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!

A bit of a rant: how not to be a good trainee

These past couple of weeks have been very busy for me in a marketing sense. There was a BIG tender push (which we won!), website design plus three client functions. This, coupled with a new, very demanding, seat has swamped me with work to the point of overload. So much so that I had to call in one of the new trainees to take some of the work off my hands.

Now, the new trainees have only been in the office for 6 weeks. so I wasn't expecting miracles. I handed over the easier bits that needed doing - a bit of client research, article ideas - the type of marketing that trainees usually get involved with. Unfortunately I didn't get the quality level I was expecting.

My instructions hadn't been followed, the research was no more than cut and paste from the client's website, the article ideas were the headlines from BBC news with no legal relevance, and, most irritating of all, there were typos (seriously, the queen does not award 'OBC's!) Normally, I wouldn't critisize a trainee, after all, I am trainee too and we are all learning. However when the work given to me is of such poor quality or of such little use that I have to do it again and in less time, I think I am vindicated to have a little moan!

I understand that marketing isn't every one's cup of tea (although this really won't wash as an excuse with me) and when you are a new first year it can be a bit difficult to  appreciate what exactly is a good idea for an article. What bugs me is the lack of effort this trainee put in. He is bright enough not to think it was of an appropriate standard and he asked for work so wasn't pushed for time. It therefore, in my mind, can only be pure laziness or sloppiness, both of which are not qualities that trainees can afford to display.

This may seem a little bit harsh but at the end of the day we are all competing against each other and the others certainly won't be making those kind of mistakes. It shouldn't matter that it was a junior that asked for the work, negative feedback will get back to those who make the big decisions. Trainees really don't want to get a reputation for not delivering or for poor results. A bad reputation is much more likely to stick than a good one and far more difficult to shift.

The other issue is that I won't be asking that trainee for help again unless there is no other option. Given that I often have sector work going spare which can become high profile (did I mention we had won THE tender?) he has really shot himself in the foot. Trainees can't afford to burn their bridges like this, two years go by in a flash and every opportunity will count come recruitment time.

The one thing that I keep in the back of my mind to keep performing is that I am lucky to have a training contract at all. For every one trainee at my firm, there were at least 10 disappointed candidates and I'm sure this figure is much bigger for larger firms. I think it is insulting to the trainees-in-waiting who were turned down to give me a chance if I don't make the most of it. There are graduates literally begging for contracts, I cannot understand why anyone would want to waste theirs.

So! Rant over! But take note trainees-in-waiting, don't make the same mistakes this trainee did.

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.

The magic Third Seat: hopping season strike 2 and a trip to Wales

If the welsh Names are anything like this I'm done for!

While I was a lounging with a leg the size of the tree trunk, hopping season breezed through the office. Unlike my very first blog post, this season felt different, as different as the end of spring feels to the end of summer.
Let me set the scene.

The NQ process is now over, all the second years (those who are staying anyway) are preparing to become Fully Fledged Lawyers. The stress and worry for them at this stage is over, they have relative job security and are starting to look past the 2 years of donkey work they have almost completed. All this does for the first years is remind us how close we are getting to qualification. It doesn't help that every secretary that comes into contact with a first year says ' Only two seats left! OOh, not long now, and that will be you!'. Not at all comforting - indeed, the exact opposite of comforting.

That's right, we realise. Only two seats left. We should KNOW by now. You know, what we want to DO. (Most trainees are filled with this idea that our practice area should just fit, like meeting a soul mate. I am one of them but I am fully aware this is as naive as thinking Prince Charming is going to come and rescue me. Well it happened for Kate!)

Then the list is distributed. Speculation becomes reality. This time round we get supposed first pick at the seats - we are becoming Second Years after all so there is a sense of possibility, of optimism. We are sadly disappointed. There are several departments who have not had a trainee before and several that were training contract staples that have gone. Reading the list as a hermit, I had no idea what to pick. Reading it in the office with all the gossip and scheming must have been a nightmare.

