Admission to the Roll: So, Now I Can Be Sued.....

My new mug for the office

I realise I have been away from blogging for a while.  The reasons for this are numerous: lack of time, involvement at work, general brain funk from thinking too hard.  The underlying reason for all these is simple: I wanted to get a job.

I will say that my firms retention rate this year was 100% - in fact, there were more jobs than trainees qualifying, and no-one got their second choice of position.  However, if you'd have said that to me back in November, I would have laughed at you.  The simple truth is that the recession has hit law firms hard, and the last couple of years have been really difficult for qualifying trainees.  Retention rates have been very low and there has been a lack of NQ jobs in the market.  This has now picked up, but the uncertainty adds to the pressure of the NQ process.

I don't think those outside the law (or indeed, those who have been in the profession a while) appreciate how much pressure trainees are placed under during the run up to qualification and the battle to secure an NQ position. From the start of the second year, the white elephant of potential unemployment starts to grow. Bottom line: your career is in the balance.  This may sound a little dramatic, but it is entirely true.  Your workload, firm, job security, wages are all dependent on securing that NQ position.  Getting the job offer can be the difference between making the first strides on the rest of your life, or scouring the adverts for a new firm.  If you add the fact that nearly all trainees have a large amount of financial debt, built from years of student living and training on wages that don't match the expected lifestyle, the potential of being thrown into the job market at little notice isn't particularly relaxing.

If you remove the question of employment, the question of practice area still remains; what do you want to do for the foreseeable future?  This is question is as loaded as when you were asked it after your A-levels, and for some is just as unanswerable.  Trainees hope that during the course of their training contract they have a romantic epiphany; they look across the room at a lone practice areas, the seats meet, electric energy charges the room and at that moment they know career satisfaction. They have found 'the one'.  I was actually surprised at how this happened at my firm, 4 out of the 7 of us (including me) fell in love with one of our second year seats.  The rest have positions but I don't sense the same passion in them - maybe their choice was fuelled by other motivations, perhaps they are just less verbally smitten.  What I do know is that there has been a visible release of tension in all of us since we signed on the dotted line.  I don't think any of us realised the stress we were putting ourselves under.

Personally, that stress was enormous.  I have been working for 7 years to get where I am now, struggling financially for the most part, constantly striving to do better, to stand out, to get ahead (I am writing this watching the Olympics and realise I sound like one of the athletes - took me down of my dramatic high horse a little!).  The ramp up of the pressure in the second year was one I wasn't expecting.  Looking back I realise I was stretching myself very thin - never saying no to anything, willingly burning the candles at both ends and travelling round the country to stay in my boss' good books.  I'm not complaining in the slightest - I was and am willing to do what it takes.  However, I don't underestimate what it did to my social life (what social life!), my interests (what interests?) and general health (what health? there's a pattern here....).  Coupled with this was my ability and drive to blog - it was the first casualty of my stress ridden life.

Trainees-in-waiting shouldn't be put off by this post.  Anyone who has got as far as the second year of their training contract and is serious about qualification is likely to be willing to put themselves through the stress.  It takes a certain type of person to become a lawyer - one of the personality traits tends to be a drive to do well is one of them (This can be based in ambition, arrogance, neurosis... they all have the same result!).  In all honesty, you don't realise its there until you get the job offer and it disappears.  Qualification is the anti-climax on the cake after signing your contract of employment.

I am happy to say I qualified last Wednesday. Let 1 August 2012 be set in stone as the first day of the rest of my life.  I am very proud of myself and currently very happy.  As yet, I have not been set upon by the stress of targets, billing, time recording etc - the general responsibility of the qualified solicitor.  And so I return to my neglected blog - for the time being.  I am now Miss NQ - please don't sue me!

The grumpy young men; the anti-social media movement for trainees





Miss TS kinda cracked with all the hatin.......





As some of you might be aware from my (slightly frustrated) tweets, my firm has recently embraced* social media.

*read introduced in a stumbling, halting series of initatives, not unlike like bambi standing up.

