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........

Top tips from the Perfect Work Experience Student (I am not talking about me, by the way)

 Earlier this week a query was sent around twitter; how to turn a vacation scheme into the elusive training contract. Vacation Schemes are can be the selection process for the 2 year long interview that is a TC. They often have assessed tasks dotted through them and you will no doubt be observed for your entire time within the firm. The period will culminate in an interview which will be your basis for selection. You could say it is the law world's answer to the Apprentice and is no less stressful. Luckily for me I managed it, although I was not at all prepared for the week at my Firm and I am not entirely sure how or why I got an offer! I wouldn't recommend this approach (it surely was a fluke!) and I have recently been shown a better way.

There has been a student in the offices over the past two weeks. We shall call her Claire. She had used a contact to get work experience but will be starting her GDL in September, so is vac scheme equivalent. By unanimous consensus the trainees were all very impressed with Claire and I don't think anyone could have done better in 2 weeks. I think it is safe to say that Claire was the Perfect Work Experience Student.


Tip 6 - don't act like anyone on the Apprentice. Any of them.



Now this may be a bit of an exaggeration (no-one is perfect) but I am using her as an example because I have no doubt that had she been interviewed (if she was on the vac scheme she would have been) she would have been offered a contract. She put me, and several other trainees I vacced with, to shame and I am not embarrassed to admit it. If she was in front of Lord Sugar, Nick would be making that impressed face and Karen would be raving about the rise of the business woman. I don't think anyone could devise a formula for turning a vac scheme into a TC, much of it is about luck, but there are a couple of things we could all learn from Claire.

So, without further a do, here are mine and Claire's top tips for doing well in your work experience or vacation scheme:

1. Be Your Self
It might be common sense but there are no end of work experience students I have met that are trying to be something other than themselves. You may think there is an ideal candidate profile for a training contract or that to impress you have to act in a certain way. If you are not being yourself this will show through, no matter how ideal you are acting and will put the Selection team off. They might not be able to tell you why but the slightly fake aura around you will leave them dissatisfied. If you do manage to pull the wool over their eyes, remember a TC is for 2 years, will you be able to keep it up that long? Claire was not worried about being herself. She admitted when she didn't understand something (considering she had no legal background, this was quite a lot!) and this actually earned her some respect in the office. She did also make sure she didn't ask the same question twice - you can only claim lack of knowledge once!

2. Know your Firm
Mr Ashley Connick's recent blog explains the basic premise behind knowing a firm. You need have a good idea before starting work experience as to why you would want to work for that firm and why they should want you. It is a good idea to go beyond the normal 'who are the partners, what areas of law do they practice in' kind of prep; really get under the skin of the Firm. My Firm are a sporty firm; if you read the news about us there is an endless amount of stories about staff members raising money through physical exertion. I know - madness you might say!! It is nevertheless true and the Firm takes a particular pride in entering team sports. I am not sure if this was Claire simply being nice or  being very shrewd but last Friday when we were a team member down for corporate canoeing she volunteered. Not only did she show her team spirit and athletic ability (well, she tried, I don't think canoeing is her thing), she also got her name on the intranet and photo around the Firm.

3. Have something to Say
There is nothing worse than striking up conversation with a student for it to fizzle out and die within 5 minutes. Everyone you spend time with may be asked to report back on you and those uncomfortable silences are not TC winners. This doesn't mean making up things to talk about (go back to tip 1) but preparing well. Form opinions about current affairs, both generally and in the legal world. Find out what's happening in the various sports you like. Read some books, see recent films, go to a festival. Have plans for the rest of your summer, even if they don't come about. If you have put interests in your application or CV then do those. It all adds up to being an interesting person who Firms can imagine employing.

Claire had all of these. Granted she has had the last month or so off so has had a lot of free time but it was refreshing to have someone who could offer insightful comments to a conversation instead of looking confused. And although she hasn't yet studied law, she had even read up on legal news. Impressive.

