Training+Contract+Comparison+Tool

Osborne Clarke imposes beefed up training regime for junior lawyers

  • Print
  • Comments (10)

Readers' comments (10)

  • Those of us who have been fortunate to qualify will no doubt be surrounded by the odd person who we think to ourselves "how the hell did you get through and make partner?"

    Employers essentially get to take their pick of trainees these days. To say that they have to do more exams/training/qualifications in exchange for less opportunities and money is surely more of a reflection of how we view the current state of lawyers than we do the future.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • one way of thinning trainee and NQ ranks i suppose.

    The business hasn't succeeded, the model may no longer work but lets make it all about the employees and if they haven't passed some exam which we have set then we canget rid of them.

    these things seem go in cycles. A law firm either wants grunts or cogs or lawbots inhabiting some grand profit making machine to carry out their production line task, or alternatively, law firms have a habit of making out that they want entrepreneurial BD focused/social media savants with an eye to whichever sector of the info economy is doing well in that year.

    i expect the pass mark will be based in part on how well the firm's doing, what expansions or contractions are taking place internally, and oh, how much profit the partners want that year

    at the end of the day, its management with too time on their hands to come up with hare-brained schemes, far too bureaucratic, not particularly agile and storing up trouble for the future

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Also, make it compulsory for more senior lawyers and partners.
    From time to time, I come across senior lawyers who know little or nothing about the law and should have packed in years ago.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jason - I must have missed the sentance in the above article where it was indicated that those failing would be fired. I read it as saying that they would be re-sit until they passed. Lawyers require attention to detail - looks like you might be one of those needing a re-sit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting that they appear to need a training scheme to teach junior lawyers how to advise clients. There was me thinking part of a supervising partner's role involved passing on their knowledge and experience to the junior fee earners in their team.
    So really this is about OC partners not having the time / inclination to explain anything to their junior fee earners

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jason has it spot on.

    Anonymous 10:15am - your naivety is breathtaking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Anonymous 10:15am

    " must have missed the sentance in the above article"

    Given your appalling spelling, I assume that your comment that "Lawyers require attention to detail" is ironic?

    I quite agree with others here that more senior fee earners ought to be put through equivalent tests. There is plenty of dead wood in the upper and middle echelons, particularly at partner level, in firms right across the UK; those people should be made to feel that improving their own technical expertise is as important as improving that of their junior assistants and associates.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To me as a client of law firms, this can only be a good thing. The comments below are astonishing - in this day and age, why would anyone think more training is a bad thing, particularly if it makes you a better lawyer quickly. If law firms want to cut lawyers, they don't need to go through the charade of a training and exam regime to do it. This to me is a firm investing in its people in a way that, if executed properly, should benefit the lawyers and the clients. Where I do agree, is of course that there are more senior lawyers that would benefit from more training, but their needs will be different and I don't think it's fair to assume from the article that this won't be happening.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think it's a great idea and I agree with Terry. I like the idea that they want their lawyers to be well known experts in their field. That's encouraging to have employers that want you to succeed.

    They are indeed taking a risk because after all that unique training the lawyers might be headhunted and jump ship.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • OC doesn't do volume work - either really big ticket, or low value. It differentiates itself by having experts at every level, who carve their own niches. If you sell expertise and technical knowledge, backed up with sector knowledge and commerciality then having a formal training scheme is part of the package to demonstrate that to clients. It's also about moving to a more transparent and formal regime of progression and yes it will be up or out. Some firms handle an up or out system very well and have an alumni that still has good feelings about their old firm. That's what OC is trying to achieve because the old way of doing things isn't good enough any more. Many other firms still have their heads in the sand on these issues.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory
  • Print
  • Comments (10)
Training+contract+comparison+tool

law+school+comparison+tool