General Discussion Thread 2020-21

[Jessica Booker]

How long will the probation period be? Around 3-6 months, do trainees at the moment have a probation period? Confused on that sense.

no trainees don’t have probation periods at the moment - the firm has to make a 2 year commitment.

Probation periods can be anything from a few weeks up to 12 months. Depends on the individual employer’s policy.

 

[Lr1]

I thought drafting was covered in SQE2?

Not sure but definitely incomparable to what you have to do now. GDL, if you haven't done a comprehensive law degree, 7-8 exams of three hours each and three essays in each exam. Having to memorise lots of cases, really knowing your way around legislation and quoting from statute during exams etc. The SQE really 'dumbs down' the process for qualifying, everyone knows it and it's a real shame.

 

[amb98]

not necessarily - there could be fewer people (if people are not passing the SQE), especially in the early years of the SQE.

There could be more people qualifying though, so NQ roles could be more difficult to obtain, but I would expect that to only be if you were jumping ship to another firm at NQ.

I’d thought that there would be a higher number qualifying because the aim of the SQE is to make the profession more accessible right, and if it is successful in doing so, numbers of NQs should increase.

This would then result in the so called ‘bottleneck’ problem currently affecting TC applicants to be pushed forward to NQ level. That’s my understanding of it.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Not sure but definitely incomparable to what you have to do now. GDL, if you haven't done a comprehensive law degree, 7-8 exams of three hours each and three essays in each exam. Having to memorise lots of cases, really knowing your way around legislation and quoting from statute during exams etc. The SQE really 'dumbs down' the process for qualifying, everyone knows it and it's a real shame.

As I understand it, with the viva format of SQE2, drafting will be assessed

I agree it has been simplified too much. The SRA don’t want to regulate anything and so have made it as simple as possible so their workload is practically 0.

It is why probation periods will be used at firms. I suspect there will also be more drafting assessments in the recruitment process.

It does protect firms though - with the current system there are instances even in the best firms of trainees getting through a recruitment process but being nowhere near the necessary quality to qualify. And yet the firm has to keep them on for two years and they then qualify because the firm’s hands are tied - once you have a TC you basically qualify even if you’re rubbish at your job (which isn’t right either!).

 

[Jessica Booker]

I’d thought that there would be a higher number qualifying because the aim of the SQE is to make the profession more accessible right, and if it is successful in doing so, numbers of NQs should increase.

This would then result in the so called ‘bottleneck’ problem currently affecting TC applicants to be pushed forward to NQ level. That’s my understanding of it.

It is to open up more work experience opportunities, but it doesn’t necessarily mean more people qualify. The SQE is based on the QLTS and that has pretty low pass rates (attached).

That means there could just be a lot of people in “trainee purgatory”.

 

[Lr1]

As I understand it, with the viva format of SQE2, drafting will be assessed

I agree it has been simplified too much. The SRA don’t want to regulate anything and so have made it as simple as possible so their workload is practically 0.

It is why probation periods will be used at firms. I suspect there will also be more drafting assessments in the recruitment process.

It does protect firms though - with the current system there are instances even in the best firms of trainees getting through a recruitment process but being nowhere near the necessary quality to qualify. And yet they qualify because the firm’s hands are tied - once you have a TC you basically qualify even if you’re rubbish at your job (which isn’t right either!).

Rubbish NQs are quickly found out though, either in drafting testing for NQ positions or just being rubbish in interviews- getting things wrong when they shouldn't.

You say it protects firms, think about the long term, a whole heap of NQs will join the profession who probably shouldn't have been able to. The quality of lawyers over time will inevitably drop and the divide between the really good firms and 'less good' will get greater.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Rubbish NQs are quickly found out though, either in drafting testing for NQ positions or just being rubbish in interviews- getting things wrong when they shouldn't.

You say it protects firms, think about the long term, a whole heap of NQs will join the profession who probably shouldn't have been able to. The quality of lawyers over time will inevitably drop and the divide between the really good firms and 'less good' will get greater.

