In recent issues The Firm has highlighted some problems with the traineeship scheme which has seen trainees being taken advantage of at their workplace. Catriona Torrance of Lindsays, who previously experienced graduate training in the financial services sector, compares how differently young people are viewed and treated.

---

All qualified solicitors will, of course, have their own experiences as a trainee, some better than others.  The examples cited in the April article in The Firm are shocking. The Firm’s campaign to stamp out unacceptable treatment of trainees is laudable and one would hope that the Scottish legal profession will be persuaded not just to take note of such abuse but to deal with it effectively and put in place adequate support mechanisms and complaints procedures to ensure that future abuse is prevented.  

One would also hope that the testimonials given in previous and even this very issue are extreme examples of trainee mistreatment.  However the fact that such examples have come to light is indicative of a far greater number of underlying issues.
My personal experience as a trainee was excellent. I found all the partners to be very supportive and approachable. When I needed tuition I had no difficulties in asking for help and people (whether partners, assistants, other trainees or support staff) were always willing to take time out to make sure I properly understood, and was fully equipped to deal with whatever matters I was working on.

However, I am aware that not all trainees have such good experiences. Coming into the legal profession as a ‘mature’ entrant I have recently experienced the diploma and traineeship, and have previously been through a graduate training programme with a large financial services organisation and the differences in the general attitude towards new recruits are interesting to note.
In the FSO, graduates were treated as, and told in no uncertain terms that they were the future of the business.

We were strongly encouraged to take on responsibility from as early a stage as possible, with a view to being fast-tracked into management positions in which the value we would add to the business would quickly compensate the FSO for the high costs of graduate recruitment and training.

People expected great things of their graduates, paid them well and gave them a lot of support. In return, graduates were highly motivated, fully committed to their own training and personal development and always on the look-out for the next opportunity.  
In the legal profession people expect trainees to earn their place in the hierarchy (i.e. at the bottom) with low salaries and sometimes minimal training.

To put things in perspective, I was paid more as a first year graduate in 1996 than I was as a second year trainee in 2006. Disheartening, I am sure you will agree. I was fortunate to be able to afford this (second time round), but for many potential lawyers, trainee salaries must be demotivating if not barriers to entering the profession.

I was surprised when embarking on the diploma just how much scaremongering there was about the rarity of traineeships.  This is not helped by the trend towards recruiting several years ahead, the feeling being that if you have not secured a traineeship before the diploma starts then you are in trouble and you will just have to take what you can get and be thankful.  

However, this does not mean that all diploma students should be guaranteed a traineeship, far from it. Competition is important at all levels, and it must be fair and effective and it should work both ways.  

The graduate recruitment process I went through in 1995-96 was extensive and rigorous – far more so than the applications and interviews for a traineeship. The recruitment process itself reflected the attitude towards graduates – the FSO’s attitude being “we want the best graduates, we will make sure we get them and we will reward them so that they stay with us”.  

The FSO did this in the knowledge that graduates may choose to pursue different career options in other organisations or, indeed, other industries. Trainees entering the legal profession, on the other hand, have no such card to play – if they don’t get a traineeship, they don’t get their career.

Generally, amongst my peers, those with traineeships in large firms found things more difficult – the combination of hierarchical cultures and competition for NQ posts puts pressure on trainees. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with there being less NQ posts than trainees – it is fair that firms keep only the best new lawyers and some healthy competition is surely a good thing. It is the cultural environment surrounding the competition that makes it less than healthy, being experienced in the main as threatening and oppressive rather than motivating and positive.

Interestingly, friends who completed traineeships in the public sector also had good experiences – despite a general attitude that the public sector plays second fiddle to the private sector (borne out by Janet Hood’s article in the June edition of The Firm).  

This may be due to the public sector feeling the competition more keenly and having to work harder to attract, recruit and retain trainees and new lawyers.

With the opening up of the legal profession, traditional private sector law firms may do well to consider the competition before they find that the best trainees are being recruited by Tesco et al with their highly competitive, well developed graduate training programmes (not to mention good salaries, bonuses, profit sharing, share option schemes, pension schemes and individually tailored flexible benefits packages).

Small and mid-size law firms may be daunted by this prospect, but I believe they have a lot to offer trainees. Working directly with very experienced practitioners on a variety of transactions can help trainees to develop their knowledge and skills quickly. Most trainees would probably agree that the key aspects of a successful traineeship lie in their line manager taking an active interest in their work load, spending time regularly with the trainee to discuss training needs, giving the trainee the opportunity to raise any concerns they may have and following up with appropriate actions.  The Law Society provides various tools to help with this, such as weekly logbooks and quarterly reviews and, in my experience, if both the line manager and the trainee are willing to use these they can form the basis of a good training programme.  

I would add my support to The Firm’s campaign and hope that the Law Society will review how their support mechanisms work as there is clearly a disconnect between trainees and the Law Society (as per the interview with Liz Campbell).  Graduates in other industries generally have no such equivalent body to turn to, relying instead on 360 degree appraisal systems, internal HR departments and employment law.  Perhaps law firms should be encouraged to review and strengthen their internal support systems to break down the barriers that prevent trainees from making complaints, with this important function being handled by an external
body only for appeals or as a last resort.

Dealing with individual cases is one thing, changing the profession’s culture is quite another – but worth it.  We are, after all, in this for the long haul.