in the first place though. Maybe just food for thought for other trainees out there with such a clause in their contract.
I agree that he should have read the TC and now he has to stick to it, but it's still poor practice by DWF.
If you lose you'd also be facing thousands in legal fees...
Dire stuff.
Tuck in to two years in the personal injury sweatshop seat, or repay twelve grand.