The grumpy young men; the anti-social media movement for trainees





Miss TS kinda cracked with all the hatin.......





As some of you might be aware from my (slightly frustrated) tweets, my firm has recently embraced* social media.

*read introduced in a stumbling, halting series of initatives, not unlike like bambi standing up.

The trainees have been involved from the start, not through choice but through the powers that be assuming young people have an affinity for all things technology. Born in the digital age, we use and understand technology without thinking, it is second nature to us. Or so they thought.

It turns out, I am the only trainee tweeter and, I am sad to say, the only trainee who had ever read a law blog. Shock horror! I thought perhaps this may have been due to the previously onerous social media policy, which was very heavy handed and likely to put off any newbie from going anywhere near. Or perhaps like me, the trainees secretly blog and tweet but didn't want to admit it.

In fact this was far from the case. Half the trainees are social media sceptics.

I know that most of those who slate social media have never used it; they simply don't understand the uses of twitter or linked in. A lot of sceptics convert and rave about social media once they have learnt how to use it. Personally my knowledge and understanding of the law has been widended through twitter discussions and blogging has hugely improved my writing skills (if I do say so myself, I think I write a damn good blogpost!). Even if not used to engage, twitter delivers a wealth of relevant, topical and timely information to your screen just by following the right accounts. Several snippets I picked up from client tweets gave my supervisor an edge whilst talking to the client in question, information which was not available through any other medium.

The trainees are not converts in waiting - they have actively tried social media and dismissed it. They feel it is a waste of time they could be using elsewhere and they found no value in the information disseminated. Even linked in didn't interest them as they had no client contacts to link in with.

In particular I have been stumped by the response to one idea from marketing; a trainee blog; hosted by the firm but run by trainees. The content will be written from a trainee point of view and more personalised than the client briefing style blogs the firm currently hosts. The target audience is those looking for training contracts initially but, provided it is done well, could very possibly have a wider appeal. On a more selfish note, a trainee blog would be a good personal marketing tool both internally and externally as, unlike the articles that many of the trainees write for their supervisors or sector groups, we would take the credit. It would give us something to push through social media and, of course top of the list, something to put on the CV.

Unfortunately, what I thought would be an easy win has turned out to be a bit of a nightmare. Every spearhead meeting I would organise with the trainees, the sceptics would turn up and slate the idea. I actually had one trainee tell me 'there was nothing interesting about his job to write about'. Lucky for him, there was no partner in the room! Despite the proposed discussion topics for the sessions (e.g. post ideas, partner interviews and the infamous naming meeting that lasted 2 hours) they manage to turn the conversation back to their lack of belief in the idea. What iritates me most about this is that it isn't compulsory; they turn up to the meetings out of choice!

All in all I am flabbergasted (yes, it merits the use of that word) that trainees could be so narrow minded. I am not suggesting that everyone should be forced to use social media, not at all. However, actively shooting down a new iniative because you don't see the merit in it and aren't willing to try shows lack of vision. Law firms are going to have to evolve to survive; how are they going to act if they are so opposed to a little optional idea?

I hope, trainees to be, that you will be more open to innovation when you become trainees!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

My name is TS, Miss TS.



I wear something similar under my suit!



Following Ashley Connick's post today about anonymous blawging I thought I would explain my reasons for not blogging as the Real Me (I am sorry to disappoint, those legs aren't mine. I do have a pair of shoes remarkably similar though!)



With a purely vain starting note, my professional picture is AWFUL. Fuji knows how the photographer got the job because he clearly knows nothing about angles, lighting or handling a camera. Worst of all, it looks like I have teeth the same shade as cheesy puffs. I do not have orange teeth. Obviously I wouldn't use such a terrible photo on twitter but I do have to use it on my Linked in account (work enforced) and the smaller the number of people who see it before I can get it redone the better. I know that isn't the point of Linked in but it really is That Bad.



I have to say that my secret identity (apart from making me a little like a spy - 00TS? or a ninja.........) isn't because I am shy, like Mr Bizzle. I also don't feel the need to get changed in telephone boxes necessitating an alter ego to explain public indecency.  My other reasons revolves around protection and censorship. I have to say that my Firm is a little behind in the social media world. While we do have a Social Media Strategy, it is more an acknowledgement it exists rather than an approach to its use. At a recent trainee meeting (trainees plus HR) they suggested creating a Firm facebook page. I raised the possibility of a Firm Trainee twitter account and discovered I was the only twitterer. Needless to say I thought it was probably a little advanced to discuss blogging at any length...

This being the case I don't think the Firm is ready for a trainee who blogs. I'm not confident they would understand my reasons or allow me to continue uncensored, if I was allowed at all. The thought that if I was discovered the Firm might use my blog as free advertising chills me but I cannot shrug off the feeling that they would try to take advantage. Neither do I want to be the 'tweeting trainee' but undoubtedly that is what I would become!

There is the argument for being able to say something I wouldn't say in front of my supervisor. I want to be able to write without fear of getting caught with my laptop in my mouth. This isn't the overarching reason for me hiding behind a fabulous pair of shoes but is an added bonus.

The real reason I have kept myself to myself, as it were, is the lack of presence of the Firm within the social media world. As far as I know I am the only twegal in the office! I know my readership isn't huge and I am not in any way saying that my little blog would have an effect, detrimental or other wise. It is more I would not want anyone to form an opinion of the Firm based on what I say (the, although small, outcry following my post on ghostwriting is case in point) and however unlikely this may be it is an eventuality that. if it were possible, would affect my writing.

