Nepotism in the legal industry
I’ve written on this topic previously, and I would be curious to see what people have to say about this candidate “x”.
Candidate x completed his TC at a top 200 city firm. Rumour has it his father (who is a QC and High Court Judge) is friends with the top 200 city firm’s Managing Partner. Rumour has it that connection at the very least landed him a TC interview and most likely, the TC offer.
On qualification, Candidate X then obtains and accepts an NQ offer at Skadden Arps. How often do you see NQs at Skadden coming from top 200 firms? One of my friends who’s a corporate associate at MacFarlanes applied to Skadden for a job (3-4 PQE level) but didn’t even land an interview. Yet candidate X, who trained at a top 200 firm, with little corporate experience, bags a job there at NQ level.
Am I missing something or does this scream nepotism? No doubt his father probably knows partners at Skadden…
ps: I find it odd how people on TSR fail to admit that there is nepotism going through on in the legal industry…
Candidate x completed his TC at a top 200 city firm. Rumour has it his father (who is a QC and High Court Judge) is friends with the top 200 city firm’s Managing Partner. Rumour has it that connection at the very least landed him a TC interview and most likely, the TC offer.
On qualification, Candidate X then obtains and accepts an NQ offer at Skadden Arps. How often do you see NQs at Skadden coming from top 200 firms? One of my friends who’s a corporate associate at MacFarlanes applied to Skadden for a job (3-4 PQE level) but didn’t even land an interview. Yet candidate X, who trained at a top 200 firm, with little corporate experience, bags a job there at NQ level.
Am I missing something or does this scream nepotism? No doubt his father probably knows partners at Skadden…
ps: I find it odd how people on TSR fail to admit that there is nepotism going through on in the legal industry…
Scroll to see replies
So long as X didn't do anything illegal to get the offer then :shrug:
People with connections are always going to have the upper hand. They can afford unpaid work experience so they'll have more to talk about at interviews, they have people that can refer them for positions etc.
This is not exclusive to the legal profession.
People with connections are always going to have the upper hand. They can afford unpaid work experience so they'll have more to talk about at interviews, they have people that can refer them for positions etc.
This is not exclusive to the legal profession.
(edited 2 years ago)
So, you were mad nobody agreed with you in your last thread, so you just remade it in the hopes your views would be validated this time round?
Since you're basing this entirely on rumours (i.e. conjecture) there seems little merit to your argument or any reason to consider it further. Rumour has it that platypuses aren't real animals, the moon is made of cheese, and there is a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If we accept "rumour" as evidence one can make any claim they like with alleged "evidence" for it.
Since you're basing this entirely on rumours (i.e. conjecture) there seems little merit to your argument or any reason to consider it further. Rumour has it that platypuses aren't real animals, the moon is made of cheese, and there is a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If we accept "rumour" as evidence one can make any claim they like with alleged "evidence" for it.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Reality Check
Not that you're bitter or anything, and you've just moved on from it.
What does that even mean and how does your post further the discussion on nepotism?
Original post by NQ Lawyer
What does that even mean and how does your post further the discussion on nepotism?
You've already had an extensive discussion on nepotism in another thread, the outcome of which clearly displeased you.
It's also not permitted to make multiple threads on the same, or very similar topic.
Original post by Reality Check
You've already had an extensive discussion on nepotism in another thread, the outcome of which clearly displeased you.
It's also not permitted to make multiple threads on the same, or very similar topic.
It's also not permitted to make multiple threads on the same, or very similar topic.
So no freedom of expression? You sound like a police officer.
Original post by NQ Lawyer
So no freedom of expression? You sound like a police officer.
Read the rules of the forum here. If you're a lawyer (if), reading rules in detail should suit you. We all have to abide by them: you're not exceptional. Threads which duplicate content will be removed.
Original post by Reality Check
Read the rules of the forum here. If you're a lawyer (if), reading rules in detail should suit you. We all have to abide by them: you're not exceptional. Threads which duplicate content will be removed.
No need to be patronising. And like I said, you’re acting like an online police officer.
Original post by NQ Lawyer
No need to be patronising. And like I said, you’re acting like an online police officer.
