Law Students

2006-08-02T06:08:00.000+01:00

The advantages of a non-law degreeBy Danny Lee;
GONE are the days when solicitors and barristers were expected to have buried their heads in law books from the day they finished potty training. Law firms and chambers are increasingly recognising the value of degrees such as languages, music, history and economics.
NI_MPU('middle');
"Some students will bring with them a wider knowledge of the law. Others will bring different skills such as languages, scientific or business knowledge," a spokeswoman for the Law Society of England and Wales says. "All subjects can be of benefit when in practice."
Law Society statistics show that 18 per cent of entrants to the profession have a non-law degree. Research by the department for education and training at the Bar Council of England and Wales shows that 25 per cent of those enrolled on the Bar Vocational Course have a non-law degree, a figure that has risen over the past ten years.
"We have a positive attitude towards recruiting those who have not studied law as an undergraduate degree," says Deborah Dalgleish, head of UK graduate recruitment at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Her intake includes between 40 to 45 per cent of non-law graduates. "We want people with the right intellectual raw material — it is up to us to identify this through our selection process. If the right raw material is not there, no amount of legal study can compensate for that."
Claire Cherrington, head of graduate recruitment at Linklaters, which recruits one third non-law graduates, believes that there can be advantages to a non-law degree. "People must think about a career in the law as something they really want to do because they’re committing themselves to the extra year of study," she says. "They can tend to be more focused because of that." Certain subjects may also offer skills useful in law, she says. "History, economics and some of the sciences give students useful skills, such as analysis, research and problem-solving abilities, for becoming a lawyer."
Cherrington does not think that the extra year should deter anyone from studying the subject of their choice, however. She points out that "most firms will sponsor law and non-law students alike, including for the extra year. We would encourage people from all backgrounds. We even have a music graduate."
Recruiters do not seem to place graduates from any subject beyond the reach of a career in law. But some point out that if recruits do not have a degree related to the job, there may be some extra explaining to do at the interview stage. "If someone has studied something that does not look business-orientated then, as a commercial firm, we would be bound to look at that. But it wouldn’t rule you out," Cherrington says.
Opportunities for the non-law graduate at the Bar present a similar picture. Helen Mountfield, who has a history degree, is chairman of the training committee at Matrix Chambers. Its intake includes 25 per cent non-law graduates. "We try to look for people who have something else to bring to law, not just academic brilliance," she says. "We will look for a real interest in access to justice, which may have been demonstrated in one or more ways. When we shortlist for interviews, out of usually about 450 applications, we assess potential recruits on a points system with a maximum of 14 points, at least 10 of which must be scored to get through to the first interview. Only five of these points are awarded for academic ability, the rest are awarded for some wider engagement in, for example, advocacy, voluntary or political work. We have people here who have studied all sorts of degrees, including politics, economics and engineering."
David Douglas, chief executive of Littleton Chambers, says its intake breaks down 75:25 in favour of a law degree. "There is a strongly held view that diversity can be a strength and we welcome applications from those with any relevant degree," he says. "Great emphasis is placed on the breadth of interests and activities followed at university and the ability to communicate and interact with solicitors and clients."
Nick Root, a partner in Taylor Root Legal Recruitment, has the final word: "Going back a few years there were one or two firms that preferred law degrees. Now that is not an issue once people are qualified. People look at the level of degree, but not the subject."
If you don’t have a law degree, you will need an extra year of study for the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) or Common Professional Examination, which teaches you the law, before starting the Legal Practice Course. A law school, Law Society, Bar Council or Inns of Court scholarship scheme or sponsorship from a firm or chambers may provide funding for this extra year. Leading banks will also provide career-development loans. Apply for funding at least a year before you intend to start the course.
John Herrmann, careers director of BPP Law School, says: "Applications for the course starting in September open on November 1 the year before and close on February 1. Although you can apply to start the GDL right up until just before the course starts, the best law schools fill up quickly, so the earlier you apply the better. Most large and many medium-sized firms recruit two years in advance so you should be applying for training contracts to this type of firm around this time. Other firms recruit one year or even a few months in advance."
GDL applications are made through the Central Applications Board: www.lawcabs.ac.uk

2006-08-02T06:06:00.000+01:00

Newly qualifieds given huge boost in latest salary hikes:

Newly qualified and trainee solicitors across the City have been celebrating after receiving their biggest pay rises for several years.

Herbert Smith, Norton Rose, Simmons & Simmons and SJ Berwin have boosted their newly qualified's salaries by 10 per cent to £55,000. Linklaters, which kicked off the salary hikes, has increased its newly qualified's salaries by 6 per cent to £55,100.

