On June 22nd, 2009 16:54:00 by
Anonymous (not verified).
My training contract has been deferred for just over 9 months now. I was originally supposed to start in October 2008 and was deferred until December. In December I was then deferred until March 2009, and finally I was deferred in March until the beginning of June. I am now starting with the firm at the end of June.
As you can imagine, due to the fact that I have been deferred so many times, for short periods, I was forced to move back to my parents' house to afford to live as I was unable, given the economic climate, to find short-term work that paid enough for me to meet my bills. I am lucky that I had that option, but for those who aren't able to just go home I can imagine it would be a real financial struggle - especially when professional trainee loans, for example, are starting to kick in.
I feel very strongly that firms should offer compensation to deferred trainees for the inconvenience caused, both personal and financial.
On June 22nd, 2009 17:46:00 by
Anonymous (not verified).
I don't see why the person who is being deferred can't use their time to go travelling or do something 'worthwhile' before they start their training contract. Should think of the time as an opportunity to do things they wouldn't necessarily be able to do once they have the training contract and subsequently qualify. Firms shouldn't compensate for this time if it is a choice to defer but perhaps viable arguments if the firm takes the decision to defer and the trainee has already made plans to begn their apprenticeship.
On June 23rd, 2009 13:13:26 by
Anonymous (not verified).
Essentially this arguement is two-fold.
On one hand compensation should be offered to those individuals who were offered training contracts as they were obviously worthy candidates in which case they probably had a chance to obtain other offers. By deferring their training contract, these individuals have to wait longer to qualify and may not be able to obtain work elsewhere.
On the other hand those that have been deferral should count themselves lucky. Training contracts are like gold dust, especially in the current legal and economic market. The law is a competitive field and, if like most, candidates have worked 4 years to get to a stage where a training contract could be offered, another couple of years should not really make a different.
On June 23rd, 2009 15:49:45 by
Anonymous (not verified).
Not everyone is in a financial position to be able to afford to just go travelling or do something worthwhile. That costs money I suggest you read the responses to the poll - 'Is gaining a legal qualification worth the cost' - many people leave law school with huge amounts of personal debt to the bank and/or family and friends. Not all graduates are young single people free from the responsibility of a home life and bills to pay in that respect.
If a firm has made an offer to trainee, then the trainee is obviously in expectation of starting on a certain date and therefore would be making plans to start their apprenticeship. I know a lot of people who have been deferred in the light of the economic situation of late, including myself, and many of us were not given much notice.
On June 23rd, 2009 17:23:03 by
Anonymous (not verified).
go travelling.... and who is going to fund that!!!! please remember that the majority of people waiting for training contracts have recently completed their LPC and degree before that, using loans to fund the same. they will have to start repaying these debts, especially professional loans regardless of whether working or not, be it a training contract or not!!!!! the sooner a training contract starts, the sooner it finishes and then the sooner they get anyway decent wages.
On June 23rd, 2009 22:23:31 by
BRS (not verified).
There's a lot of talk below as to why deferral should be seen as a good opportunity. This might be the case for a 22 year-old fresh out of uni and the LPC, but older trainees do not necessarily appreciate having an enforced gap year with little notice (e.g. 3 months in many cases). Regardless of age, many people make plans as to living arrangements and important decisions about relationships which means it is unfair to simply delay the offer of employment for a whole year. Besides, it is irrelevant to the matter of compensation -- they should provide this regardless since they made a contractual promise and a trainee would not be entitled to unilaterally defer the law firm's TC offer without losing their TC and becoming liable for their LPC fees/maintenance. This should work both ways and they should provide compensation for, essentially, a year's lost salary post-qualification, which is the crucial point here.
On July 5th, 2009 22:37:23 by
Anonymous (not verified).
In this market and this day and age, I think individuals shoud be grateful that they are still being given the opportunity to complete a training contract whether it is deferred or not.
My friend who is also a Solicitor was made redundant from his firm six months ago and could not find a job. He also had bills to pay as the individuals here state and he went and worked in Tescos for three months until he found a job.
If people are in such a bad financial position, there are options out there. The fact that your training contract is being deferred does not negate from the fact that you can't go out and get a job.