There was, it seemed,a light at the end of the tunnel. An obvious choice: secondment in house with a client exposing the lucky trainee to several legal disciplines with supervision from one of the managing partners. Bingo!! Not surprisingly over half of us put this as our first choice leading HR to have 'informal chats' with us all. Unlucky for me mine was by telephone conference a day after being operated on and I was not particularly coherent. In any event, SIT (Super Important Trainee strikes again) treated the informal chat as a proper interview, prepared the heck out of it and out-manoeuvred us all! Boy, did she look smug. (Having considered this seat, I have decided (sorry In-housers) that it is a wolf wrapped up to look like a perfect seat. Any mistake you make on secondment is going to be a hell of a lot worse - it makes you look bad in the eyes of a client and possibly costs them money. And you are out of the office when you should be being observed by the recruiting departments to see where you fit within the firm. Looks like I had a lucky escape)

The rest of us filtered into the remaining seats glum, disillusioned, angry with ourselves that we had missed a trick. Unfortunately there was another snake in the grass we couldn't see - some of the supervisors had requested second years. Woe betide the second year who thought they had the opportunity to choose something they might be interested in! Not a chance, Corporate couldn't possibly have a newbie doing their photocopying. We were asked and asked to choose seats until we uttered a magic second year seat. Some were lucky and hit the target on the first go. Others, such as myself, had to keep going and ended up with fourth or even fifth choice. Not great for your third seat.

Now I know there are some law firms who don't give their trainees a choice: either they have too many trainees to organise such a process or there are some seats that no one would choose. Personally I think this is akin to playing lottery with your training budget and I am extremely grateful that my firm at least pretends to give us a choice. The problem here was the lack of transparency, the lack of coordination and the inequality of selection across the field. Half the trainees got their first choice and half who don't feel like they have been given a choice at all. Equally some of the supervisors who have been allocated new starters were unaware of their sneaky colleagues tactics and feel hard done by too, especially when a second year wanted to go to their department and was denied. But, Trainees can't possibly be seen to complain too much as seats are chosen for the business need of the firm and no trainee wants to look like we aren't pro-firm. So we are resigned to our new departments, happy or otherwise.

I am moving into the Projects department, a mysterious place with lots of files, travelling and mysterious acronyms the meanings of which are revealed as you prove yourself. No one else has any idea what Projects do except make a lot of money and stay late. It was not my first choice but it is a seat that wasn't on offer before so the prospect of something new was exciting.

I met my supervisor this week to find out a little more. I still have no idea what projects do except there are lots of people with Names. These people have Names that open doors, in the same way as Madonna or Beyonce. If you mention a particular Name you are given power to Organise and to win Deals. You must at all times be nice to the Names, be professional in front of the Names and essentially give your life to the Names. Then, they give you money. (I know, it sounds a lot like night walking for the legal profession......)

I did, however, find out what they need me for. I am covering the work of a 4 year qualified who is going away to have babies. That's right. FOUR years qualified. Why did she have to be fertilised now!? No wonder no one else wanted to do it. Its positively terrifying. On top of this, as she can't travel, I am joining the Hod (Head of Department - see the acronyms start now. SIBTLT - Soon I will Be Talking Like This) on a week long business trip for 3 days of meetings and 2 days of travelling to ... wait for it..... WALES! Yea I know, not very glamorous, in fact its probably going to be raining. I will be leaving for said trip on the first day in the seat. No adjustment time, no time to even move my stationary. (The newbie better not go NEAR my pens! Its taken me a long time to steal the good ones from the stationary cupboard.) Nope, first thing I will do is crossing the border to meet lots and lots of welsh Names.

Seriously, what have I signed up for!

Growing a good trainee - pre-contract contact

I recently bumped into a Trainee in Waiting who is starting at my Firm this September. He did his LPC compulsory work experience in my dept at the beginning of the year so we kept in touch. I was surprised to find out he hadn't heard anything from the Firm despite him starting so soon. He is in a better position because of his work experience; his peers haven't had that experience. I didn't really have any contact with the Firm before I started either, so I asked around some of my fellow trainees and discovered this isn't so rare.

Now being a member of the Firm, I can see that our HR dept is very busy at this time of year with us trainees; we have just had the NQ process and we will be doing the seat swap choice next week. Plus the firms annual reviews are ongoing and there are a raft of new recruits with the new financial year. I can understand if contacting new trainees is not top priority. However, given these trainees are one of the biggest people investments the Firm will make, I don't think these priorities are quite right.

