Specialist Trainees: a contradiction?

A Trainees innovative marketing idea.......?

Today the firm's trainees got allocated to sectors. The aim is to give us a 'consistant focal point for marketing and business development throughout our training and beyond'. Something to get really passionate about. I have a sneaky suspicion the sectors need some donkeys to do the grunt work - trainees step up.

Most commercial law firms have sectors - these are multi departmental teams designed to work for a particular type of client. In London they sound more like degree subjects than client groups; life sciences or recreational facilities. Down in the West Country we have such wonders as agriculture and rural affairs and care homes. The idea is that the expertise and marketing strategies of these target areas can be unified across the firm to give better service but also get more clients. Its easier for potential clients to identify with a category they may fit into rather than trying to picture which of the services a firm offices they might need.

Its a good idea and it works well. It allows lawyers to build up a specialism without neglecting their more general practice. It is easier to cross sell services for those in the sector and those outside - in a firm like mine where this is particularly poor, every little helps! Sector specific targeting gives a focus to marketing. And it gives the marketing teams an opportunity to put together little leaflets with more interesting pictures than the usual 'man in suit looking friendly but serious'.

What I am unsure about is the trainees' role in all this. Do we have enough experience after 6 months to be able to choose an area we are passionate about? Equally, do we have enough experience to be able to contribute anything other than manpower to what is essentially a specialism? There is similar discontent among the sector heads; they are concerned that with the trainees seat hopping, their involvement will be inconsistent and unreliable.

I can see the principle behind it and the opportunity to get involved in cross-firm initiatives is worthwhile for any trainee. I am glad we haven't been pigeon holed into sectors either - we were given a choice (not much of one given the sectors in my Firm, but choice none the less).

I do think the practice is going to fall short of the vision however. The impression from Head of Marketing (a defected lawyer no less - gone to the dark side she has) was that each sector 'needed' a trainee. Yes, needed. That isn't the word used for opportunities but a word used with intent. Recruiting trainees with mailshot stuffing and target cold calling in mind, for example. The firm has just launched a publications service for the sector groups which needs populating with articles and updates. No guesses for who is going to be lumbered with the research and no extra points for who is unlikely to get the end credit.

I would be interested to know if other firms have sector trainees or similar. In my mind it is too early in my career to choose a specialism. I may qualify into an area that has no relevance to my new sector - education. I doubt my next seat is going to have a lot of relevance for example. I am also not looking forward to explaining to my supervisor when I have urgent sector work that his will have to wait. Apparently this is a battle fought for anyone in a sector not directly linked to their department: Tourism in Commercial Property for example.

All in all I think a need for some lackeys to do the work no one else has the time for has pushed our trainees into specialist areas too soon.

One thing from the meeting I did find amusing - the sectors have been set up with twitter accounts. May be tweeting under another guise very soon!