[.ACS.]

A pretty broad question, I know, but what are the chances of me getting a law firm to cover the costs for my GDL if I have a BSc Economics and MSc Economics from Southampton?

I've no actual law work experience as of yet, only actuarial and finance related, and lots of extra-curriculars, and there is the possibility that I'll have my undergraduate dissertation published by a think-tank as a policy report.

Is having gone to Southampton going to rule out my chances for a good firm covering my GDL costs? Is it simply a case of getting law-related work experience now? Will also having a Masters in a non-law related field disadvantage me further than if I did the GDL straight after my BSc? (The MSc will be next academic year, so 2012/2013.)

[roh]

Your only problem so far as I can see would be proving your commitment to law. Funding the GDL, LPC and 2 years worth of maintenance grant is a sizeable financial commitment to someone by a firm and they don't want to spend all that on someone who's not going to follow it through.

You've got chance to apply for VSs next year though so can make up for it with those.

Not sure about the masters/uni, sure someone more in the know can answer.

[Generalist]

Just as a disclaimer, this post is only careers advice, not legal advice:

Your chances are incredibly high even without legal experience. Could you elaborate on the extra-curricular activities you have worked on?

During your MSc, I would recommend that you join your university's relevant law and pro bono societies and get involved as a treasurer or something similar if it is not too late to do so. See if you can join your local Citizens Advice Bureau or the Free Representation Unit. If feasible, see if any part-time, unpaid work is available at any local firms. Another possibility is to vist the Companies House website and set up a company for only £18. You could then learn how to file the accounts for that company. That can just as well go on your CV as it demonstrates your desire to understand the law in practice. Furthermore, you could also use that corporate vehicle for a wide array of things, including understanding how to pay the various kinds of taxes involved. You mentioned that you wrote a dissertation / policy report. That is excellent, have you considered writing a blog that might convey your commercial awareness on a regular basis?

Legal recruiters do seek out Southampton, so as long as you can demonstrate through your past experiences that you have an eye for the intersection of law and commerce, meaning you work to discern what may be considered the relevant legal issues in a business sector, then studying economics is no problem at all. I recommend that you contact your university's careers service and ask about law firms that visit Southampton.

In many ways, the experiences you have already mentioned add a great deal that law firms cannot typically secure through an applicant with only the LLB degree.

[chalks]

(Original post by Generalist)
Just as a disclaimer, this post is only careers advice, not legal advice:

Your chances are incredibly high even without legal experience. Could you elaborate on the extra-curricular activities you have worked on?

During your MSc, I would recommend that you join your university's relevant law and pro bono societies and get involved as a treasurer or something similar if it is not too late to do so. See if you can join your local Citizens Advice Bureau or the Free Representation Unit. If feasible, see if any part-time, unpaid work is available at any local firms. Another possibility is to vist the Companies House website and set up a company for only £18. You could then learn how to file the accounts for that company. That can just as well go on your CV as it demonstrates your desire to understand the law in practice. Furthermore, you could also use that corporate vehicle for a wide array of things, including understanding how to pay the various kinds of taxes involved. You mentioned that you wrote a dissertation / policy report. That is excellent, have you considered writing a blog that might convey your commercial awareness on a regular basis?

Legal recruiters do seek out Southampton, so as long as you can demonstrate through your past experiences that you have an eye for the intersection of law and commerce, meaning you work to discern what may be considered the relevant legal issues in a business sector, then studying economics is no problem at all. I recommend that you contact your university's careers service and ask about law firms that visit Southampton.

In many ways, the experiences you have already mentioned add a great deal that law firms cannot typically secure through an applicant with only the LLB degree.

Why do you say the OP's chances are "incredibly high"?

Edit: a couple of other points in relation to your post:

- the OP will not be able to volunteer as a rep for FRU during his/her MSc.
- firms will not regard the incorporation of a dormant company through CoHouse as being evidence of commercial awareness, or a desire to understand the law in practice.

[Generalist]

Apologies, I overlooked this thread. I should have clarified what I wrote, so I am glad you mentioned these comments.