4. Network
This follows from tip 3. Use your time at the Firm wisely. Talk to the trainees, the team you are in. Talk to the Training Principle and trainee supervisors. The more people you can make an impression on, the better. Even if you don't get a TC, they might remember you for an NQ position or make the effort to speak to you at a networking event. Lawyers don't always stay at the same firm either, the associate at this Firm might be your supervisor at another in 2 years to come. Claire has 4 trainees emails, with promises for drinks when she gets back from travelling (plans for the summer, check!) plus on her last day I saw her disappearing off for lunch with the head secretary and the head legal executive. Or the secretary to the MD and PA to the head of business. Score 3 for Claire.

This tip could even start before you get to a firm. A fellow trainee gave Claire a pointer which is pure genius. When you have secured some work experience, phone up the firm. Usually you will have a contact - speak to them first and find out what you will be doing. If you will be sat in a particular department, find out who you will be working with. Then call back and ask for them, or the trainee in that department. If you manage to get through, tell them you will be coming in for work experience and find out what they have been doing recently. If nothing else, they will know you before you arrive but it gives you an extra opportunity to impress.

5. Use the opportunity
Do not forget this is an opportunity for you as well as a week long interview. Use your time well. If you are stuck reading files, ask if there is something else you could do. If the firm has a department that is often in court - like family, find out if there are any hearings you could go to. Really get an idea of the work that is done in a particular department as this will help you with seat choices in your TC. I always regret not getting more work experience as I only worked in 2 departments before my contract and now seat choices are sooo hard! Claire spent her 2 weeks on the business floor, but managed to speak to a couple of lawyers in family and spent a couple of days in court. So even though she didn't get the chance to interview, she has got experience of roughly 4 areas of work plus court time.

When it comes down to it, there is a lot of luck involved with securing a TC and vacation schemes merely give you a longer time period in which to impress the firm you are applying to. Making securing a TC the only object of the week to the exclusion of all else misses the point. Yes it is a chance for the firm to get to know you better. It is also your chance to get to know your potential future employer and possibly understand your own ambitions a little better. Before she left, Claire told me that she had really enjoyed her time in the office and thought that Employment might possibly be something she would be interested in. That's a lot more direction than I had at the same stage. I have a sneaking suspicion that Claire is going to do just fine.

Dear Outside World; dispelling trainee cliches

Being a trainee comes with its good and bad points, and I don't mean in the office. Having 'solicitor' as part of your job title does have its effects in the outside world too. For example, putting 'lawyer' as your job title will reduce your insurance premiums and get you better credit deals. You get invited to bar nights, events and concerts that you simply wouldn't normally get a look in. This effect creeps in as a law student: student law societies appear to be able to get more sophisticated venues and speakers than the average debate club.

While I am not complaining in the slightest - the benefits far outweigh the negatives - there are some common assumptions made about being a trainee solicitor that I am quickly becoming tired of. Some of these are made about lawyers in general but are particularly misconceived when applied to trainees and so I would like to set the record straight about a few of these on behalf of my fellow trainees:

1. Trainees are rich
We are not. There is a slight caveat for the magic circle trainees who get paid 2 to 3 times more than I do, but I suspect the hourly rate is close to minimum wage for some of them. The Law Society minimum trainee wage is currently £16, 650 and normally increases annually to reflect inflation but has been frozen until Sept 2011 to protect us from negative inflation. My salary is closer to £20,000. This is not particularly large, especially when you include my LPC loan repayments. I am definitely not 'Flush' as some people seem to think. So don't get offended when I decline to buy all the drinks or foot the bill at dinner.

2. Trainees are intelligent and well-read
Yes, perhaps you need more than 3 braincells to study law and get a training contract. No, we are not  all budding Einsteins. Some lawyers are ridiculously intelligent, others I have met surprised me by stringing a sentence together. This gets more extreme in the trainee populous; we haven't had 10 years in practice to hide our stupidity. It is not a given that I have read Keats (I haven't), understand quantum theory or speak Latin. To be honest, understanding the intricacies of Equity can be challenging enough. This is not to say that I am not interested in these subjects, but simply it is not a prerequisite of traineedom to be walking encyclopedias. So please don't look down on me for not being fully able to participate in a philosophical debate about kantish ethics - be impressed I can at least follow the arguments!

