Rumpole Jnr - Not prepared to work on a minimum wage, who do you think you are?

Back to blog |  Print version

02/02/2012

Having read the Gazette and my fellow blogger Hummingbird's recent piece, there seems to be yet another debate over trainee salaries. The latest one is over plans to scrap minimum salaries for trainee solicitors. Supporters of the minimum trainee salary say that it is there to protect trainees from being exploited by firms, and ensure that anyone, from any background, can become a solicitor. Supporters of scrapping the minimum salary say it will make students more aware of the potential implications of embarking on a career in law, and that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows.

When I started as a paralegal I was offered a £12,000 salary - a little over the minimum wage, but jumped at the chance for employment. Would I accept a training contract at the same wage? Of course I would, and any other paralegal or LPC student would say the same thing. Yet the supporters of the minimum trainee salary would say that it is this mentality which undermines current trainees and their rights. The JLD (Junior Lawyers Division) says that people with student loans, LPC loans and other debts cannot afford to live if the wage is scrapped, and doing so will put off the less fortunate. Maybe people will now make their choices much more carefully. It shouldn’t put off people trying to becoming solicitors, but it should make them more aware of the fact that being a solicitor does not guarantee you an easy and want-for-nothing life. Too many wannabe lawyers willing to do the job at whatever cost plays right into firms’ hands. It’s simply supply and demand - too many LPC graduates, not enough contracts.

What gives potential lawyers the right to be granted a minimum salary which is more than any other profession or job? Trainee doctors aren’t guaranteed more protection, and the same is true of apprentices learning a trade. What gives us the right to be afforded more protection when in fact we are not even fully qualified? Just because we’ve done a degree does not give us the right to be given a better minimum wage than anyone else.

Being a trainee solicitor doesn’t mean that you’ve made it and that you're actually any good. The proof comes upon qualification and whether you’re kept on. I appreciate that it’s extremely difficult to obtain a training contract, but it doesn’t mean that you're any good simply because you can complete a few tests and blag a few interviews.

Indeed, if there was any debate, it should be on whether a cap on trainee salaries should be introduced. City firm trainees earning £30,000 (more in many cases) is absurd, and us lawyers ask why the public think we’re fat cats and not to be trusted. How can a firm justify that salary? Indeed, how does that trainee justify that he/she worth that wage? Am I worth £30,000? More? As a trainee, no. As far as I’m concerned, lawyers can sometimes be just as bad as the bankers and their bonuses.

People are well aware of the risks and potential pitfalls of trying to enter this profession. I think that the scrapping of the minimum wage may help the legal professionals of the future rather than hinder them.
 

Recent comments

• Anonymous | 02/02/2012 11:08 AM

  Trainee lawyers are often exploited. We have at least 4 years of higher education behind us, debts and to gain a TC these days, often have a fair amount of work experience. Many law firms who are doing well exploit their junior staff and the minimum salary prevents this from happening to an extent. Scrapping the minimum salary will create another barrier to entry for those who do not have parents to bankroll their career. It also draws the best people away from the high street / legal aid / human rights firms and into the jaws of the faceless corporate firms. Attracting top talent is important and exploitative salaries will not do that.

• Stephen Jones | 02/02/2012 19:56 PM

  I totally agree with all points raised in the above comment. However, I respond to your points as follows:
  1) Law students are well aware of the risks of being exploited, and yet they continue to go through with it. More fool us?
  2) Just because we have gone through so much does not make us privileged enough to be granted a superior minimum wage to the rest of the UK workforce. Why us? No doubt accountants, doctors and other professionals work just as hard and those doing their training are not given an increased minimum wage.
  3) Talent will come out in the whitewash. Loans can be paid back and scrapping it will not stop people from chasing TCs
  4) People do not go to the high street and legal aid firms for the money. There is no money in these types of firms anymore. Trainess and solicitors go into these practices for other reasons than financial ones.
  5) Students are more interested in gaining a TC straight away through interviews rather than earning one by doing paralegalling and proving oneself to their firm. They are not prepared to go to to the high street firm and see it as a last resort when rejected from all other firms.
  6) When you first wanted to become a solicitor, what type of lawyer did you want to be? I'm pretty sure it was not to be a city or corporate one.
  Rumpole

• Anonymous | 07/02/2012 21:59 PM

  I strongly disagree with your article and many of the comments raised above. Firms pay trainees £12,000 because they can. Simple as. People are willing to accept training contracts at this wage. The firms are exploiting people who are desperate to go into a career as a solicitor by paying them a lower salary than one would receive for stacking shelves at Sainsburys. Solicitors need to be intelligent, they need to be hard working and they need to be dedicated - successfully completing a degree and then the GDL/LPC and putting in long and dedicated hours as a trainee - it is only right that the salary reflects this - trainee solicitors deserve a decent and above average wage - not because they are "better" than anybody else but because of the above factors I have listed.
  