If you have an issue with the rules of TSR, including those on duplicate content, start a thread at ACT which you can find here
Original post by Reality Check
Read the rules of the forum here. If you're a lawyer (if), reading rules in detail should suit you. We all have to abide by them: you're not exceptional. Threads which duplicate content will be removed.
Please explain how, as per the forum rules, your posts in this thread have been relevant and constructive.
You are missing a lot. 
Most likely because your focus is on other people's lives rather than improving your own circumstances and mindset.
It seems that your fixation with other people's careers, envy and enthusiasm for sharing unpleasant innuendo & malicious gossip on TSR have combined to create an obsessive belief that nepotism is the only way to obtain employment success within the uk legal industry.
You seem to be wasting so much time on starting TSR threads for the purpose of making snide insinuations about other people's academic backgrounds, professional experience, family connections and the suitability of legal recruitment decisions that you have next to no personal knowledge of.
Such a waste of your time and energy.
Most likely because your focus is on other people's lives rather than improving your own circumstances and mindset.
It seems that your fixation with other people's careers, envy and enthusiasm for sharing unpleasant innuendo & malicious gossip on TSR have combined to create an obsessive belief that nepotism is the only way to obtain employment success within the uk legal industry.
You seem to be wasting so much time on starting TSR threads for the purpose of making snide insinuations about other people's academic backgrounds, professional experience, family connections and the suitability of legal recruitment decisions that you have next to no personal knowledge of.
Such a waste of your time and energy.
I seem to have missed the last thread, so I'm happy to come into this with a fresh pair of eyes.
First of all, nepotism does still happen in the legal industry. It happens in just about every industry. There are, however, two points to make.
The first is that in more recent times it has become much harder, if not impossible in many situations, for people to be directly offered jobs because of family connections. That's primarily because recruitment processes have become so much more refined. To give a pupillage process as an example, my set anonymises applications, has two (random) barristers from a pool of around ten to assess each one, and then a further check by different barristers for applications with large disparities. Should you then get an interview, you can again not guarantee which barristers will interview you, and decisions made by an interview panel are made by the panel and not individuals. The barristers in the pool are then rotated year to year. All that makes it basically impossible for anyone to be offered pupillage through nepotism. I'm not suggesting all recruitment processes are that robust, but most will have many more checks and balances than in years past which makes nepotism very difficult.
Second, clearly nepotism doesn't have to mean only being offered a job. Having connections generally (whether through parents or not) can make a difference earlier in the process when someone is developing their application, for example for work experience. Having connections may also mean that someone gets to know people in positions of influence, that they receive particular opportunities and so on. There is nothing necessarily untoward about that either. It can often happen quite naturally. If your father is a QC, for example, chances are you're going to learn quite a lot from him just by virtue of living in the same house as him and him being your father. If he's friends with other lawyers you may have met them socially just by virtue of that friendship. There's nothing inappropriate in any of that.
Which brings me to the present question. I have no idea about these individual firms and recruiting trends within them. I'm a barrister and not in London. But the basis of the assumption of nepotism seems particularly thin to me. In fact, saying it's thin is generous. I know law students and lawyers love to talk, but if you're reaching conclusions on the basis of "rumour has it" you need to stop and reflect on that. Yet the NQ reasoning doesn't even go that far. "No doubt his father knows" is the basis of that. Come on. That's just silly.
But of course you do ask whether you're missing something, so might I suggest you're missing this person's actual strength as a candidate? If he was a weak candidate I expect you would have mentioned that, because if he isn't it's desperately difficult to land on nepotism as the most likely reason for them being offered the TC and then NQ position. I'm going to give two more quick examples for you.
First, I missed out on a pupillage offer by the skin of my teeth just after finishing the Bar course. The guy who got it was on my Bar course and overtly wealthy. His father knew the Head of Chambers and the guy had arranged to go on a ski trip with some of the barristers even before he was offered pupillage. So naturally I comforted myself with the conclusion that he got the pupillage because of his connections, but the reality is that we really were of comparable strength as candidates, and it wasn't objectively unreasonable at all for them to pick him over me. With hindsight I completely acknowledge that.