My Firm pays out over £50,000 per trainee on salary, LPC and PSC fees, not to mention the supervisory and training time plus the risk of letting unqualifieds near clients. The aim, I would suggest, is to influence the development of good potential into loyal and talented NQs. Like an investment. I don't think many financial advisers would advocate leaving an investment alone for 2 years in the hope it would still have growth potential. I would hope at the very least it would be monitored at regular intervals to ensure the potential is maintained. Now as we are talking about people, I think it unlikely trainees would lose potential, but a trainee's relationship with a firm will be key in realising that potential. If a firm started out developing a positive relationship before the trainee is at the firm they will have a head start when the training contract starts.

My Firm recruits trainees 2 years before they start. Given the statistics, Trainees in Waiting are really happy to get an offer, especially as my Firm pays LPC fees. However 2 years is a long time to wait and hear nothing. By the time I got to choosing electives on my LPC, 18 months of no contact had me feeling a little jumpy. Had I really got a training contract or had I dreamt it? I also could have used a little guidance; as it turns out, I chose electives that I thought would be helpful and weren't. I in fact wrote to the Firm to ask this very question but didn't get a response. Perhaps I would have spent my Firm's money a little better if I had a way of getting some guidance.

Many trainees I have spoken to have a similar story to me, no contact until a month before they started. Some, however, told me that they were invited to firm events; the christmas party and summer fundraiser whilst others were invited to Junior Lawyer events with the firm's trainees but paid for by the firm. All these trainees informed me they felt relaxed when they eventually started. Having met other trainees and staff members they already felt part of their firm and had made contacts they could turn to for support. They had also met each other and maintained contact leading up to their. The relatively small effort their firm had made to include them meant their transition from student to trainee went a little smoother. The lack of transition turbulence probably helped those trainees develop quicker and learn more in their first seat when compared with trainees like me.

I think the period between offer and start of a training contract is an opportunity for firms to cultivate their relationships with trainees-in-waiting. They have sifted through the multitudes of law students to find a choice few to invest in and will spend a lot of time and money on those lucky candidates. Missing the chance to ease them into their training is shortsighted. Firms shouldn't wait until their trainees are in the building to help them grow, they should be laying foundations as soon as the offer has been accepted. Investments in people don't grow themselves.

An Interim Review Dictionary

It is the review season at my Firm; trainees have their mid seat reviews and the rest of the staff have their annual reviews. Even the partners have reviews with other partners (although I am lead to believe this is more 'boozy lunch with targets' than 'serious discussion'). The general format is there are many many forms to be filled out by all concerned which are then sent to HR and filed (read lost.... eaten... generally not looked at) based on attributes on a centralised 'expectations' database.

Each level within a role has a set of expectations which should be achieved before the staff member can progress. This sounds all very transparent and should facilitate easy goal setting discussions within teams. However, as with many processes that involve HR and potentially employment law aspects the expectations are so overly worded that serious review sessions (such as those with trainees) need a pre-review review to establish what they all mean!

Given that most trainees will have a review process, even if it is not so bureaucratic as ours, I thought I would explain some of the more obscure terms that came up in my review (N.B: not to be taken seriously)

1. Demonstrate understanding of the importance of managing time
All tasks must be done yesterday or earlier and understand this must be achieved within normal working hours. Requires an appreciation of the impossible and also some mind reading ability. Do not base your time keeping on that of your superiors.

2. Demonstrate professional behaviour and represent the Firm appropriately
DON'T GET DRUNK AT WORK.

3. Show willingness to help others and put in extra effort
Stay in the office as long as someone has something for you to do, even if it is helping the cleaners.

4. Display an ability to question findings
but not the findings of your superiors, colleagues or anyone better than you. Only your own. Especially when you are wrong (even if you are not).

5. Gain an understanding of client culture

Make sure you spot the dodgy ones and take them out for client meetings

Coupled with these gems are a speckling of expectations that I'm surprised the Firm considers it necessary to include:

6. Produce work that is easy to review (how could it be difficult to review?!)

7. Complete simple research (instead leaving it unfinished?)

8. Display knowledge (in graph format or would you prefer a presentation?)

9. Prompt timekeeping and good attendance (................................are we at school?)

10. Demonstrate an understanding of why you are carrying out work (??!?!?!)

If I am honest, the feed back in my first 3 months review was that I had ticked most of these boxes already. Not surprising really, given the height of the hoops - I hope this isn't the criteria my Firm chooses trainees!

Finally - the one that surely no-one can reach - Understand what is expected of you and confirm this with others....................................

PSC: Necessary Skills or complete waste of time?

