Low 2:1 and Vacation Schemes

I received my 1st year module results at the beginning of June. My overall grade is 61%, with a low 2:2 in Contract Law. I don't want to talk about the circumstances which led to such a low result (they are not "extenuating").

Will I have to wait until my final year to apply for vacation schemes at City (SC/MC/US) firms? I'm guessing my work experience at City firms and extra-curricular stuff will be worthless with this poor Contract Law result. Even if I achieved a high 2:1 in 2nd year, would this grade prevent me from getting a TC at a "top" (SC/MC/US) firm?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Varis

Original post by Matty60

You can still apply. Certain firms will have policies to 'automatically' reject you for your Contract Law grade (e.g. Davis Polk). Most US firms will also view this as a negative. However, with a strong, well written application, you can still get to interview stage and then it'll be primarily up to your performance. Therefore, you can apply to all / most firms, especially if you have a strong application notwithstanding your grades.

If you do get rejected, I'd also caution on primarily putting the 'blame' on your grades, since that can often be overstated and it prevents people from accepting that the answers you write are the main distinguishing factor from your application being great or trash.

I know a few people who have been very successful (Multiple TCs at SC, US and MC level). They had 2.2s in Contract. You'll naturally be asked about it at interview, so just prepare an answer. None of them have Extenuating Circumstances. It'll help to apply after some stronger grades, which may be your 1st Semester grades, etc, but it is not necessary. The reason why it helps is it'll be evidence to explain that it was a minor blip, rather than indicative of your intellectual capability. You don't really need it at the time of application, insofar as it is available in evidence during the interview phase.

Hope this helps.

Reply 2

jacketpotato

Which university are you at?

You will get more leeway for 2:2 grades from Oxbridge than a 2:2 from other universities.

If you get a high 2:1 overall that is enough, your whole academic history gets taken into account.

Reply 3

Kitta

I have 2 2:2 modules and it never got in the way for any of my applications, I was applying with 63% and never got rejected due to academic capabilities as far as I am aware. Even Bakers I got through and they're notoriously strict with academic requirements. If you're going for top eschelon US firm then yes it will hurt you but for MC / (not-top-elite) US firms you should be fine.

The firms where it would matter you'd almost certainly need a high 2:1 / first anyway, like Kirklands & David Polk

Reply 4

jacketpotato

You constantly complain on here about how you hate your job due to the hours and pressures.

Yet for some reason you choose to stay in a sort of firm right at the top end in terms of hours and pressure.

For the life of me I do not understand why you don't simply move to a different firm which will suit you better. It is easy enough to move to a mid-market UK firm where the pay is good, and the hours/pressure completely reasonable.

The vast majority of lawyers are working at firms with more reasonable requirements, the pressured US firms are a tiny minority of the market.

Reply 5

jacketpotato

You might be confusing me with someone else. I do mainstream corporate in the city in a major international firm.

There is a noticeable difference between working at a "top" US firm vs. other US firms vs. Magic Circle vs. the rest of the other big city firms.

If you hate your job but don't do anything about it, particularly in a buoyant market with countless good options available both in private practice and in house, you have only yourself to blame to be honest.

Reply 6

jacketpotato

I remember the post, but it wasn't me. It was someone else. I do corporate M&A, not IP.

If people want to believe your crap, it’s up to them. I’ve got no one to convince. It is like this everywhere - magic circle, HSF, Lovells etc. The lower down the chain you to the better it is. HSF will have you working from home one day a week, but in a busy transaction team my friends are still billing 2000+ hours there.

It doesnt change the fact most city lawyers hate their jobs and the hours are terrible.

Again, you are only looking at a small slice of firms which have the most demanding requirements. A firm like HSF or Lovells are much closer to the Magic Circle than the vast majority of corporate/commercial firms, so you'd expect a Magic Circle style beasting.

I don't believe for a moment that the average person at HSF is doing 2000 hours. The target hours for getting a bonus at HSF are 1700. Only something like half of their lawyers achieve that.

The hours requirements at HSF are much worse than at the mid-market city firms, which represent a larger slice of the market. Do you really think the people at firms on this list https://www.legal500.com/c/london/corporate-and-commercial/manda-lower-mid-market-deals-50m-250m are working 2000 hours????

Similarly do you really believe that people working at some of the firms ranked on the Premium M&A list (DLA Piper, Baker McKenzie, CMS, Norton Rose) are working 2000 hours? They are not.