Rubbish NQs will still be found out though... I don’t think that will change. At least the inept won’t be covered by a two year training contract.

There will just be more of them out of work, especially where there is also much more scope for many more good NQs to come into the market.

 

[Lr1]

Rubbish NQs will still be found out though... I don’t think that will change. There will just be more of them, especially where there is also much more scope for many more good NQs to come into the market.

An average NQ with good training is arguably better than a great NQ with rubbish training. If a firm wants an asset finance NQ they will almost certainly still prefer an average NQ who did 2 asset finance seats than someone who seems better in person who did standard finance transactions at an unknown shop- yet were able to qualify because of the SQE.

I think the SQE will just create a bigger divide in the profession, those who 'managed' to qualify vs those who did a 2 year formal TC.

 

[Jessica Booker]

An average NQ with good training is arguably better than a great NQ with rubbish training. If a firm wants an asset finance NQ they will almost certainly still prefer an average NQ who did 2 asset finance seats than someone who seems better in person who did standard finance transactions at an unknown shop- yet were able to qualify because of the SQE.

I think the SQE will just create a bigger divide in the profession, those who 'managed' to qualify vs those who did a 2 year formal TC.

Completely agree (although the person at the unknown shop could still qualify in the current system).

The difference now though is a firm could look out for an individual who has specialised in asset finance for 24 months across more than one firm.

Would someone who has done 12 months at a MC firm and 12 months at a US firm all in Asset Finance be more attractive than an individual who only did 6 months of asset finance at one or the other?

 

[Lr1]

Completely agree.

The difference now though is a firm could look out for an individual who has specialised in asset finance for 24 months across more than one firm.

Would someone who has done 12 months at a MC firm and 12 months at a US firm all in Asset Finance be more attractive than an individual who only did 6 months of asset finance at one or the other?

Your example won't happen in reality. I can't see MC/US trainees floating around the market. They will still offer 2 year TCs. The people that the SQE will effect the most will be ironically those the SRA were trying to help- the LPC students who couldn't get TCs so removing the insane expense of the LPC.

Also, we only know the cost of the exams for the SQE, who wants to bet you need to go to ULaw/BPP to actually learn the material, therefore ££ for them. And who really thinks they will, under any circumstances, reduce their fees.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Your example won't happen in reality. I can't see MC/US trainees floating around the market. They will still offer 2 year TCs. The people that the SQE will effect the most will be ironically those the SRA were trying to help- the no hope LPC students who couldn't get TCs.

Also, we only know the cost of the exams for the SQE, who wants to bet you need to go to ULaw/BPP to actually learn the material, therefore ££ for them. And who really thinks they will, under any circumstances, reduce their fees?

I can in some instances. Particularly when partners will choose to take on their own trainees where they don’t have to rotate across departments.

Obviously 2 year “TCs” will be the norm, but in many instances they won’t be. I think about the departments that have very specific requirements (languages/non-legal technical knowledge). It will work more like the banks and how they recruit - there will be graduate programmes with rotations, but there will also be direct hires into teams who don’t rotate and just stick with that team for whatever period of time is required.

You’ll be able to study anywhere for the SQE - BPP and UoL won’t have a monopoly - it is the one thing the SRA have made sure of. The thing I reckon will happen more is the growth of private tutors. You only have to look at the type of organisations and individuals who have registered to be training providers already:

https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/sqe/training-provider-list/

It will be interesting to see how the SRA publish pass rates though, which they are going to do by each training provider. How would someone who studies law at Oxford but then goes on to a training course at BPP be classified - by Oxford or by BPP or both?

 

[Lr1]

I can in some instances. Particularly when partners will choose to take on their own trainees where they don’t have to rotate across departments.

Obviously 2 year “TCs” will be the norm, but in many instances they won’t be. I think about the departments that have very specific requirements (languages/non-legal technical knowledge). It will work more like the banks and how they recruit - there will be graduate programmes with rotations, but there will also be direct hires into teams who don’t rotate and just stick with that team for whatever period of time is required.