3. Daddy got me here
There is a general misunderstanding that the Old Boy's Network is still rife in the legal profession and that all trainees have exploited their father's or university professor's contacts to get a job. I believe there is an element of this in Chambers and you would be missing a trick not to use contacts if you have them but this isn't how it works for the majority. My parents are teachers and apart from their own high street lawyers, I am the only lawyer they know. I worked hard to get where I am and assuming I was silver spooned a trainee position is insulting.

4. We can (and want to) give you legal advice
Since starting my training contract I have been approached by friends, friends of friends, friends of the family and people I met in the pub to get some cheap easy legal advice. Outside of the fact that usually it is against our code of conduct, no lawyer knows the entirety of the law. Without looking into it further I would be surprised if any but an expert in the field could give you the answer off the top of their head. You are more likely to be fobbed off. I have a bigger problem with being asked for legal input: I am a TRAINEE solicitor - do you really want someone unqualified to give you legal advice? After all, you wouldn't get an apprentice carpenter to build your house. I know it is expensive to get advice from a law firm, but there is a reason. If you don't want to pay go to the Citizen's Advice Bureau, not to me.

and finally:

5. We drink too much.
Erm. I can't really comment personally on this one. I do know that some fellow trainees are a little exasperated by being tarred with the same rum-soaked brush. I think once upon a time trainees felt like they had to drink as the after work boozer was the only place to network with the partners. Now, especially in commercial firms, there is a much higher expectation on trainees to take part in marketing opportunities. Hence my recent involvement in corporate canoeing. Please don't judge me for that either.......

I did this. It hurt

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!

The First Impression: lawyer in waiting or gay tramp?

The jury's out on beards..............

My Supervisor made an interesting observation of a fellow trainee recently; he 'looked like a gay tramp'. It was a fairly valid comment, given his trousers were a size too tight and his shirt had holes in it (seriously!!). My Supervisor went on to say that he was close to the hiring and firing line; if there is another trainee, of equal talent but with the right image, it is not a difficult guess to work out which one will get the job.

This comes in the same week that Allen & Overy tell female trainees to lengthen their skirts and shorten their heels. Who knows what they were wearing to prompt such an internal memo but you can just imagine the skirt yanking going on after it went round!

It is an attractive thought that trainees are valued for their input and talent, how good their work is and the effort they put in. I think almost all trainees at one point (an early point!) hope they will be hired on that basis. In today's NQ market this is a dream. The competition is fierce and not only are the hiring firms looking for the whole package but they will find it very easy to rule out those who give them a reason to.

Trainees should not forget that they are the face of the firm. It may not feel like it, being stuck at the photocopier or coffee station all day, but if you are almost flashing your bum you're not going to graduate into client meetings any time soon. If you can't bear to wear a tie, the firm is not going to let you anywhere near their big corporate client where ties are the uniform. If you aren't presentable enough to be let loose into the wider world of lawyering, why would they hire you?

This stretches beyond being able to dress yourself in appropriate sized (and unholey) clothes. The impression you make is undoubtedly tied to your presentation and the impressions of those around you count for a lot in a trainee's career . A fellow trainee has already made a name for herself by wearing push up bras (obviously so) when she has an appraisal. Not only is this tacky, it has alienated her female colleagues to the point where her successes are discredited. A trainee in a rival firm dresses 2 decades older then her 24 years and has been passed over for the more interesting seat placements despite being very good at her job. She simply doesn't come across as proactive or competent as others in her cohort.

It may seem rather shallow to focus so much on physical appearance but a lawyer's clothes are their packaging. Lawyers sell themselves and the suit, shoes and shirt are a part of the fee earner package. The scruffier a trainee, the smaller the pound signs their future employers see. Would you turn up to an interview with holes in your shirt? No, I thought not.

Luckily for me, my 'trademark' red heels are neither too high, nor too holey. Perfect power dressing material!

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.