The trainees have been involved from the start, not through choice but through the powers that be assuming young people have an affinity for all things technology. Born in the digital age, we use and understand technology without thinking, it is second nature to us. Or so they thought.

It turns out, I am the only trainee tweeter and, I am sad to say, the only trainee who had ever read a law blog. Shock horror! I thought perhaps this may have been due to the previously onerous social media policy, which was very heavy handed and likely to put off any newbie from going anywhere near. Or perhaps like me, the trainees secretly blog and tweet but didn't want to admit it.

In fact this was far from the case. Half the trainees are social media sceptics.

I know that most of those who slate social media have never used it; they simply don't understand the uses of twitter or linked in. A lot of sceptics convert and rave about social media once they have learnt how to use it. Personally my knowledge and understanding of the law has been widended through twitter discussions and blogging has hugely improved my writing skills (if I do say so myself, I think I write a damn good blogpost!). Even if not used to engage, twitter delivers a wealth of relevant, topical and timely information to your screen just by following the right accounts. Several snippets I picked up from client tweets gave my supervisor an edge whilst talking to the client in question, information which was not available through any other medium.

The trainees are not converts in waiting - they have actively tried social media and dismissed it. They feel it is a waste of time they could be using elsewhere and they found no value in the information disseminated. Even linked in didn't interest them as they had no client contacts to link in with.

In particular I have been stumped by the response to one idea from marketing; a trainee blog; hosted by the firm but run by trainees. The content will be written from a trainee point of view and more personalised than the client briefing style blogs the firm currently hosts. The target audience is those looking for training contracts initially but, provided it is done well, could very possibly have a wider appeal. On a more selfish note, a trainee blog would be a good personal marketing tool both internally and externally as, unlike the articles that many of the trainees write for their supervisors or sector groups, we would take the credit. It would give us something to push through social media and, of course top of the list, something to put on the CV.

Unfortunately, what I thought would be an easy win has turned out to be a bit of a nightmare. Every spearhead meeting I would organise with the trainees, the sceptics would turn up and slate the idea. I actually had one trainee tell me 'there was nothing interesting about his job to write about'. Lucky for him, there was no partner in the room! Despite the proposed discussion topics for the sessions (e.g. post ideas, partner interviews and the infamous naming meeting that lasted 2 hours) they manage to turn the conversation back to their lack of belief in the idea. What iritates me most about this is that it isn't compulsory; they turn up to the meetings out of choice!

All in all I am flabbergasted (yes, it merits the use of that word) that trainees could be so narrow minded. I am not suggesting that everyone should be forced to use social media, not at all. However, actively shooting down a new iniative because you don't see the merit in it and aren't willing to try shows lack of vision. Law firms are going to have to evolve to survive; how are they going to act if they are so opposed to a little optional idea?

I hope, trainees to be, that you will be more open to innovation when you become trainees!

Lawyers just won't ask the question: client permission to instruction lead marketing

He's not actually saying it........

Active marketing is not traditionally a strong point of law professionals. For some reason we simply don't like to be seen to be 'boasting'.  Passive marketing, i.e. showing our quality without actually talking about it, is easier to swallow and given we don't tend to actively promote ourselves, any opportunity to quietly big ourselves up should be taken. One passive marketing method is to talk about work we have won or big projects that we are involved with. The fact we have been instructed to do this work indicates we are good without actually saying it. Self promotion by implication.

However, there is an issue with talking about instructions: the code of conduct forbids it. We have a duty to our clients to keep their matters confidential and this is crucial in the client/lawyer relationship. The confidentiality rule prevents lawyers from even mentioning they are instructed without permission from the client as the work that lawyers undertake is often of a sensitive nature either commercially or personally.  In some practice areas, family or insolvency for example, I would not expect the client to give permission to divulge instructions as the areas are simply too sensitive. However in some commercial transactions the client may even benefit from the additional publicity.

I recently learnt that my Firm is instructed on some of the biggest planning and land development projects in the area. This is huge! However, the Firm has not advertised this internally let alone use it for marketing purposes. The projects are not commercially sensitive, all have planning permission now and most are actually looking for partners or businesses to invest or move into the premises once they are built. The projects are often on the news so they are not media shy. It seems odd that the Firm has not cashed in on these instructions, especially now the planning team are a little quiet.

