On November 18th, 2009 17:40:52 by
Annalisa (not verified).
This is just pure and unadulterated exploitation! I could not believe my ears when I heard of stories detailing that employers are taking advantages of junior lawyers in a recession. These firms should be penalised for even daring to make such a suggestion.
On November 18th, 2009 19:38:27 by
Robert Selwyn (not verified).
It is a good way for a potential trainer to evaluate the potential trainee’s commitment to a career in law and also allows the potential trainee an opportunity to see whether he/she is ready to start a training contract and whether it should be at that firm.
As for the exploitation, surely it is for the potential trainee to learn how to assess the situation that he/she is in. If the potential trainee does not realise for him/herself in a reasonable amount of time that he/she is being exploited are they really the type of person who should be promoting other peoples’ best interests?
On November 18th, 2009 20:31:25 by
Daniel (not verified).
In my opinion the employers who ask candidates to work for free are either very cash poor and can't afford to pay or are very arrogant and disrespectful towards the person they expect to work for free, either way they are both qualities which would make me stay well clear of such a firm.
On November 18th, 2009 21:20:02 by
Anonymous (not verified).
At the end of the day, everyone is looking for experience so why not get paid for helping out the firm in return for that experience? What is the argument not to pay candidates?
On November 19th, 2009 08:52:19 by
Anonymous (not verified).
I previously applied for a job which was advertised as a 'training contract' position with 'immediate start', however in the interview I was told that I would in fact work for a trial period of some months unpaid as a personal assistant. My main duties as a P.A. would be to invite and organise applications and interviews for the same training contract position that I had in fact applied for myself. If after the expiry of the trial period I was still found to be the 'best' candidate, I would then be offered the training contract. This practice is appalling and relies on people being so desperate they will take any job offered. I was lucky enough to obtain a training contract shortly afterwards, but if I had been in a different position I would have been forced to accept.
On November 19th, 2009 13:29:19 by
Anonymous (not verified).
I recently did a few weeks unpaid work experience at a law firm that I had missed out on a contract with the previous year. Although I would much rather the firm had offered to pay me for the work I did, it was the best chance I had a getting a training contract as there are so few around here (Sussex). The investment I made in doing the work paid off as they were very pleased with how I did and they offered me a contract on the strength of it. So, personally, it was definitely worthwhile but I understand totally the point made about exploitation. I don't think I was being exploited on this occasion as I knew there was a chance of getting a contract out of it but I have seen job ads for up to 6 months unpaid, which is completely outrageous and means that only the wealthy need apply.
FROM THE FIRMS' POINT OF VIEW
What counts as acceptable remuneration, if any at all, depends on the extent to which the firm is benefiting from the work done. The two extremes:
If the firm is planning to offload a substantial amount of fee-earning work onto an experienced candidate without remunerating them, they could be said to be abusing the current employment conditions (ie. far fewer jobs than candidates).
If the firm is going out of their way to enable an inexperienced candidate to shadow a fee-earner and gain experience, then the firm could be justified in not remunerating the candidate.
FROM THE CANDIDATES' POINT OF VIEW
There are good candidates on the market to whom the standard application process does not do justice.
If these opportunities are enabling such candidates to obtain employment where they would not otherwise be able to, then such trial periods are worthwhile, regardless of remuneration.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
How much legal experience does the candidate have?
What is the candidate’s aim (gain experience or gain employment)?
Is the firm covering travel costs?
Can the firm afford to pay the candidate remuneration?
A POSSIBLE WAY AHEAD
The aim is a good baseline: to determine whether the candidate is suitable.
The trial period should only last as long as necessary to achieve that aim.
HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS
The firm should commit to:
1. carrying out an initial interview where the candidate is encouraged to state whether they are attending with a view to being considered for employment;
2. appointing someone to monitor the performance of the candidate and give regular feedback (weekly, no more than 5 mins should suffice); and
4. a second HR interview to inform the candidate whether or not they are suitable, as soon as they have decided and no later than, say, 2 weeks after starting the trial period.
MONITORING
Better to ‘use the carrot than the stick’.
On completion of the vote, firms could be contacted by the JLD and encouraged to inform the JLD of their specific arrangements and commitment to fair treatment of candidates.
This could then be posted on the JLD website and advertised.