I leave at 6pm or before on many days, yes. Not every day - as a corporate lawyer you do sometimes have to work into the small hours when closing deals. In fact I'm in the office right now. But nobody here does 2000 hours I can assure you - probably most people do more like 1400-1500.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 7

jacketpotato

You exaggerate hours requirements. Less than 50% of the lawyers at HSF qualify for the bonus which kicks in at 1700 hours - that is a fact that is published by the firm. I am sure some associates hit billable 2000 hours in the MC firms, but I imagine well under 5% of the associate base in any particular year.

The hours get better as you get more senior. Not worse. The partners in MC firms simply are not sitting there until the late hours of the morning on a regular basis.

People in Taylor Wessing are not sitting there until 8pm every night (though they will sometimes, of course) and won't be working weekends regularly (if ever). No worse than most other professional jobs you could care to name.

I would say that most people I come across in the corporate teams of mid-tier firms are pretty happy with their job. Admittedly satisfaction levels in the US firms and MC firms are significantly lower! But some of the people in those firms enjoy their jobs too.

The suggestion that there is a "desired seniority" to land an appropriate in-house gig is just nonsense. There are loads of interesting and well paid in-house roles available to people from NQ up. The idea that you somehow have to stay in private practice until you are senior is at least 15 years out of date.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 8

jacketpotato

I can understand why you have a negative view of the world if you are doing 2500 billable hours ! You might feel different if you moved somewhere where you'd be doing 1400-1600 (which is most of the international city firms).

I think there is just a natural human desire to be competitive. Everyone wants to work for the "best" firm and get paid "more money" than everybody else. But that's not always the best way to go, life is not a willy swinging contest.

I bet that if you did a survey of associates at the top-billing US firms or the Magic Circle vs. the lawyers at other major international city firms ... you would find that associates working for the other firms are on average happier with their jobs.

Reply 9

Kitta

Both of you have completely derailed the conversation, and are making absolutely irrelevant comments to the OP's problem at hand.

If you have personal qualms take it to direct messaging.

Reply 10

Kitta

I have a training contract at an MC firm. This is irrelevant bickering, go to rollonfriday if you want gossip, not studentroom.

Reply 11

Kitta

It was to show that I wanted to go into the profession too, you clearly make sweeping statements based in no real credibility and it's a waste of time trying to talk to you. Please don't reply to me anymore.

Reply 12

Bashtopher

RoF is a strange forum. Totally agree with JohanGRK that it's somewhat unrepresentative. 40% of them are retired, 40% have been in-house for decades and the other 20% have a clue about modern private and public practice. 75% have some weird obsession with bees, and 50% have shagged each other. It's strangely incestuous, and even more oddly outdated. I still lurk though, so I guess that speaks volumes about me.

I certainly find flatlined's and jacketpotato's disagreement far more illuminating in terms of legal practice. The OP has only just finished his first year of uni, and I think an experienced person trying to get them to reconsider a career with a US/MC firm with a few home truths should be valued. I've worked at a top family law firm, and I can tell you that half the trainees work 12-14 hour days, and continue to do so even when they qualify. The NQs pretty much hate their lives and would leave if they weren't getting paid so well and/or knew of a way out. These hours exist as a reality, even at niche boutique firms.

I wanted to join an MC/US firm when I was at university. Thankfully, I made the smart move to first experience the working habits at top firms. The 5 years of experience paralegal-ing/Outdoor Clerking was where I learnt the truth of what flatlined preaches and, simultaneously, ensured I didn't make the same mistake that university me would have made. My priorities have now changed, and I look forward to commencing my training contract with the government, since my low starting salary will be compensated by my almost guaranteed 9-5.

On that note, I'd advise the OP to not only look at MC/US firms. Broaden your search before you commit. The hours are not worth it. Plus, your worries about your grades would be somewhat otiose at mid-to-large regional firms, as well as with the Government Legal Profession.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 13

aspiringlawyerNW

I think the point was that if you don't like your job (which sounds like an understatement) then why don't you do something about it? Although I do get that you want to warn others of the realities (from your experience) of working at the top end of the profession!

Reply 14

aspiringlawyerNW

That's all fair enough. I personally know plenty of solicitors who work in regional/international firms in Liverpool and Manchester who still enjoy their jobs after 10+ years and they earn good money. It's pretty relative to the individual... You won't know it's not for you unless you give it a go, which is the same for almost every type of employment.