You’ll be able to study anywhere for the SQE - BPP and UoL won’t have a monopoly - it is the one thing the SRA have made sure of. The thing I reckon will happen more is the growth of private tutors. You only have to look at the type of organisations and individuals who have registered to be training providers already:

https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/sqe/training-provider-list/

It will be interesting to see how the SRA publish pass rates though, which they are going to do by each training provider. How would someone who studies law at Oxford but then goes on to a training course at BPP be classified - by Oxford or by BPP or both?

Whatever ends up happening, it will some years for it to be fully fleshed out to see if it's working. The SRA are rushing it through though, they've been told to slow down, random people get over 40% in SQE1 with zero legal knowledge, just wouldn't happen the way it is now.

Regarding the training providers, people will still want to go to ULaw/BPP. For all their faults- and boy there are many, I'm sure they will do a far better job- at least in the first few years than untested and new providers, it's why firms are sticking with them for the SQE.

 

[WannabeSolicitor24]

On another note, do you think firms that running virtual schemes this summer will have higher conversion rates than normal (and recruit less from the TC)?

I ask because there simply aren’t as many areas to assess (listening to talks on Zoom is not the same as doing real work).

Interested to hear your thoughts !

 

[Jessica Booker]

Whatever ends up happening, it will some years for it to be fully fleshed out to see if it's working. The SRA are rushing it through though, they've been told to slow down, random people get over 40% in SQE1 with zero legal knowledge, just wouldn't happen the way it is now.

Regarding the training providers, people will still want to go to ULaw/BPP. For all their faults- and boy there are many, I'm sure they will do a far better job- at least in the first few years than untested and new providers, it's why firms are sticking with them for the SQE.

Although parts of this are being rushed through, this is now nearly a decade of trying to change to this model. They are having to rush it as those on apprenticeships will need to take the SQE in 2021 - it was always going to be a hard deadline because of those people.

I’m a little more open minded - the story of the individual passing the SQE1 with no legal knowledge - we don’t know how much they self taught themselves. People do this for some of the state bar exams in the US - it might be that they are just extraordinarily good at learning a new subject.

People will always lean towards brand names with big marketing budgets. They may do a better job, they may not - I guess that’s in part the reason for publishing pass rates, to help people decide which training provider to go for.

 

[Jessica Booker]

On another note, do you think firms that running virtual schemes this summer will have higher conversion rates than normal (and recruit less from the TC)?

I ask because there simply aren’t as many areas to assess (listening to talks on Zoom is not the same as doing real work).

Interested to hear your thoughts !

If anything, I would expect conversion offer rates to be lower this year.

1) there will be fewer TC opportunities
2) there will be fewer declines of offers, meaning firms won’t need to then offer further candidates

 

[George Rowe]

Did anyone take part in the PH London Inside Look virtual event? Thanks

 

[cryingoverTCs]

Hi! I was wondering if you apply to a firm for TC/VS and get rejected, are they less likely to accept you if you apply again? Or do they go into the 2nd app with a fresh set of eyes?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi! I was wondering if you apply to a firm for TC/VS and get rejected, are they less likely to accept you if you apply again? Or do they go into the 2nd app with a fresh set of eyes?

depends how quickly you reapply.

 

[Jessica Booker]

What % higher do firms usually offer to cover for non acceptances ?

Firms don’t tend to over offer knowing that people will decline, just in case there is a high acceptance rate.

They tend to offer more as and when people decline offers, or on later recruitment processes.

Decline rates for firms can be high - even popular firms will tend to have a decline rate of around 10-30% in a normal year. I expect decline rates to be much lower this year though (they were in 2008/09).

 

[dosblancos7]

depends how quickly you reapply.

Hi Jessica.

I understand this may vary, firm to firm, but how quickly does re-applying curtail applications? Would applying a few months later(5-6 etc), provided the firm allow this, be an issue, or did you mean instantly re-applying, like 1 week later?