On November 24th, 2009 14:29:33 by
Simon (not verified).
There is a difference between;
1. a degree or LPC student asking for a week or so's experience to help them improve their CV (and therefore their chance of getting a training contract);
and
2. whether it is fair of law firms, in the current economic climate, to ask potential employees (often newly qualified lawyers), to do several months of work for nothing on the understanding that they may (yes may, not will) get a paid position at the end.
It would be interesting to see what the views of most people would be of the second (which is a situation which is becoming increasingly common).
On November 26th, 2009 22:32:00 by
Samantha Flower (not verified).
Unpaid work in a law firm should only be for students whom are shadowing to build up their CV; that is the purpose of shadowing. Anything else is exploitation. This type of unpaid work by junior solicitors is a method of keeping the poor out of the law profession and maintaing positions for the more affluent junior lawers. It has already become increasingly difficult for the poor to acquire a law degree because of the tuition fees at University. Therefore if this exploitation becomes more wide spread it shall be near enough impossible for the underprivileged to reach this profession, and by that, it would bring this profession into disrepute. The profession would have reverted back to the days of old when the common man had no place.
On December 5th, 2009 11:06:02 by
nailah (not verified).
quite frankly to be asked to work for free together with the lack of job opportunities etc in Law provided by the Government is an insult to hard-earned Law qualifications
On December 7th, 2009 23:16:26 by
David (not verified).
Although I can see the benefit to both employer and employee of an unpaid period of employment, as some of the people on here have made, the main problem that I can see with this is equal access. The general policy of making the law more accessible to all, and not just the preserve of the most affluent, is going to be dealt another blow if candidates are, not only saddled with increasingly burdensome student debts, but also required to spend significant periods of their working life needing even more subsidy, just to get to the beginning of their career.
On January 15th, 2010 15:08:44 by
Anonymous (not verified).
I don't know of any other profession in which someone who has studied and then trained for a number of years could possibly be expected to work for nothing. Anything more than time spent shadowing more qualified staff is surely exploitation of the current market conditions and the consequent lack of training contracts.
On January 15th, 2010 15:23:09 by
Yorkie Boy (not verified).
I have recently secured a non-law job but have offered to work a few hours a week at a solicitors free of charge to showcase my skills and abilities; if I am offerred a job at the end it is a bonus; if not at least I've got the experience and 'kept my hand in'. In the current market I feel that any lawyer should consider the long term and not just the immediate gratification.
On January 15th, 2010 15:27:21 by
Anonymous (not verified).
FAO: the Employers:
Asking Junior Lawyers to work for free without a realistic commitment for paid work may breach EU laws
on fairness and equality in the workplace.
FAO; the Candidates:
Now you know what it feels like to be exploited and used as cheap labour (i.e law grads and paralegals)
On January 15th, 2010 18:45:33 by
Anonymous (not verified).
At least nominal pay I think is more appropriate and only for a short period of time. Even this I am not quite sure of as I have worked in an office where the senior solicitor had a series of paralegals working for free in the pretence that he was assessing them to see if they were suitable. It was pure and simple, exploitation and to make matters worse he had them working on non-legal aspects of his business and personal matters. He even commented on how clever he was to tap in on this free source of labour.
On January 15th, 2010 19:02:26 by
CloClo (not verified).
I think its appalling that this sort of thing takes place but unfortunately I am embroiled in a very similar situation myself, when I took on my first paralegal position for a small stipend below minimum wage. Initially I was only working 3 days a week of my choosing, and then it turned into 5 days per week working 9am – 5pm on £125 per week. To add to that I have no employee rights as I’m not a registered employee, I have to pay my own tax and earning far below the minimum wage and doing a secretarial, paralegal and clerking job in one. Absolutely appalling! Unfortunately, I only discovered how badly I was being exploited until recently, because I was so convinced by my 'so called' employer that this is sort of practice is absolutely normal for a budding trainee solicitor and I should be grateful that I have a position with his firm.
I was also promised a fee-earner role where I will get 'bonuses' according to how much work I do, I do loads of fee-earning work but I do not get remunerated for it, even though my presence has earned the firm a substantial amount of money, and I know it because I do all the billing! So now I'm of course looking for a new position elsewhere. My warning to young law graduates is to be very careful when offered undefined roles with law firms, especially the small ones. The sad truth is a lot of firms are looking for naive but clever grads to do all their work for them for nothing.