It turns out that there is the classic confidentiality issue.  The planning lawyers have handed the client over to our property lawyers and neither set is willing to ask. Planning doesn't want to step on the toes of the property lot and property don't want to be so presumptuous so early in the relationship. What it boils down to is planning are losing out on a key marketing opportunity while it is still current. And this is not the first time a chance like this has passed us by; no-one thinks about marketing in advance.

It would seem sensible to me to ascertain the position of a client with regards promoting the firm from their instructions at the beginning of the relationship. It could be part of the client questionnaire, with a simple yes or no answer, similar to the data protection question firms now include. Obviously further permission as to the content of any release would need to be approved by the client to comply with the code but it would get the 'are they going to be offended' part of the dilemma out of the way. There would be less of that awkward feeling if clients had already agreed in principle to the idea.

Inclusion of a marketing orientated question early in the standard procedure may also cultivate a forward thinking culture within a firm. Lawyers would be encouraged to consider potential marketing opportunities at the beginning of a matter rather than when it is too late. Thinking about marketing in advance would benefit marketing departments too as it often takes some time to sign off publicity internally. Generally win win!

Unfortunately, this idea has not been taken forward by my Firm. Apparently it would cost too much!

Tough Love; just say no!

Think they'd get the message if I sent some of these?

Our Customer Relations Manager has been on a bit of a client care bender recently. What he has been pushing is client care 101 - the stuff drilled into you on the LPC that I have to say most of our fee earners know inside out. As with all initiatives coined by marketing, its dressed up in jargon. One thing that came across in our 'Becoming the Trusted Advisor - a different approach to client care' training sesh is that we are expected to do whatever we can to achieve the client's goals, be that being available at any time of the day or night or agreeing to impossible deadlines or even knowing the client's hamster's birthday to send flowers (Ok, I may have exaggerated the last one, but seriously, we are supposed to remember the client's kids birthdays). Essentially the only word coming out of a lawyers mouth is 'yes'.

A matter I have been doing a little bit of work on has made me question this approach. Our client is a neutral third party in a case that can only be described as a ridiculous waste of money. The claimant company has launched a side attack to the main application that is literally impossible. Not only has it no proof, the people it has issued against are not sufficiently senior in the defendant corporation to carry any responsibility even if they had done the acts in question. Despite this, the claimant has not only has accused and issued in court but is refusing to settle. To top it off, all of the evidence showing the claim to be nothing but spurious was submitted to court in the main claim and circulated to all parties. The solicitors acting for the claimant really dropped the ball on this one. Or did they?

Having read the correspondence there is a definite sense of reluctance on the solicitors part, as if they were pursuing the claim half-heartedly, hoping we would give in to save costs. Almost as if they knew it was ridiculous but had to go along with it anyway. The company is a big company, no doubt their solicitors act for them in a general way, not just for disputes. A major client. Telling a big, money spinning client the claim won't stick might seem like bad client relations. The client is unlikely to be happy about it short term. Maybe the retainer is coming up for review. Perhaps there are is a large amount of WIP to be billed and the solicitors want to keep them sweet. Maybe the client is a bit of a bulldozer.

Whatever the difficulty, all they should have said is NO. A solicitor does his client no favours by running up fees on all sides and exposing their client to a potential costs order. It might keep the client on side in the short term but when it all back fires down the road do you think the relationship will be a good one? A lawyer should act with the best interests of the client in mind and that includes telling them when they're wrong. Good business men value a truthful advisor more than one that simply does what he is told. Ultimately your client will realise when you play the yes man. That is not what he is paying you for.

So I am not going to listen to the 'never say no' strategy marketing has been dishing out. A blanket yes approach is not what I would want from a solicitor and I bet it's not what the clients expect. I will be giving honest advise, especially when I need to say no and hope that my clients realise the value in this approach. It is more likely to generate respect and a good client relationship than pandering to needs.