I say they are incredibly high, though I should add the qualification that this is in comparison to other candidates, on the basis of having something most applicants without work experience do not have: industry sector knowledge, particularly of sectors which a certain firm might focus on. This also presumes the ability to know what someone in that industry might ask a lawyer about, such as what kind of tax liabilities or EU competition regulations might need to be considered, etc. It does not necessarily mean that this is the case, but it means that research can be done in order to appreciate what actuarial and financial professionals ought to consider. If the applicant can appreciate that his or her industry experience could allow him or her to put himself or herself in the shoes of a client, that is to the benefit of both the client and the law firm. In my own situation, I was originally a non-law student, and I still went on to do a full law degree. However, I still wanted to demonstrate my competencies from my previous degree both to earn money and to gain work experience. It is without a doubt that my work experience and my society commitments using skills I gained prior to the law degree were a great factor in securing what I have to date. I did not have the most competitive marks, so the use of my existing skills were an incredibly strong factor.

I disagree with firms disregarding the formation of a company particularly if one is able to explain what considerations had to be made, even for a dormant company, and I should clarify. That is not to say the company has to be dormant, the company could be used as a corporate vehicle for a wide array of things. For example, a non-law student acting as a consultant for someone could enter into a contract as a company and not as an individual, providing the consultant limited liability, for example. Law firms do not disregard hobbies, and if, for example as an actuarial or financial consultant, this corporate vehicle was used to maintain contracts, then the filing of the accounts would be relevant.

I disagree with the incorporation as not demonstrating a desire to understand the law in practice, as it entails being practical and carrying out an activity that all industry sectors may consider, yet clients do ask these questions and do not know to file at Companies House themselves until an advisor makes the recommendation. The initiative to understand how to do something that may sound trivial to experienced lawyers is not something recruiters neglect when they understand the rationale behind the initiative, especially if you wanted to see how the corporate vehicle would benefit you as a consultant. I would agree, though, that this would not be as strongly weighted as becoming highly involved at the university's law or pro bono societies, especially if the company were dormant, as you mentioned.

To be fair to your comments based on the limited details I provided, I disagree only to the extent that I believe it is possible to give an appropriate explanation during an interview if any question relating to such incorporation is asked. It would help if you could clarify your reasoning behind why firms may not regard the considerations I have suggested.

Regarding FRU, I was unaware of this, and I should have separated it from CAB as an option to be pursued outside of term time. If FRU is a 5 day a week commitment, then that is true it will not be possible, however this depends on the MSc program in which one is enrolled. For example, there are MSc programs that have just one very long day of classes a week. My mistake, as I was referring to situations where time would be flexible.

[AspiringGenius]

EEE it's Pocoyo!

[geetar]

Going by statistics alone, it's incredibly competitive to get a TC with a big corporate firm (ie: one that would provide funding for your legal education). Freshfields revealed that they get 1800 TC applications per 100 places. Also, you need really good A-levels (although I assume yours are good for having gotten into Soton), as they are one of the initial filters for applying. But there's no reason why having gone to Southampton (which is an excellent uni anyway) would preclude getting a TC.

As for the value of work experience, I'd actually appreciate an answer. I've always thought that it's less important to have sustained work experience to get into a big corporate, than if you wanted to go into a specialist high-street firm (eg: criminal or family), is that the case? I don't plan on going into corporate law, so it's just a question of idle curiosity for me, but obviously I shouldn't attempt to give you any advice, OP, in that regard.

Also, I think you have to be studying law to volunteer for the FRU.

[Generalist]

The value of work experience is there for a City firm, and the value, especially for non-law students and people with full time professional experience, is higher regarded than marks if the experience demonstrates strong commercial awareness.

The filters for City firms are not just the great marks and reputable university and degree, they also include contacts, and all application forms ask you about any contacts the applicant has. It is usually through this mechanism that a firm can determine if the applicant's work experiences and qualities aside from marks demonstrate commercial awareness; marks do not and cannot demonstrate such awareness. Legal experience is more beneficial for the barrister route than it is for the solicitor route, though this does not mean legal experience is not valued for solicitors, it is very much valued. Non-legal experiences, however, can benefit solicitors very well, too, where it may not for barristers.