Magic circle firms Allen & Overy (A&O) and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer have increased their newly qualified's salaries to £52,000 and £55,000 respectively. Freshfields has also extended its performance-related bonus to its most junior lawyers for the first time. Lovells has announced newly qualified pay rises just below the benchmark of £53,000. The firm has also beefed up its performance-related bonus for all associates to 30 per cent from 2007.
Trainees have also benefitted from the recent wave of pay rises. A&O and Linklaters are now paying their first- year trainees £33,000 and £31,300 respectively. Herbert Smith, Linklaters and Lovells have increased their first-year trainee pay to £31,000. Meanwhile, national firms Addleshaw Goddard and Eversheds now pay their first-year trainees in London £29,000.
For second-year trainees, A&O is now paying £37,000, Lovells and Herbert Smith £35,000 and Norton Rose £33,000. Addleshaws and Eversheds will pay their London-based second-year trainees £32,000.
Lovells is also extending a number of its staff benefits, including interest-free season ticket loans, to its LPC students. Clare Harris, head of graduate recruitment at Lovells, attributed the pay rises to a number of factors. "Investment banking is very active and management consultancy is back online," she said. "Firms are also very mindful of student debt."
At the time Lawyer 2B went to press, Clifford Chance, which shocked the market by slashing its newly qualified salaries in 2003, was the only magic circle firm not to have announced associate pay rises

2006-08-02T06:01:00.000+01:00

Lesbians lose their battle for foreign marriage to be legalised
THE leading family judge in England reinforced the traditional view of marriage yesterday as he rejected an attempt by two lesbians to have their Canadian wedding legalised in Britain. Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson lost their High Court fight to be recognised in law as a married couple. The British couple used human rights laws to argue that the union should have full legal status under English law. But Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division of the High Court, also cited human rights legislation in dismissing their application.He ruled that “to accord a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly in the face of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as fail to recognise physical reality”.
The university professors, who married while working in Vancouver in 2003, said that they were “deeply disappointed by the judgment” and claimed that it perpetuated discrimination. They have described civil partnerships as “insulting and discriminatory”.
If their case had been successful it could have allowed gay couples to wed abroad and have their marriages legalised on return to Britain. In rejecting their case the judge gave a conservative definition of marriage, in language steeped in history and echoing that of the Solemnisation of Matrimony in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The sermon defines holy matrimony as “an honourable estate, ordained for the procreation of children . . . and for a remedy against sin and to avoid fornication”.
It is a description to which Sir Mark believes the majority of people still adhere, nearly 350 years later. He wrote: “It is apparent that the majority of people, or at least of governments, not only in England but Europe-wide, regard marriage as an age-old institution, valued and valuable, respectable and respected, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also the procreation of children and their development and nurture in a family unit, in which both maternal and paternal influences are available.”
Canada was one of the first countries to legalise same-sex marriages, along with Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands.
But the judge said that the couple faced “an insurmountable hurdle” in trying to have a same-sex union recognised in English law.
“The belief that this form of relationship [marriage] is the one which best encourages stability in a well-regulated society is not a disreputable or outmoded notion based upon ideas of exclusivity, marginalisation, disapproval or discrimination against homosexuals, or any other persons who by reason of their sexual orientation or for other reasons prefer to form a same-sex union,” he said. Marriage was, by “long-standing definition and acceptance”, a formal relationship between a man and a woman, primarily designed for producing and rearing children.
The couple’s marriage was automatically deemed in the United Kingdom to be a civil partnership under laws introduced last December.The couple, who live in North Yorkshire, brought the case with the support of OutRage!, the gay rights organisation, and Liberty, the human rights watchdog.
Professor Wilkinson, 52, who works in the psychology department of Loughborough University, said: “We are deeply disappointed by the judgment.”
She said that they had been “stripped of our marriage” by a judge who preferred to uphold the traditional notion of marriage.
“It perpetuates discrimination and it sends out the message that lesbian and gay marriages are inferior,” she said. “This judgment will not stand the test of time.” Costs were awarded against the couple, but capped at £25,000. They were given leave to appeal.
SIR MARK POTTER'S JUDGMENT
‘It is apparent that the majority of people Europe- wide regard marriage as an institution, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also the procreation of children’
‘By withholding from same-sex partners the actual title and status of marriage, the Government declined to alter the almost universal recognition of marriage but without in any way failing to recognise the rights of same-sex couples’
‘The European Convention on Human Rights has yet to recognise a childless, same-sex relationship as constituting family life’
‘The institution of marriage is afforded a particular status within the convention, as a union between parties of the oppostite sex'