On January 15th, 2010 20:33:41 by
Anonymous (not verified).
Fair or not, it happens and will continue to happen.
From the employers perspective, its a great way to make sure that they are taking on an excellent candidate. I know of many occasions where people have interviewed brilliantly but are just not up to par for the job.
On January 15th, 2010 23:25:11 by
Ravi (not verified).
It is just abuse. I feel very strong about this. The legal system and qualification system makes a mockery out of young people aspiring to join the profession and move upwards.
These people use and abuse young people who are desperate for a job. Not just young - anyone they can.
I hope they get what they deserve - loose their business and struck off by the law soc!
On January 16th, 2010 09:56:23 by
Anonymous (not verified).
Requiring candidates to work for free for several months discriminates against those who simply cannot afford to do so. Some candidates do not have the option to take these positions because they have financial commitments (eg. rent) and may even have children to support. This exploitation discriminates against such people and should not be allowed. It should be a level playing field where everyone has the same opportunity, not just those who can afford to live without pay for several months.
On January 16th, 2010 18:11:09 by
Malka Zolty (not verified).
I'm unclear whether we are talking about (say) 2 weeks work experience in the summer holidays or many months unpaid work once a person is fully qualified.
If the former, I don't see any problem at all. In fact I was always surprised that work experience offered payment (about £250/week) because people coming for 2 weeks don't really help the firms. Firms can't charge for their time and make no money off them. In terms of work, it's actually quite difficult for a firm to find suitable work for those people because they're not there for long enough to make it worth it to invest time training them to do a task properly. I have always viewed these work experiences as very-long interviews, allowing employers to test out whether the applicant is suitable to their firm. No one has ever been paid to attend an interview...This is longer, but it is also much more likely that the firm will take on the applicant at the end of the process so may well be worth it for them.
On the latter, I think firms are taking advantage of a serious problem for young lawyers. As many newly-qualified solicitors did not get offered permanent places this year, they will now be out of the legal work market for (say) a year. Whilst they could get some other job during that year just to make money in the meantime, when that year passes, they are in no better position. Firms may take on more newly-qualified solicitors next year as the market picks up but preference will be given to the newly-qualifieds who just completed their training, rather than those that have not done legal work for the past year. There is a real danger that those people may never manage to get back unto the ladder, even once the market picks up.
I think the firms are fully aware of this, which is why they ask people to work for free for them, just to remain in the job market. This is extremely unfair to those candidates and it distorts the job market: if candidates are available for free, why would firms make more paying positions available?
I think this requires regulation: there should be a maximum time that firms can have a particular person work for them for free, of say 2 weeks. In addition, I think firms should be forbidden to charge to clients the hours of anyone who they don't pay. This way the incentive for firms to simply get valuable work done for free would disappear. There would remain only those unpaying positions which are truly designed to see if a canditate should be taken on permanently - the very long interview.
On January 16th, 2010 23:08:57 by
Anonymous (not verified).
Whether or not candidates have just qualified or are still seeking a training contract, a trial period exceeding a few weeks and demanding more than merely shadowing more qualified staff is nothing more than pure exploitation of vulnerable and desperate young solicitors, given the current economic climate.
Unfortunately exploitation is rife, with some employers expecting trainees to have the same size caseload as fee earners with little to no training or support for much lower renumeration compared to the fee earners.
On January 17th, 2010 13:04:33 by
Anonymous (not verified).
What I believe it is fair for a limited period because at the end employ will get benifit out of that employment
either in the form better cv or contract as long as it is for mutual benifit. The period should not be more than
3 months maximum.
On January 17th, 2010 19:56:11 by
Anon (not verified).
I have been working for the past ten months at a law firm for peanuts. I was paid for travel only. I have had to keep my weekend job as I simply could not afford to live on such low income. I finally decided to leave the firm I was working at as there was no chance of a future there. I was lead to beleive there could have been a future. It's appalling and the Law Society should monitor this more frequently. People like me who are willing to work their way up have had to go through bad experiences in the hope of getting somewhere in this profession.
On January 18th, 2010 16:45:28 by
Anonymous (not verified).
I think that practices which offer free 'work experience' are firms that are totally exploiting the current economic climate and firms that will continue to do so until professional bodies such as SRA take some serious action carrying severe penalties.
I have personally become a victim to this type of practice and I became involved because of the pressure the profession puts on young solicitors. We are expected to excel in our education and show firms that we have a great level of legal experience before we are even considered as a frontrunners for a training contract.
My free work experience was eventually paid for as a 'gesture of goodwill' which I must note was below wage standards and I totally found myself working really hard, managing my own cases, practically training myself with the fruits being taken by the firm.
My personal situation is not helped by the fact that even after numerous training applications and paralegal applications I have been left with no forthcoming opportunities. I have had legal employment agencies check my application and even they cannot give me a reason why it is that I have not been invited to an interview.
Unfortunately, this is our position until something is done about the fact that we pay extortionate fees to educate ourselves to the level required for the profession only to face fierce competition in obtaining a training contract!
Also, another point of discussion is the fact that I have recently come to know that individuals that have completed their legal education abroad do not have to complete a training contract before they can qualify, all that they have to do is complete one exam and they are qualified. Again this is totally unfair to all aspiring lawyers like me who have been educated in this country yet have to seek a training contract before they can qualify!
Please feel free to comment on my experience - I would be grateful for all your comments.
On January 20th, 2010 20:24:31 by
Anonymous (not verified).
When I applied for a training contract at the firm I am currently at (due to finish training contract in 1 month), I was asked to work for free. I was told that it was a trial period as well. I worked there for 3 months and I was only paid £5.00 per week for expenses!
I was then offered the training contract and told to stay on as a caseworker for another 6 months and that after this period my training contract would be drawn up. During this period I was paid £25.00 per week and I worked on numerous cases, handled my own caseload in the hope that this will lead to a training contract.
I had alot clients' who knew me personally and I felt a sense of loyalty towards them and my collegues hence I stayed (small high street firm). I knew I was being exploited but I was working such long hours, bringing work home I did not have time to apply for training contracts. The recession did not help and I was being promised the trainng contact so I stayed on with the fear that I may not be able to get a training contract. I worked an average of 60 hours per week, sometimes more!
Its nearly all over for me, I know many people who have been asked to work for free, its more common in the high street firms.
On July 22nd, 2010 11:32:44 by
Anonymous (not verified).
Although i believe working for free at a law firm is of great value to both employee and potential contractor, i think there is a limit to how much work is required, although i am yet too complete my dregree and lpc i am working at a law firm wich just covers my travel costs,although i am okay with this i do believe that if i was a student and was relying on my spare time to earn money for a living, i would be in a terrible position. I will continue to work at the firm i do for nothing because i am genuinly recieving experience i require in order to confirm solicitoring is what i want to do. I also believe that in order to complete your lpc work experience in a firm should be required as many spend so much money completing there lpc and find following work experience law isnt the career for them, after spending so much money. So therefore firms should be open to taking on work experience students, yes for nothing,but if they hold potential this ofcourse should change.
This is just pure and unadulterated exploitation! I could not believe my ears when I heard of stories detailing that employers are taking advantages of junior lawyers in a recession. These firms should be penalised for even daring to make such a suggestion.
It is a good way for a potential trainer to evaluate the potential trainee’s commitment to a career in law and also allows the potential trainee an opportunity to see whether he/she is ready to start a training contract and whether it should be at that firm.
As for the exploitation, surely it is for the potential trainee to learn how to assess the situation that he/she is in. If the potential trainee does not realise for him/herself in a reasonable amount of time that he/she is being exploited are they really the type of person who should be promoting other peoples’ best interests?
In my opinion the employers who ask candidates to work for free are either very cash poor and can't afford to pay or are very arrogant and disrespectful towards the person they expect to work for free, either way they are both qualities which would make me stay well clear of such a firm.
At the end of the day, everyone is looking for experience so why not get paid for helping out the firm in return for that experience? What is the argument not to pay candidates?
I previously applied for a job which was advertised as a 'training contract' position with 'immediate start', however in the interview I was told that I would in fact work for a trial period of some months unpaid as a personal assistant. My main duties as a P.A. would be to invite and organise applications and interviews for the same training contract position that I had in fact applied for myself. If after the expiry of the trial period I was still found to be the 'best' candidate, I would then be offered the training contract. This practice is appalling and relies on people being so desperate they will take any job offered. I was lucky enough to obtain a training contract shortly afterwards, but if I had been in a different position I would have been forced to accept.
I recently did a few weeks unpaid work experience at a law firm that I had missed out on a contract with the previous year. Although I would much rather the firm had offered to pay me for the work I did, it was the best chance I had a getting a training contract as there are so few around here (Sussex). The investment I made in doing the work paid off as they were very pleased with how I did and they offered me a contract on the strength of it. So, personally, it was definitely worthwhile but I understand totally the point made about exploitation. I don't think I was being exploited on this occasion as I knew there was a chance of getting a contract out of it but I have seen job ads for up to 6 months unpaid, which is completely outrageous and means that only the wealthy need apply.
FROM THE FIRMS' POINT OF VIEW
What counts as acceptable remuneration, if any at all, depends on the extent to which the firm is benefiting from the work done. The two extremes:
If the firm is planning to offload a substantial amount of fee-earning work onto an experienced candidate without remunerating them, they could be said to be abusing the current employment conditions (ie. far fewer jobs than candidates).
If the firm is going out of their way to enable an inexperienced candidate to shadow a fee-earner and gain experience, then the firm could be justified in not remunerating the candidate.
FROM THE CANDIDATES' POINT OF VIEW
There are good candidates on the market to whom the standard application process does not do justice.
If these opportunities are enabling such candidates to obtain employment where they would not otherwise be able to, then such trial periods are worthwhile, regardless of remuneration.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
How much legal experience does the candidate have?
What is the candidate’s aim (gain experience or gain employment)?
Is the firm covering travel costs?
Can the firm afford to pay the candidate remuneration?
A POSSIBLE WAY AHEAD
The aim is a good baseline: to determine whether the candidate is suitable.
The trial period should only last as long as necessary to achieve that aim.
HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS
The firm should commit to:
1. carrying out an initial interview where the candidate is encouraged to state whether they are attending with a view to being considered for employment;
2. appointing someone to monitor the performance of the candidate and give regular feedback (weekly, no more than 5 mins should suffice); and
4. a second HR interview to inform the candidate whether or not they are suitable, as soon as they have decided and no later than, say, 2 weeks after starting the trial period.
MONITORING
Better to ‘use the carrot than the stick’.
On completion of the vote, firms could be contacted by the JLD and encouraged to inform the JLD of their specific arrangements and commitment to fair treatment of candidates.
This could then be posted on the JLD website and advertised.
There is a difference between;
1. a degree or LPC student asking for a week or so's experience to help them improve their CV (and therefore their chance of getting a training contract);
and
2. whether it is fair of law firms, in the current economic climate, to ask potential employees (often newly qualified lawyers), to do several months of work for nothing on the understanding that they may (yes may, not will) get a paid position at the end.
It would be interesting to see what the views of most people would be of the second (which is a situation which is becoming increasingly common).
Unpaid work in a law firm should only be for students whom are shadowing to build up their CV; that is the purpose of shadowing. Anything else is exploitation. This type of unpaid work by junior solicitors is a method of keeping the poor out of the law profession and maintaing positions for the more affluent junior lawers. It has already become increasingly difficult for the poor to acquire a law degree because of the tuition fees at University. Therefore if this exploitation becomes more wide spread it shall be near enough impossible for the underprivileged to reach this profession, and by that, it would bring this profession into disrepute. The profession would have reverted back to the days of old when the common man had no place.
quite frankly to be asked to work for free together with the lack of job opportunities etc in Law provided by the Government is an insult to hard-earned Law qualifications
Although I can see the benefit to both employer and employee of an unpaid period of employment, as some of the people on here have made, the main problem that I can see with this is equal access. The general policy of making the law more accessible to all, and not just the preserve of the most affluent, is going to be dealt another blow if candidates are, not only saddled with increasingly burdensome student debts, but also required to spend significant periods of their working life needing even more subsidy, just to get to the beginning of their career.
I don't know of any other profession in which someone who has studied and then trained for a number of years could possibly be expected to work for nothing. Anything more than time spent shadowing more qualified staff is surely exploitation of the current market conditions and the consequent lack of training contracts.
