Dentons' NQ retention rates plunges to 14 per cent
Denton Wilde Sapte is shedding 86 per cent of its spring 2010 qualifiers giving it the lowest newly qualified (NQ) retention rate in the UK 200 so far.
Jeremy Cape
The top 25 law firm has announced that it has only managed to offer one of its NQs a job in the real estate department out of a cohort of 7, giving it a disappointing result of just 14 per cent. The result is much lower than the 79 per cent Dentons managed in Spring 2009.
Denton’s graduate recruitment partner Jeremy Cape said: “Our focus is still very much on the productivity of our fee earners and improving the profitability of the firm in a market that remains challenging. We examined whether the departments were sufficiently busy to justify a business case for recruiting extra NQs in those departments.”
Elsewhere, Clifford Chance is losing 30 per cent of its spring 2010 qualifiers, giving it one of the lowest NQ retention rates in the magic circle. The other magic circle firm with a retention rate in the 70s is Linklaters, which has achieved a slighter higher 73 per cent.
Clifford Chance is retaining just 44 of the 63 trainee solicitors due to qualify in March 2010 giving it a retention rate of 70 per cent - much lower than the 84 per cent it achieved in March 2009.
Meanwhile, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has reported an 80 per cent retention rate after it only managed to retain 40 NQs out of a cohort of 50. Last year it managed a rate of 86 per cent.
Freshfield’s graduate recruitment partner Simon Johnson said: ”We worked very hard to retain as many people as we could and have looked for as many opportunities within the firm as possible.”
At Lovells, meanwhile, 32 out of the 38 spring 2010 qualifiers applied for an NQ position. However, only 26 are staying with the firm thereby giving it a retention rate of 68 per cent.
Readers' comments (8)
Hell-bent-on Wilde Swathe | 8-Feb-2010 1:56 pm
Good God. 14% is just ridiculous even overlooking the fact we’re talking about Real Estate. If DWS’s recruitment/training process is so poor that 86% of its end products must be released then they’ve got serious issues. If, as is more likely to be the case, they’ve got top quality young solicitors who are vying for places in a department which the recession has hit hardest, then they should try and accommodate them wherever possible, in a different department if necessary (I assume that many of those shown the door would have considered a job elsewhere). DWS are shedding potentially great lawyers for the future and posting statistics like this will also put off future quality applicants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Law student | 8-Feb-2010 4:34 pm
Won't be bothering to apply to DWS then.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IHateBPP | 8-Feb-2010 5:38 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but the article title is very misleading.
It suggests that fourteen percent of the firm's NQs are being retained then suggests that the figure only applies for their real estate department.
A firmwide figure would make more sense.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IHateBPP | 10-Feb-2010 11:30 am
Seems I was wrong after all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Feb-2010 1:23 pm
I think "IHateBPP' should spend a little less time hating everyone and more time reading a story before he comments.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dazed and confused | 10-Feb-2010 1:25 pm
I think that you're never going to get a very high retention rate when you're in a financial crisis. DWS has just come out of a major redundancy programme - How can you expect them to keep on NQs when there is not enough work for their own solicitors?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Feb-2010 4:26 pm
Am I alone in being amazed that DWS has only 7 trainees qualifying. I would have expected them to have 40 trainees a year
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IHateBPP | 11-Feb-2010 11:38 am
This is only the spring qualifiers I think, which would mean that they'll have more people qualifying later in the year.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment