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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No fear here: finding the one (Training Contract)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Apologies for my absence; No I'm not dead, I didn't get fired and yes I am limping

It has been rather a long time since last I blogged. Unfortunately for me an old sports injury bit me on the proverbial (leg if you must know) and rendered me housebound for a month whilst various consultants prodded me, made little holes in me and instructed me to sit/lie in impossible angles. I'm happy to say I am now back in the land of the vertical and have rejoined the working masses.

Why didn't I constantly blog you ask? Well when it takes a variety of levers, sticks and the assistance of whoever happens to be around to visit the little trainee's room, blogging is not high on your priority list! In addition, the pain killers I was prescribed were delightful and kept me in a state of fuzzy brained sleepiness.

Having such a long period away from work as a trainee is not normal, however I am sure others have been in a similar situation as myself so I would like to share a few things I have learnt on my return:

1. Partners will forget you. You will be treated like a secretary or completley ignored until they remember why you are in their department. They may have also left tasks on your desk in complete ignorance of your plight. Check here first!

2. None of the matters you were working on will have progressed in your absense. Be prepared for narky clients, passed deadlines and generally a manic first few weeks. On a positive note 'I've had surgery' is remarkable for getting pestering clients off your back

3. Wearing a bandage and/or limping explains why you were off, so you don't have to. Also, mentioning gruesome injury details early on in 'so where have you been' conversations saves A LOT of time. Limping has the added benefit of making everyone seeing you struggle to the kitchen feel sorry for you, so you'll never have to make another cup of tea. Until the partner asks that is.

4. Health and Safety laws are crazy nowadays. To comply with my need to keep my leg elevated, a new risk assessment of my floor had to be taken visa vie the dangers of my footstool, coupled with a survey of my working environment from the firm's occupational health specialist to make sure my needs were being met (my needs, save for an increased tea consumption, had not changed). I also now have a 'Fire Buddy' tasked with helping me escape blazing infernos.

5. You will get withdrawal symptoms from daytime TV - it becomes addictive after watching it for a week straight. You'll crave the inane fast talking of the Gilmore girls, love the spiffy ladies on loose women and watching the same episode of friends 3 times seems like the perfect way to spend an afternoon. Your colleagues will think you are loosing it while you daydream at 15 minute intervals having developed a skill of switching off for ad breaks. Stick with it. 1 week back at work and the revulsion to Jeremy Kyle only experienced by the employed will return.

Over all nothing has really changed. The summer passed while I was on the sofa, news of the world got caught hacking phones (really, who didn't think they did that already!) and I gained ridiculous amounts of weight (not doing anything and having to eat 5 times a day because you're on pills is the fast track to a gastric band) but work is eeeexactly the same. No sweat.

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!

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....................................