I have recently secured a non-law job but have offered to work a few hours a week at a solicitors free of charge to showcase my skills and abilities; if I am offerred a job at the end it is a bonus; if not at least I've got the experience and 'kept my hand in'. In the current market I feel that any lawyer should consider the long term and not just the immediate gratification.
FAO: the Employers:
Asking Junior Lawyers to work for free without a realistic commitment for paid work may breach EU laws
on fairness and equality in the workplace.
FAO; the Candidates:
Now you know what it feels like to be exploited and used as cheap labour (i.e law grads and paralegals)
At least nominal pay I think is more appropriate and only for a short period of time. Even this I am not quite sure of as I have worked in an office where the senior solicitor had a series of paralegals working for free in the pretence that he was assessing them to see if they were suitable. It was pure and simple, exploitation and to make matters worse he had them working on non-legal aspects of his business and personal matters. He even commented on how clever he was to tap in on this free source of labour.
I think its appalling that this sort of thing takes place but unfortunately I am embroiled in a very similar situation myself, when I took on my first paralegal position for a small stipend below minimum wage. Initially I was only working 3 days a week of my choosing, and then it turned into 5 days per week working 9am – 5pm on £125 per week. To add to that I have no employee rights as I’m not a registered employee, I have to pay my own tax and earning far below the minimum wage and doing a secretarial, paralegal and clerking job in one. Absolutely appalling! Unfortunately, I only discovered how badly I was being exploited until recently, because I was so convinced by my 'so called' employer that this is sort of practice is absolutely normal for a budding trainee solicitor and I should be grateful that I have a position with his firm.
I was also promised a fee-earner role where I will get 'bonuses' according to how much work I do, I do loads of fee-earning work but I do not get remunerated for it, even though my presence has earned the firm a substantial amount of money, and I know it because I do all the billing! So now I'm of course looking for a new position elsewhere. My warning to young law graduates is to be very careful when offered undefined roles with law firms, especially the small ones. The sad truth is a lot of firms are looking for naive but clever grads to do all their work for them for nothing.
Fair or not, it happens and will continue to happen.
From the employers perspective, its a great way to make sure that they are taking on an excellent candidate. I know of many occasions where people have interviewed brilliantly but are just not up to par for the job.
It is just abuse. I feel very strong about this. The legal system and qualification system makes a mockery out of young people aspiring to join the profession and move upwards.
These people use and abuse young people who are desperate for a job. Not just young - anyone they can.
I hope they get what they deserve - loose their business and struck off by the law soc!
Requiring candidates to work for free for several months discriminates against those who simply cannot afford to do so. Some candidates do not have the option to take these positions because they have financial commitments (eg. rent) and may even have children to support. This exploitation discriminates against such people and should not be allowed. It should be a level playing field where everyone has the same opportunity, not just those who can afford to live without pay for several months.
I'm unclear whether we are talking about (say) 2 weeks work experience in the summer holidays or many months unpaid work once a person is fully qualified.
If the former, I don't see any problem at all. In fact I was always surprised that work experience offered payment (about £250/week) because people coming for 2 weeks don't really help the firms. Firms can't charge for their time and make no money off them. In terms of work, it's actually quite difficult for a firm to find suitable work for those people because they're not there for long enough to make it worth it to invest time training them to do a task properly. I have always viewed these work experiences as very-long interviews, allowing employers to test out whether the applicant is suitable to their firm. No one has ever been paid to attend an interview...This is longer, but it is also much more likely that the firm will take on the applicant at the end of the process so may well be worth it for them.
On the latter, I think firms are taking advantage of a serious problem for young lawyers. As many newly-qualified solicitors did not get offered permanent places this year, they will now be out of the legal work market for (say) a year. Whilst they could get some other job during that year just to make money in the meantime, when that year passes, they are in no better position. Firms may take on more newly-qualified solicitors next year as the market picks up but preference will be given to the newly-qualifieds who just completed their training, rather than those that have not done legal work for the past year. There is a real danger that those people may never manage to get back unto the ladder, even once the market picks up.
I think the firms are fully aware of this, which is why they ask people to work for free for them, just to remain in the job market. This is extremely unfair to those candidates and it distorts the job market: if candidates are available for free, why would firms make more paying positions available?
