Social Media: not so social anymore......

Those of you who follow me on twitter might know that there has been a series of social media-ry meetings at my Firm recently. One such meeting took place this week, with the result, I am pleased to announce (more for my neck-being-on-the-line than anything else) that we are now allowed to blog.

The other impact of the relaxation of the social media policy is that we are now being encouraged to tweet, if we feel so inclined. The Firm have realised that a) twitter is useful for 'spreading the word' and b) using personal accounts rather than @theFirm (although now I really want that account!) is much more productive. (yes, there is enlightenment in marketing strategy occasionally!)

However, the Firm would prefer if we use only one account to communicate with the twitterverse, both for work and personal tweets (read this in the same way as the Firm preference for none pink hair).  This has caused some concern with me: lawyers are not known for leaving their work in the office. Even as a Trainee I routinely take bits home with me to finish of an evening and I imagine this is much more prevalent the more senior you become (and jumps when you are 'trusted' with a company phone...). While I know of several twegals who do jointly tweet in a personal and official capacity very successfully (@DavidMorganLLB and @BrianInkster spring to mind) to me it raises a separate question: where do you draw the line between work and home life?

The justification for the preference is that, in reality, lawyers make money by selling themselves (not literally. OK, maybe a little). Their skills, personality and knowledge are amalgamated into a product that clients buy into. A lawyer's personal life does in some ways assist his employability and removing the personal element from a twitter account could dilute its impact in this respect. In the same way that you might take a client to the golf course, interacting about golf over twitter may help clients relate to you.

Lawyers are in a unique position in this respect as a result that we sell our personal services. A factory worker wouldn't have the same dilemma - his personal account usage, unless he was bad-mouthing his job, wouldn't reflect on his employer or on the contracts his employer wins. For a lawyer, it certainly would. Does this mean that lawyers shouldn't use twitter personally? Not at all although they should be aware that a client may still be able to track them down. A degree of care therefore might be appropriate; lawyers still go out but perhaps not to a client's local pub.

It may not be an issue for lawyers who aren't interested in using twitter in any way other than to raise their profile. However, not distinguishing between personal and work related accounts may create a problem for those who actually do (like me) use twitter personally. Miss TS does rant occasionally, she does like shoes far too much and she does watch some trashy TV when it suits. These are not things I want to draw the attention of my clients to and I am sure they wouldn't really want to know either (I question whether I want to give them the option!). Should I censor these aspects of my twitter usage so that my account is client friendly? Not if I don't want to.

That is essentially the issue. I am by no means saying that lawyers shouldn't merge their personal and professional twitter lives but it should be an individual choice.  Those who don't feel comfortable censoring themselves or would rather keep the work/home distinction in place ought to be able to make that judgement call. The Firm wouldn't be able to make their lawyers constantly wear name badges while socialising, so why are they claiming the online social lives of their employees?

Should I be allowed to use social media for my own enjoyment and not for the furtherance of the Firm? I think so.

No fear here: finding the one (Training Contract)

Finding a training contract is difficult. Full stop. With all the difficulty it would be easy to forget that a TC is not just a means to an end but the path an NQ position and the rest of your professional life. I have been reminded of this recently as a lot of my LPC cohort are now qualifying. I am happy to say that all of my close friends have been offered jobs with the firms they trained at. You might think this is the goal for any trainee and that with the knowledge of a secure NQ position, my friends would be happy. Most of them are. One of them, unfortunately, has found himself in a bit of a career black hole.

I was fortunate enough to have obtained a TC (and funding) before I started the LPC. My friend was not so lucky but did have a back up option of training at a family member's firm. He had done all the right things, pro bono work, head of the uni law soc, good academic record and avid rugby player. He did somehow  struggle to get relevant work experience (well turning up to the networking event in a track suit and proceeding to drink his way through the complementary wine supply didn't help) and had not been offered a training contract by the time electives came round. Faced with 5 years of student debt, he went for his back up option.

It is a difficult dilemma and one that will be much more prevalent as tuition fees rise: wait for a TC that might not come or go for something now that might not be ideal. At the end of a period of study where the goal is a TC, not having one is a scary prospect. It is easy to forget it is not only the firm that chooses you, the firm you select may also have a big impact on your future. It isn't as simple as the practice areas on offer at the firm you train with; the training style, client base, reputation and even location of the firm can influence your options as an NQ.

Returning to my friend, the firm he plumped for was a small high street firm. They did have a family partner, the area he wanted (and still wants) to specialise in, but due to the size of the practice, he wasn't able to do a family seat as you would in a bigger firm. In fact he found himself doing a bit of anything on offer but nothing to a high degree. The experience he had is what springs to mind when you think of a training contract with a high street firm, not unsurprisingly (at least to everyone but him!).

Now, let me clarify, I am not criticising this mode of training in any way. It may be exactly what you are looking for, it just wasn't what my friend considered his ideal training contract. His plan was to get the training out of the way and then move on to 'bigger and better' things. It hasn't really worked out that way.  His training has moulded him into what his firm was looking for - the phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none' springs to mind. He has not had the experience of complex cases or key clients to allow him to move immediately into a dedicated department in a larger firm. In short, he is only likely to be able to get an NQ position in a high street firm and until he develops his work portfolio or someone gives him a chance, that is it.
The upshot of all this is that he actually considering alternative careers, so unhappy is he with his current lot. What a waste.

Ashley Connick has written about making sure you categorise the firms you apply to correctly. Really you need to consider your career as well when you're filling out those applications. It is easy to fire off forms left right and centre but keep in mind the wider implications of training with those firms. Don't let 'the fear' scare you into a training contract at a firm you can't see your self working at, persevere until you get something that fits your plans. There is so much focus on securing a TC that turning one down might seem crazy. Accepting one just because it was offered to you and not because it is the career path you want could be just as foolish. Remember, a back up option is not really an option if it doesn't ultimately lead you in the direction you wish to travel.