Put simply, I don't want to be censored, sub consciously or otherwise. Being anonymous is the way I have decided to approach this. I am far too prone to ranting to rely on my blog being positive and I can't control who may read what I post. If I didn't want anyone to see it I'd write a diary, complete with lock and key!
So, until I am confident that my Firm are blog friendly (and until I have a safe NQ position....) I will hide behind my shoes.

There is the reverse downside to being anonymous. While I can't be found for the wrong reasons I also cannot be found for the right ones. If someone is particularly impressed with my writing or tweeting (you never know!) I can't personally take the glory, or the work if that was being offered. I am not writing to promote myself so this is not an problem at the moment. Ask me again when I have been offered something and I might just tell you my name.......

Trainee solicitor; complimentary ghostwriter

I know the feeling Ewan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Heavies and A Window Seat: Day 1 in Insolvency

So today was my first day as an Insolvency trainee. I spent most of the day reading in and organising myself  but I have learnt a few things already:

1. Being one extra floor up is a lot harder than just a flight of stairs - everything is that much further away. A trip to the post room now has to be planned rather than just making a quick dash down the stairs. I bumped into so many people walking through the building that it took half an hour!



My fake laugh model - too much?



2. A window seat IS more prestigious. I thought that it was some office politic nonsense that fee earners had got caught up in - the battle for a window seat. But now I am sat in one I can totally see the appeal! Plus I get to watch the circuit class lunge across the car park - 2 o'clock entertainment to break up the day.

3. The business partners like to make terrible jokes and expect the subordinates to laugh. As an example: someone brought back sweets from France today. Head of Business "I like bon bons. And these sweets are pretty good too! haw haw" *looks around to check everyone a) got it and b) is laughing* I'm going to have to practice my fake laugh to survive in this department

4. You don't leave at 5.30 in business. In property I once stayed until 6 and got told to go home. Tonight I didn't even realise it was 6 as the department was still buzzing. Guess I'm in for some late(r) nights!!!!

5. I don't drink tea if no one makes it for me (sorry Mr Bizzle I don't run on coffee). I thought I was addicted but turns out without a cup magically appearing on my desk (courtesy of some very efficient and equally caffeine addicted secretaries) I don't miss it......

I didn't learn a lot about insolvency, I'm sure that will come with time. Except, and I thought this was fairly obvious,  that hiring Russian heavies to forfeit a lease is not a good idea.........

Specialist Trainees: a contradiction?

A Trainees innovative marketing idea.......?

Today the firm's trainees got allocated to sectors. The aim is to give us a 'consistant focal point for marketing and business development throughout our training and beyond'. Something to get really passionate about. I have a sneaky suspicion the sectors need some donkeys to do the grunt work - trainees step up.

Most commercial law firms have sectors - these are multi departmental teams designed to work for a particular type of client. In London they sound more like degree subjects than client groups; life sciences or recreational facilities. Down in the West Country we have such wonders as agriculture and rural affairs and care homes. The idea is that the expertise and marketing strategies of these target areas can be unified across the firm to give better service but also get more clients. Its easier for potential clients to identify with a category they may fit into rather than trying to picture which of the services a firm offices they might need.

Its a good idea and it works well. It allows lawyers to build up a specialism without neglecting their more general practice. It is easier to cross sell services for those in the sector and those outside - in a firm like mine where this is particularly poor, every little helps! Sector specific targeting gives a focus to marketing. And it gives the marketing teams an opportunity to put together little leaflets with more interesting pictures than the usual 'man in suit looking friendly but serious'.

What I am unsure about is the trainees' role in all this. Do we have enough experience after 6 months to be able to choose an area we are passionate about? Equally, do we have enough experience to be able to contribute anything other than manpower to what is essentially a specialism? There is similar discontent among the sector heads; they are concerned that with the trainees seat hopping, their involvement will be inconsistent and unreliable.

I can see the principle behind it and the opportunity to get involved in cross-firm initiatives is worthwhile for any trainee. I am glad we haven't been pigeon holed into sectors either - we were given a choice (not much of one given the sectors in my Firm, but choice none the less).

I do think the practice is going to fall short of the vision however. The impression from Head of Marketing (a defected lawyer no less - gone to the dark side she has) was that each sector 'needed' a trainee. Yes, needed. That isn't the word used for opportunities but a word used with intent. Recruiting trainees with mailshot stuffing and target cold calling in mind, for example. The firm has just launched a publications service for the sector groups which needs populating with articles and updates. No guesses for who is going to be lumbered with the research and no extra points for who is unlikely to get the end credit.

I would be interested to know if other firms have sector trainees or similar. In my mind it is too early in my career to choose a specialism. I may qualify into an area that has no relevance to my new sector - education. I doubt my next seat is going to have a lot of relevance for example. I am also not looking forward to explaining to my supervisor when I have urgent sector work that his will have to wait. Apparently this is a battle fought for anyone in a sector not directly linked to their department: Tourism in Commercial Property for example.

All in all I think a need for some lackeys to do the work no one else has the time for has pushed our trainees into specialist areas too soon.

One thing from the meeting I did find amusing - the sectors have been set up with twitter accounts. May be tweeting under another guise very soon!