I think this requires regulation: there should be a maximum time that firms can have a particular person work for them for free, of say 2 weeks. In addition, I think firms should be forbidden to charge to clients the hours of anyone who they don't pay. This way the incentive for firms to simply get valuable work done for free would disappear. There would remain only those unpaying positions which are truly designed to see if a canditate should be taken on permanently - the very long interview.
Whether or not candidates have just qualified or are still seeking a training contract, a trial period exceeding a few weeks and demanding more than merely shadowing more qualified staff is nothing more than pure exploitation of vulnerable and desperate young solicitors, given the current economic climate.
Unfortunately exploitation is rife, with some employers expecting trainees to have the same size caseload as fee earners with little to no training or support for much lower renumeration compared to the fee earners.
What I believe it is fair for a limited period because at the end employ will get benifit out of that employment
either in the form better cv or contract as long as it is for mutual benifit. The period should not be more than
3 months maximum.
I have been working for the past ten months at a law firm for peanuts. I was paid for travel only. I have had to keep my weekend job as I simply could not afford to live on such low income. I finally decided to leave the firm I was working at as there was no chance of a future there. I was lead to beleive there could have been a future. It's appalling and the Law Society should monitor this more frequently. People like me who are willing to work their way up have had to go through bad experiences in the hope of getting somewhere in this profession.
I think that practices which offer free 'work experience' are firms that are totally exploiting the current economic climate and firms that will continue to do so until professional bodies such as SRA take some serious action carrying severe penalties.
I have personally become a victim to this type of practice and I became involved because of the pressure the profession puts on young solicitors. We are expected to excel in our education and show firms that we have a great level of legal experience before we are even considered as a frontrunners for a training contract.
My free work experience was eventually paid for as a 'gesture of goodwill' which I must note was below wage standards and I totally found myself working really hard, managing my own cases, practically training myself with the fruits being taken by the firm.
My personal situation is not helped by the fact that even after numerous training applications and paralegal applications I have been left with no forthcoming opportunities. I have had legal employment agencies check my application and even they cannot give me a reason why it is that I have not been invited to an interview.
Unfortunately, this is our position until something is done about the fact that we pay extortionate fees to educate ourselves to the level required for the profession only to face fierce competition in obtaining a training contract!
Also, another point of discussion is the fact that I have recently come to know that individuals that have completed their legal education abroad do not have to complete a training contract before they can qualify, all that they have to do is complete one exam and they are qualified. Again this is totally unfair to all aspiring lawyers like me who have been educated in this country yet have to seek a training contract before they can qualify!
Please feel free to comment on my experience - I would be grateful for all your comments.
When I applied for a training contract at the firm I am currently at (due to finish training contract in 1 month), I was asked to work for free. I was told that it was a trial period as well. I worked there for 3 months and I was only paid £5.00 per week for expenses!
I was then offered the training contract and told to stay on as a caseworker for another 6 months and that after this period my training contract would be drawn up. During this period I was paid £25.00 per week and I worked on numerous cases, handled my own caseload in the hope that this will lead to a training contract.
I had alot clients' who knew me personally and I felt a sense of loyalty towards them and my collegues hence I stayed (small high street firm). I knew I was being exploited but I was working such long hours, bringing work home I did not have time to apply for training contracts. The recession did not help and I was being promised the trainng contact so I stayed on with the fear that I may not be able to get a training contract. I worked an average of 60 hours per week, sometimes more!
Its nearly all over for me, I know many people who have been asked to work for free, its more common in the high street firms.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/aboutlawsociety/career/vacancies/view=curre...
Interesting to note even the Law Society is looking for volunteer employees...
Although i believe working for free at a law firm is of great value to both employee and potential contractor, i think there is a limit to how much work is required, although i am yet too complete my dregree and lpc i am working at a law firm wich just covers my travel costs,although i am okay with this i do believe that if i was a student and was relying on my spare time to earn money for a living, i would be in a terrible position. I will continue to work at the firm i do for nothing because i am genuinly recieving experience i require in order to confirm solicitoring is what i want to do. I also believe that in order to complete your lpc work experience in a firm should be required as many spend so much money completing there lpc and find following work experience law isnt the career for them, after spending so much money. So therefore firms should be open to taking on work experience students, yes for nothing,but if they hold potential this ofcourse should change.