I suggest the above based on my own experience and having secured interviews and eventually the training contract offer I have accepted. Commercial awareness is relevant, and if the firm understands the applicant has it, that awareness is more important than the marks. Marks are important, but they are not the deciding factor because a law firm is a business, and a law firm hopes to employ individuals to benefit that business. That is a commercially relevant factor in the legal sector. I do not think the process is as clear cut with the numbers criteria that are often suggested as the definitive criteria for securing a training contract with a top 50, 25, or 10 firm.

I would not be able to advise as well on applying to a high street firm, but good efforts with legal work experience and working as a paralegal are beneficial in pursuing that route.

[chalks]

(Original post by Generalist)
Apologies, I overlooked this thread. I should have clarified what I wrote, so I am glad you mentioned these comments.

I say they are incredibly high, though I should add the qualification that this is in comparison to other candidates, on the basis of having something most applicants without work experience do not have: industry sector knowledge, particularly of sectors which a certain firm might focus on. This also presumes the ability to know what someone in that industry might ask a lawyer about, such as what kind of tax liabilities or EU competition regulations might need to be considered, etc. It does not necessarily mean that this is the case, but it means that research can be done in order to appreciate what actuarial and financial professionals ought to consider. If the applicant can appreciate that his or her industry experience could allow him or her to put himself or herself in the shoes of a client, that is to the benefit of both the client and the law firm. In my own situation, I was originally a non-law student, and I still went on to do a full law degree. However, I still wanted to demonstrate my competencies from my previous degree both to earn money and to gain work experience. It is without a doubt that my work experience and my society commitments using skills I gained prior to the law degree were a great factor in securing what I have to date. I did not have the most competitive marks, so the use of my existing skills were an incredibly strong factor.

But the OP simply said he had some actuarial and finance work experience, nothing more. You don’t know what sort of experience – with whom, when, why, what was gained. Yet on the basis of that passing comment, you think you’re able to say his chances are “incredibly high”?

(Original post by Generalist)
I disagree with firms disregarding the formation of a company particularly if one is able to explain what considerations had to be made, even for a dormant company, and I should clarify. That is not to say the company has to be dormant, the company could be used as a corporate vehicle for a wide array of things. For example, a non-law student acting as a consultant for someone could enter into a contract as a company and not as an individual, providing the consultant limited liability, for example. Law firms do not disregard hobbies, and if, for example as an actuarial or financial consultant, this corporate vehicle was used to maintain contracts, then the filing of the accounts would be relevant.

If a student has had the ability to establish his/her own consultancy business at university, then that will very impressive. The fact that they may have been able to fill in the necessary CoHouse forms to establish a corporate entity is a sideshow. If the OP doesn’t have a legitimate business to operate through a corporate entity, what would you say is the point of incorporating one?

(Original post by Generalist)
I disagree with the incorporation as not demonstrating a desire to understand the law in practice, as it entails being practical and carrying out an activity that all industry sectors may consider, yet clients do ask these questions and do not know to file at Companies House themselves until an advisor makes the recommendation. The initiative to understand how to do something that may sound trivial to experienced lawyers is not something recruiters neglect when they understand the rationale behind the initiative, especially if you wanted to see how the corporate vehicle would benefit you as a consultant. I would agree, though, that this would not be as strongly weighted as becoming highly involved at the university's law or pro bono societies, especially if the company were dormant, as you mentioned.

See my comments above. Firms would be interested in a consultancy business but, with respect, I don’t think the OP is a consultant. In the absence of that, recruiters wouldn’t be much interested in the fact that an applicant had looked at the administrative process of establishing a corporate (which would be covered on the LPC in any event).

(Original post by Generalist)
To be fair to your comments based on the limited details I provided, I disagree only to the extent that I believe it is possible to give an appropriate explanation during an interview if any question relating to such incorporation is asked. It would help if you could clarify your reasoning behind why firms may not regard the considerations I have suggested.

Regarding FRU, I was unaware of this, and I should have separated it from CAB as an option to be pursued outside of term time. If FRU is a 5 day a week commitment, then that is true it will not be possible, however this depends on the MSc program in which one is enrolled. For example, there are MSc programs that have just one very long day of classes a week. My mistake, as I was referring to situations where time would be flexible.

No, FRU is only open to those who have completed their LLB or are an LLM or GDL student. So, it simply isn’t open to the OP at this stage of his studies. It’s not a question of availability of time.