It is also worth remembering the clients that aren't happy are the ones who are likely to turn nasty. After all, after the claimant in my case has a giant costs order awarded against him, who do you think he will be suing to foot the bill? The solicitors who didn't stop him look like they might have a target on their chests........

'Dealing with Difficult Situations'. Or not.

He's a lot cuter than my boss.........

Today I was party to a training session with an external trainer on 'Dealing with difficult situations'. I thought it was a particularly good session actually. Unlike the generic delivery of standard role play scenarios and regurgitation of psychobabble that training on similar topics tends consist of, this session was tailored, insightful and useful to those who attended. I am not really writing about the session itself but something that was shared during it.

I found out that two of the most senior partners cannot stand each other. Further more, their 'issue' has meant they sit on opposite sides of the building despite being part of the same team.

I was shocked! I have always thought it odd that they were so far apart, I just assumed it was something to do with the senior management team spreading out amongst the firm. As a result the rest of their team is spread out in little hot spots with support staff and other specialist teams in between. Their secretary is never at her desk as she is always running between one end of the office to the other and it is rare to see a team discussion anywhere other than in a formal meeting. One thing I have learnt as a trainee is that being near to a team means you can learn and contribute from each other. In a knowledge based, fast moving discipline such as law this interaction is crucial.

Call me naive but I can't understand how two grown up professional people could let a personal difference go so far to the point that it could affect their team's performance. These people are supposed to be not only heads of departments but are directly involved in running the Firm. Feuds are for your personal life, if you are that stubborn, it has no place in the work place.

Of course I am assuming it is a personal difference. There is a possibility it is a work problem; everyone has that person in the office they think can't do their job. If that person is in your team it makes it more difficult. I can't imagine what the response would be to a request to sit at the other end of the office to avoid an annoying colleague. Your desk certainly wouldn't go anywhere, although you might.

What concerns me is the acceptance of the segregation. It is such an institutionalised position that it seems only those who work or have worked within the team know about it, although it isn't hidden. The rest of their team, and probably the Firm, have simply learnt to work around them until now it is as if it is normal. The work might be getting done, I just can't shake the idea that it could be done better if the team was close enough to talk to each other!

I wish there was a big law firm mother figure who could come and clunk their heads together. A childish issue needs a childish solution. As is I guess I shall just have to learn the lesson for them.

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!

Sexism in the South West: no I don't like Spring Rolls!

It has taken me sometime to think about this blog as what happened is (a) quite un-pc (b) controversial and (c) supposedly offensive.  I have decided it would be best to simply state exactly what happened:

It's a Tuesday evening. It has been a long day at work.The firm or more correctly the Private Client Dept is hosting a very important seminar to potential referrers i.e. IFAs, valuers, accountants, pen pushers who deal with numbers and have been let out into the world for the evening.You get the idea. The first speaker 'Partner-who-wrote-the-book-about-IHT'(he actually did write The Book apparently) is droning on about wills or something and gives the following advice:

"advisors should monitor executor appointment when the married couple have nominated each other. In later life this may become inappropriate, especially in the case of the woman"

and without further clarification moves on. Odd comment you might think, without clarification. Maybe its something to do with the fact that women live longer, tend to be the younger person in a relationship and therefore are more likely to be the bereaved than the recently deceased? I decide to give him the benefit of the doubt and go back to pretending to be listening to worked through tax calculations (seriously who enjoys this stuff?!!)

The female trainees look glancingly over to the one female IFA in the room. She is writing a note to her colleague but doesn't look annoyed. The rest of the room hasn't even noticed. Everything continues as normal.

The other two speakers finish and we move on to question time. Step into the ring, Wrote-the-book. Up goes the hand of female IFA's colleague... no one sees the danger:

Colleague: "Sorry to revisit, but when you were talking about monitoring the appointment of executors, why is it especially important in the case of the woman?"

WTB: " Well very often it is the husband who deals with the finances and women find it difficult to deal with that sort of thing. Much more so when bereaved. It might be better to appoint someone more suited"

No kidding. Actually said that. Unsurprisingly female IFA complained. Although not to the point where she didn't want to instruct us (!)