Come on people, yes we are Lawyers but were no better than anyone else. When the chips are down get off your backside and do whatever you have to, to survive. Part of survival is in my opinion, being grateful for the fact that you still have the opportunity to qualify.
On July 15th, 2009 07:32:18 by
Heidi Sandy (not verified).
If your training contract is deferred it could be an excellent opportunity to use the year to undertake some voluntary work. If this could be done within the legal sector this is a good way of developing your legal and client facing skills that will give you a head start when you start your training contract.
For those fortunate to be compensated to defer I would highly recommend using this opportunity to travel or do a voluntary project abroad with an organisation such as Raleigh. I had a year between LPC and starting my training contract and wish that I had spent more time abroad. Whilst everyone is keen to get on with starting their legal career and being paid to clear some student debt! don't forget that you could be working for the next 40 years without the opportunity to have a similar length of time in your career to travel or pursue a specific project
On July 15th, 2009 12:28:04 by
Vaughan (not verified).
I was prompted to write by the narrow comments claiming that lawyers are no different to anyone else out there seeking jobs and we should survive like the rest of them.
What seems to be lost in these statements is that by the time a student has reached training contract stage, debts have piled up contingent of commencement of a training contract. It is well documented that law student debt exceeds the debt of students on other courses.
A law student as with any other profession has spent an inordinate amount of time, effort and resources in obtaining a training contract. In my case, I studied part time over 2 years on top of working full time and then completed my LPC full time. Had my firm deferred my contract with no compensation forthcoming then I would be left with a nightmarish scenario of a bucket load of debt that would be hard to pay without a training contract salary.
The individual who has obtained the training contract will be competent and fit for the job with the designated qualification date in mind. Choices will have been made by the individual (turning down other opportunities and deciding whether to study the LPC full or part time because of financial resources) and these choices could well be different had the trainee been fully notified with reasonable notice of the deferment.
The firm should also provide some form of compensation in the situation where the contract itself is fixed term and due, if stated, to commence on a specific date. Dependent on the circumstances, moving the contract date puts the employer in a position of liability to the individual and recompense should be calculated accordingly on contractual grounds if appropriate in the circumstance. Often the terms of this are recorded in the offer letter.
Compensation should also be offered because future trainees are an asset to the firm which the firm loses if that trainee seeks to go elsewhere. Getting legal talent is a difficult endeavour and one to be valued highly by the firm.
My training contract has been deferred for just over 9 months now. I was originally supposed to start in October 2008 and was deferred until December. In December I was then deferred until March 2009, and finally I was deferred in March until the beginning of June. I am now starting with the firm at the end of June.
As you can imagine, due to the fact that I have been deferred so many times, for short periods, I was forced to move back to my parents' house to afford to live as I was unable, given the economic climate, to find short-term work that paid enough for me to meet my bills. I am lucky that I had that option, but for those who aren't able to just go home I can imagine it would be a real financial struggle - especially when professional trainee loans, for example, are starting to kick in.
I feel very strongly that firms should offer compensation to deferred trainees for the inconvenience caused, both personal and financial.
I don't see why the person who is being deferred can't use their time to go travelling or do something 'worthwhile' before they start their training contract. Should think of the time as an opportunity to do things they wouldn't necessarily be able to do once they have the training contract and subsequently qualify. Firms shouldn't compensate for this time if it is a choice to defer but perhaps viable arguments if the firm takes the decision to defer and the trainee has already made plans to begn their apprenticeship.
Essentially this arguement is two-fold.
On one hand compensation should be offered to those individuals who were offered training contracts as they were obviously worthy candidates in which case they probably had a chance to obtain other offers. By deferring their training contract, these individuals have to wait longer to qualify and may not be able to obtain work elsewhere.
On the other hand those that have been deferral should count themselves lucky. Training contracts are like gold dust, especially in the current legal and economic market. The law is a competitive field and, if like most, candidates have worked 4 years to get to a stage where a training contract could be offered, another couple of years should not really make a different.
As the old agage goes "patience is a virtue."
Not everyone is in a financial position to be able to afford to just go travelling or do something worthwhile. That costs money I suggest you read the responses to the poll - 'Is gaining a legal qualification worth the cost' - many people leave law school with huge amounts of personal debt to the bank and/or family and friends. Not all graduates are young single people free from the responsibility of a home life and bills to pay in that respect.