It has come to that point in my legal training where the SRA get involved. All trainees have to complete the Professional Skills Course or PSC as a prerequisite for qualification. Most do this, or at least start, in their first year. The PSC involves core modules of Client Care, Advocacy and Finance, followed by 4 days of chosen electives. I am 2 weeks away from the end of my core modules and I have to say I have not been overly impressed.

While the days out of the office have been fun, as has the free food and meeting other first year trainees, the content of the courses has thus far been useless. The PSC is supposed to provide us with the skills the SRA think are necessary for solicitors; a supplement to the Legal Practice Course to take our skill base from trainee to NQ. I really hope I need a bit more than what I have learnt so far.

I spent 2 days learning about client care. I say learning, in reality we spent the whole of the second day teaching ourselves. The SRA require an element of computer use to be delivered somewhere in the cores. Our provider decided possibly the only thing we might come across is PowerPoint. I can see the sense in that - most lawyers have to give presentations at some point. However, having had to graduate from the LPC in the last 5 years, we will have had to give presentations on multiple occasions by this stage and should be shot if we haven't got the PowerPoint basics down by now. So, no we didn't need the 2 hour PowerPoint tutorial, nor the 3 hours to prepare our presentations on a client care subject. The module was really us learning the material and delivering it to our peers. The most instruction we received from the tutors was a 3 hour revision of the Code of Conduct covering it in less detail than on the LPC. What a waste of time.

My next course was Advocacy, 3 days. First day, Examination in chief (80's video of fake trial over 2 hours), Second day, Cross Examination, Third day, preparation for and running through a fake trial. What fun! (I won my case. Well my team did.Of course that was down to my grueling cross examination). However the relevance to trainee solicitors and NQs of this experience is limited. Civil cases rarely have an examination in chief these days and counsel would be instructed to do any lengthy cross examination. Only really in family, criminal or tribunals is a solicitor likely to examine witnesses and then the rules are different. So we spent 3 days learning skills we are unlikely to ever use. Perhaps it would have been more relevant to teach us court etiquette or to give us practice making opposed applications. By the time we are experienced enough to conduct a trial as they suggested on this module the PSC is going to be a distant memory.

Last of all is Finance. Arguably the most useful (it covers the dreaded Financial Services and Markets Act, and Money Laundering, the stuff lawyers hate but can get them in ALOT of trouble if they get it wrong), I can only comment on the first day of 3. Having covered FSMA regulation on the LPC I know that unless authorised by the FSA, solicitors cannot give investment advice unless covered by an exception that it is incidental to the work. Most lawyers struggle with this distinction, so I am happy to be getting another chance to learnt it. I am a little concerned about the delivery of this module. Our first day involved spending 7 hours learning about different kinds of investments. You know, the ones we cant give advice about?  Apparently if we know more about what it is we are not supposed to say, we won't do it. I can't see that logic. I now know and understand far more about investments than I ever have done making it much easier for me to slip across the line into regulated territory. At least before I could claim ignorance and avoid the situation all together. Worst of all, these 7 hours were delivered a full week before our FSMA session. So I have been a week in the world with the practical knowledge of what I am not allowed to say without actually knowing where the line is. Genius!

Normally days spent out the office would be great fun. In reality I haven't had a full week in the office since mid April. My work load is piling up, my hours are behind and I am pretty sure someone has been using my desk while I'm gone..... My firm is paying me and the PSC provider to waste time learning stuff I either already know, will never use or make me more likely to break the law! I think the SRA needs to rethink what it is teaching trainees and use this time to bring up lawyering standards instead of wasting resources. I have heard from others that the quality of the electives is much higher, I do hope so.

 I can't say it was a complete waste of time though - I did get a great tan 'preparing' for my client care presentation........

When I grow up, I want to be.........

It is fast approaching the time when the second year trainees choose (or get shoe-horned into) their NQ positions. There is a sense of tension in the air; rumours of recruiting departments flit about, unsubstantiated and unverified, landing on a poor trainees ear and transforming into fully fledged Chinese whispers at the drop of a hat. Not unsurprisingly, heads of departments run past any and all trainees (mainly because they can't remember what year we are in) to avoid difficult conversations. I have noticed a large number of  'lunch' appointments appearing in the second year diaries, uncomfortable meals with supervisors and mentors to discuss their prospects.