  Secondly, I always wanted to be a corporate lawyer. I am interested in business and enjoy the buzz of the city. I have never been interested in helping individuals on the high street and thus I would never consider high street law as an option. I appreciate that other people may be passionate about high street law but its not for me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going into law for the money. Law is often a very selfish industry.

• Anonymous | 10/02/2012 20:24 PM

  You more than entitled to your opinion, but I just cannot agree with your view that just because a person has done a degree and an GDL/LPC it entitles a person to be guaranteed a minimum wage higher than any other profession or job. It is that mindset that the public hear and see about which is why we as a profession are seen as distrusting and money grabbing. No doubt many other professionals and graduates work just as hard as law students, so why should we be rewarded more?
  
  You mentioned that you always wanted to be a corporate lawyer. To be such a lawyer I would think that some business acumen and sense would be needed. How does this sound…oversupply of a product means a decrease in that product value. Turn that into what we are discussing, too many law students drive down what we are worth to employers. Yes employers do take advantage, but with such plentiful opportunity, wouldn’t everyone do the same. Think as a businessman (or woman), why pay someone for a job, when they can go to another with the same skills and qualifications who will do the same job for less. Its business sense.
  
  The real discussion is that of oversupply – too many LPC providers are giving false hopes to people who should never have embarked in the search for a training contract. In any given year there are 10,000 LPC students and only 3000 training contracts available. It simply cannot go on this way.
  
  Like I have said, we as law graduates and trainees are well aware of the financial pitfalls of being a paralegal or trainee. However, it is whether we are willing to put up with it for a really enjoyable and rewarding long term career. Thanks for your input.
  R

• Anonymous | 28/02/2012 00:59 AM

  There are some points you make that I can agree with and understand your viewpoint. However you do come across very 'anti corporate lawyer' especially with your comparison of some lawyers to corporate bankers. Maybe you were referring to the minority of lawyers/partners at the top of the big magic circle, then again maybe you weren't. Either way I think you should remember who your audience is here.
  
  In particular I would like to know your thoughts on the following;
  1) How do you know a trainee at a city law firm does not justify the wage of £30,000? How would you quantify who is worth £30,000? Maybe based on what they bill for a firm each month?
  2) You say, 'Maybe people will now make their choices much more carefully' and' law students are well aware of the risks of being exploited' and "too many LPC providers are giving false hopes". So where does the blame lie- the providers or the students? In my view the younger students are simply not being given enough information to make realistic and informed choices before commencing either a law degree, the GDL or the LPC. Where does the responsibility lie?
  3) Do you know if any doctors, accounts etc are actually paid minimum wage? Or the equivalent (or less) of the trainee solicitors minimum wage? Most grad jobs to my knowledge are higher than both. The point being the training and skills that are picked up are acknowledged in the level of salary.
  
  I completely agree that there is oversupply especially given the state the economy has been/is in. However I completely disagree that all graduates are well aware of the financial pitfalls of being a paralegal or trainee. I think this is fundamentally incorrect and gets to the heart of the problem. I believe the majority of students embarking on a legal career either at Uni or even entering the LPC are unaware of the reality of the profession. Students need to be made aware of the stats/figures etc at the outset and perhaps given that 'reality check'. Being a lawyer is no "Ally McBeal" or "Franklin and Bash", certainly not in the UK anyway!

• Anonymous | 01/03/2012 21:49 PM

  In response to your questions:
  1) We are still "trainees" in every sense of the word, whether corporate, city or legal aid. How many other trainees in any other profession are paid that much. I just don't think any graduate is worth that much money regardless of billing capactity. We are still trainees. Even if a trainee can bill £105 an hour, don't you think that's an awful lot for someone whose not even fully qualified? That's just my opinion.
  
  2) I feel that the LPC providers do not make prospective lawyers aware of the actual chances of obtaining a training contract. The percentage is decreasing year on year, yet LPC numbers are steadily on the rise. The problem is that the LPC providers are not judged on their success rates in students getting training contracts, they are merely there to provide a course which means you can start a training contract. The SRA or Law Society should really examine the role and need for the LPC as I feel it can possibly be a barrier to the less able who cannot afford this huge fee. I found the LPC a waste of time, a complete waste of money, and I learnt more as a paralegal in a month than I did for the whole of the LPC. However, it is also the responsibilty of the student not to enter the LPC blind, and they should do their research before trying it.
  
  3) I only know of trainees in legal aid firms and in local government. They are all on the minimum wage and all say they cannot afford to live. I am a little over that wage and know it is very hard to survive. But I accept it because I know it will be worth it in the end. I understand it's hard, but we should as a profession, bite the bullet and get on with it. I'm sure all of us boast about being a lawyer, so can't we put up with this "disadvantage" for 2 years in a potential 40 year career?
  
  Again, I refer to oversupply which ultimately drives costs down...
  
  R