I am not really what you would call a feminist.I don't really understand the point. I know there are still a lot of inequalities between men and women and traditionally I would currently be married with 2 rugrats and a sproglet on the way. I also know that men and women ARE different and every person has their individual non-gender specific strengths and weaknesses. I actually see any inequality as a challenge,  motivation to prove that I can hold my own in a man's world. Give me some shoulder pads, Lady Thatcher, eat your heart out!

But that was too far. I did a maths A Level thank you very much and have been Treasurer for several different societies (my brain may have been a little too pickled to do proper accounts but we didn't go overdrawn!!). I may even go as far as to say that if women had been in charge of the Banks the economy may have been saved (due to the immense amount of shopping that would have been happening with bonuses that big!)

I thought it was the most inappropriate comment I would hear in that environment.

Until later in the evening when the head of Private Client asked me if I wanted him to put one of the rather phallic canapes I was serving in my mouth. Twice.

If this is how all of the men in Private Client act something tells me I wont be heading there any time soon!!!

Gym Bunny Epidemic Hits Lawyers

There is a peer pressure in my firm. It bubbles under the surface, from partner to post room and pushes even the most unsuspecting to rearrange their calendars to satisfy it. It inhabits the basement floor of the office and even is promoted as a 'perk' of working for the firm.

It is known as THE GYM.

I have never been particularly active, sports wise. My brief induction into the world of running gave me third degree burns (don't you dare tell me they were just blisters!!) and I am far too competitive for team sports. In uni the gym was that place I walked past on the way to the students union. As I researched career options, it never occurred to me that this would be an issue. In fact, in choosing the law I thought the drinking skills I acquired my local rugby club and cultured through uni would be my strong point. I think I may have been mistaken.

While investigating the 'Gym Bunny Epidemic' (ie they multiply like rabbits) I have discovered that post work drinks were rife before the move to 'The Modern Office on the Outskirts' so vogue with regional firms of a certain size. The old city centre location meant that long (boozy) lunches were a weekly occurrence rather than a special treat and no Friday was complete without a trip to the pub round the corner. Now instead of a sneaky pint at the end of a long day, the masses sweat it out in a circuits class or go running. No more discussion about which establishment to frequent at lunchtime but which form of exercise will be taken. Social events are much more likely to be one of the seemingly hundreds of sports leagues rather than payday drinks. At a recent open evening for Law Students the ability to talk to Partners and Supervisors while working out was cited as a bonus!

I would like to know when this transition occurred. It seems to have snuck up on me. But, not one to be left behind the times, I have faced my fitness short comings and I too have started gym going. Given my hectic life as a trainee it has been rather difficult to fit in but I have persevered. (for the last 2 weeks anyway...........)

Today, I took it one stage further. I visited with the Personal Trainer. The Personal Trainer is the a major contaminant in the Gym Bunny Epidemic. His enthusiasm is infectious and somehow he makes what I would consider a torture session a viable work out program. I can see how people get drawn in to this world of 'healthy' eating and exercise.

However, having visited the Personal Trainer and getting my custom built personalised fitness and diet regime I noticed the Gym Bunny Epidemic in full force. Following my rules I got out my rivita-and-ham snack bang on 11am as instructed. And suddenly noticed the alarming amounts of crispy-rye-wafer-and-sliced-pork elevenses that had also appeared around the office. This is not something I have noted previously as at 10.45am you would normally find me agonising over the cake selection in the Cafe.... but it was somewhat alarming

It has occurred to me that this mass eating exercising culture exhibits all the outwards signs of organised religion. There are the 10 commandments (thou shalt not where shoes with marking soles), sins (Carbs!!) and penance for temptation. The Personal Trainer attempts to convert those who have strayed and rewards the faithful with dedicated one on one sessions. The fully devoted look on those smoking in the bike sheds with the compassion and pity only the enlightened can bestow. But instead of the world war, prejudice and early Sunday mornings the results of Gym Bunnyism are better stamina, smaller waistlines and a longer life. 

They almost had me. Then I discovered that my twice weekly post work glass of rose was forbidden and I suddenly came to my senses. What was I thinking??!! Closest to conversion I have ever been......