If a firm has made an offer to trainee, then the trainee is obviously in expectation of starting on a certain date and therefore would be making plans to start their apprenticeship. I know a lot of people who have been deferred in the light of the economic situation of late, including myself, and many of us were not given much notice.
Below are some interesting articles on the topic:
http://www.thelawyer.com/1000353.article
http://www.thelawyer.com/sra-gets-a-roasting-as-deferrals-leave-students...
go travelling.... and who is going to fund that!!!! please remember that the majority of people waiting for training contracts have recently completed their LPC and degree before that, using loans to fund the same. they will have to start repaying these debts, especially professional loans regardless of whether working or not, be it a training contract or not!!!!! the sooner a training contract starts, the sooner it finishes and then the sooner they get anyway decent wages.
There's a lot of talk below as to why deferral should be seen as a good opportunity. This might be the case for a 22 year-old fresh out of uni and the LPC, but older trainees do not necessarily appreciate having an enforced gap year with little notice (e.g. 3 months in many cases). Regardless of age, many people make plans as to living arrangements and important decisions about relationships which means it is unfair to simply delay the offer of employment for a whole year. Besides, it is irrelevant to the matter of compensation -- they should provide this regardless since they made a contractual promise and a trainee would not be entitled to unilaterally defer the law firm's TC offer without losing their TC and becoming liable for their LPC fees/maintenance. This should work both ways and they should provide compensation for, essentially, a year's lost salary post-qualification, which is the crucial point here.
In this market and this day and age, I think individuals shoud be grateful that they are still being given the opportunity to complete a training contract whether it is deferred or not.
My friend who is also a Solicitor was made redundant from his firm six months ago and could not find a job. He also had bills to pay as the individuals here state and he went and worked in Tescos for three months until he found a job.
If people are in such a bad financial position, there are options out there. The fact that your training contract is being deferred does not negate from the fact that you can't go out and get a job.
Come on people, yes we are Lawyers but were no better than anyone else. When the chips are down get off your backside and do whatever you have to, to survive. Part of survival is in my opinion, being grateful for the fact that you still have the opportunity to qualify.
If your training contract is deferred it could be an excellent opportunity to use the year to undertake some voluntary work. If this could be done within the legal sector this is a good way of developing your legal and client facing skills that will give you a head start when you start your training contract.
For those fortunate to be compensated to defer I would highly recommend using this opportunity to travel or do a voluntary project abroad with an organisation such as Raleigh. I had a year between LPC and starting my training contract and wish that I had spent more time abroad. Whilst everyone is keen to get on with starting their legal career and being paid to clear some student debt! don't forget that you could be working for the next 40 years without the opportunity to have a similar length of time in your career to travel or pursue a specific project
I was prompted to write by the narrow comments claiming that lawyers are no different to anyone else out there seeking jobs and we should survive like the rest of them.
What seems to be lost in these statements is that by the time a student has reached training contract stage, debts have piled up contingent of commencement of a training contract. It is well documented that law student debt exceeds the debt of students on other courses.
A law student as with any other profession has spent an inordinate amount of time, effort and resources in obtaining a training contract. In my case, I studied part time over 2 years on top of working full time and then completed my LPC full time. Had my firm deferred my contract with no compensation forthcoming then I would be left with a nightmarish scenario of a bucket load of debt that would be hard to pay without a training contract salary.
The individual who has obtained the training contract will be competent and fit for the job with the designated qualification date in mind. Choices will have been made by the individual (turning down other opportunities and deciding whether to study the LPC full or part time because of financial resources) and these choices could well be different had the trainee been fully notified with reasonable notice of the deferment.
The firm should also provide some form of compensation in the situation where the contract itself is fixed term and due, if stated, to commence on a specific date. Dependent on the circumstances, moving the contract date puts the employer in a position of liability to the individual and recompense should be calculated accordingly on contractual grounds if appropriate in the circumstance. Often the terms of this are recorded in the offer letter.
Compensation should also be offered because future trainees are an asset to the firm which the firm loses if that trainee seeks to go elsewhere. Getting legal talent is a difficult endeavour and one to be valued highly by the firm.
Thanks, for the good articles ...I am very intiresting..