It has made us first years consider our future. Some were ALWAYS going to qualify in one position and couldn't conceive of qualifying into anything else. Others give me the impression that it wouldn't matter what position they were offered as long they had a job. I am somewhere in between: I wouldn't accept a job that I didn't want to do but would compromise if I thought I could practice in what I was offered or could make the transition later on. The problem is, I don't actually know what I want to do!

We are being asked a lot at the moment if we have an idea and my 'none whatsoever' is generally met with a stupefied face. It is as if now we are in our second seat, we should have a clear idea of where we are going. For me, the opposite is true. I thought I had an idea before I started; a destined litigator. Although my first seat confirmed I don't want to go into property, it turns out I am quite good at non-contentious work. My second seat has made me realised I need to be steadily busy all the time to work my best; the peaks and troughs of insolvency are frazzling my brain! Neither has really enthralled me and (despite the boozy side of insolvency that does somewhat appeal) I can't see myself qualifying into either.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't have any preference so approach each seat with an open mind. I have not focused my learning on one area to the point that I am useless in anything but that subject and neither am I so certain on my future career that I have written off the compulsory seat that doesn't fit. However, the fact that I am so comparatively clueless is making it very difficult to plan the next move. I am aware I might be missing opportunities that would be useful to me in the future. It must be very comforting to know exactly what you want to do.

I feel like I am back to that point in my a levels when I realised my chosen subjects of maths and art didn't really have any sustainable career options. A little bit lost with a lot options that sound too good to choose from. But how do I narrow it down? Back then I did a lot of taster sessions and work experience before settling on law because it felt right. I regret not getting some more legal work experience when I had the time. Doing a stint in a family department helped me exclude legal aid work, if I had done more I might have more of an idea now (take heed trainees-in-waiting!!). I don't think I will have quite the same opportunity now; can you imagine if I asked to split my third seat into 6 bite size chunks?

Luckily I am an optimist and am content to wait for now until something fits. Law felt right, I am sure one of my seats will slot in to place in time. Lets just hope that seat has a job this time next year or you will be reading the new improved Miss Unemployed. Promise I will keep the heels though!

Trainee solicitor; complimentary ghostwriter

I know the feeling Ewan

There is a marketing drive in my Firm to get more website hits and general Internet interest for the teams. What this boils down to is writing more articles, newsletters and updates to publish online, the idea being that the more buzz words included in these articles means more search engine hits. (a concept not lost on bloggers........ LAW, Training Contract, Justin Bieber.... ahem)

However, the big important lawyers with the experience and knowledge to comment legitimately on topical issues certainly don't have the time to waste on marketing that doesn't involve expenses or drink receptions. The mid level lawyers have to get their chargeable hours down to meet targets so it is unlikely they have the time to spend on non-chargeable article writing. So the article writing duties trickle down through the ranks until they pool at the feet of the trainee.

And so through this process I have been signed up to write the Insolvency monthly articles and the newsletter and the update bulletin for the Education sector. As well as all the other work and extra duties (like canape serving!) that trainees are expected to do I have to keep up to speed with the market place, legal opinion and the law on both these areas, write short 'pithy' (the sector head used this word 6 times when explaining the education newsletter) articles on hot topics and provide easily digestible updates on developments over the last month.

I understand this is an important role for a trainee and researching topics will help develop my knowledge of the sector and department. I am also happy with the actual writing of the articles - I enjoy writing and being 'pithy' comes naturally to me (case in point!). It will allow me to demonstrate my grasp of the law and commercial awareness. But, after reviewing hundreds of alert results and websites, hours of research and energy spent being witty, I won't personally have anything to show for it. Trainees are not given credit!

I can see the reason behind this; who wants to hear what a trainee has to say? Why does the opinion of someone who has only been in the law for 6 months matter? For marketing purposes my point of view counts for very little when compared with the head of the department. However, when I have spent time writing something it grates to see someone else get the glory. As an example, an article on an insolvency topic was recently published online in the name of my supervisor but written by me. He has also included a link on his Linked in profile and it has been included in our business round up. So not only is my supervisor taking the credit for my amazing writing skills but he is using them to promote himself personally.  

I could write an equivalent article for my blog using the research but I think it would become a little obvious when an articles on the same topic are repeatedly published by my Firm. I value my anonymity too much for that and besides, I might get caught! I guess I don't have much of an option but to begrudgingly write brilliant articles and let my superiors have them. Maybe I can use all my experience to diversify into legal journalism - Miss TS, editor does have a certain ring to it......