Second, one of our more recent pupils not only had the benefit of a very senior judge as a father, but also got pupillage at our set, which happens to be the same set that their father practised at when he was at the Bar. "Surely," I hear you cry "their father must have influenced the decision to offer them pupillage!". I mean, it's obvious isn't it? I expect some of the person's friends on the Bar course might have thought the same thing. Except, he didn't. Not at all. I was on the interview panel for that person, and after his interview one of the barristers (turns out, very good friends with the judge) said that he wanted all of us to say what we thought first. We did, and we all thought the person was exceptional. One of only two candidates to get full marks from all of us. The barrister then said he knew the candidate and told us who they were (we all knew the judge). Not only had the judge not put in a good word, but he hadn't even told that barrister that his child was applying for pupillage with us. That candidate was offered pupillage, and the fact that their father was a judge and former member of chambers had, I promise you, not a single thing to do with it. They were the best candidate (along with the other person who got full marks, who was also offered pupillage). Which makes sense to some degree, because you're bound to pick up a thing or two when your father is a senior judge and former barrister, right? Which is the point I made above. But still, they got that pupillage entirely on merit, when I fully expect outside observers assumed nepotism.
The bottom line is that nepotism happens, but it is much rarer than most people think. It is also very easy to jump to nepotism as a conclusion when you have no actual evidence of anything inappropriate taking place, and I'm afraid the latter is far more common than the former, mainly because it is regularly not acknowledged that children of well positioned parents are, in fact, often very strong candidates in and of themselves, partly because of the influence that their parent(s) have had on them.
First of all, nepotism does still happen in the legal industry. It happens in just about every industry. There are, however, two points to make.
The first is that in more recent times it has become much harder, if not impossible in many situations, for people to be directly offered jobs because of family connections. That's primarily because recruitment processes have become so much more refined. To give a pupillage process as an example, my set anonymises applications, has two (random) barristers from a pool of around ten to assess each one, and then a further check by different barristers for applications with large disparities. Should you then get an interview, you can again not guarantee which barristers will interview you, and decisions made by an interview panel are made by the panel and not individuals. The barristers in the pool are then rotated year to year. All that makes it basically impossible for anyone to be offered pupillage through nepotism. I'm not suggesting all recruitment processes are that robust, but most will have many more checks and balances than in years past which makes nepotism very difficult.
Second, clearly nepotism doesn't have to mean only being offered a job. Having connections generally (whether through parents or not) can make a difference earlier in the process when someone is developing their application, for example for work experience. Having connections may also mean that someone gets to know people in positions of influence, that they receive particular opportunities and so on. There is nothing necessarily untoward about that either. It can often happen quite naturally. If your father is a QC, for example, chances are you're going to learn quite a lot from him just by virtue of living in the same house as him and him being your father. If he's friends with other lawyers you may have met them socially just by virtue of that friendship. There's nothing inappropriate in any of that.
Which brings me to the present question. I have no idea about these individual firms and recruiting trends within them. I'm a barrister and not in London. But the basis of the assumption of nepotism seems particularly thin to me. In fact, saying it's thin is generous. I know law students and lawyers love to talk, but if you're reaching conclusions on the basis of "rumour has it" you need to stop and reflect on that. Yet the NQ reasoning doesn't even go that far. "No doubt his father knows" is the basis of that. Come on. That's just silly.
But of course you do ask whether you're missing something, so might I suggest you're missing this person's actual strength as a candidate? If he was a weak candidate I expect you would have mentioned that, because if he isn't it's desperately difficult to land on nepotism as the most likely reason for them being offered the TC and then NQ position. I'm going to give two more quick examples for you.
First, I missed out on a pupillage offer by the skin of my teeth just after finishing the Bar course. The guy who got it was on my Bar course and overtly wealthy. His father knew the Head of Chambers and the guy had arranged to go on a ski trip with some of the barristers even before he was offered pupillage. So naturally I comforted myself with the conclusion that he got the pupillage because of his connections, but the reality is that we really were of comparable strength as candidates, and it wasn't objectively unreasonable at all for them to pick him over me. With hindsight I completely acknowledge that.
Second, one of our more recent pupils not only had the benefit of a very senior judge as a father, but also got pupillage at our set, which happens to be the same set that their father practised at when he was at the Bar. "Surely," I hear you cry "their father must have influenced the decision to offer them pupillage!". I mean, it's obvious isn't it? I expect some of the person's friends on the Bar course might have thought the same thing. Except, he didn't. Not at all. I was on the interview panel for that person, and after his interview one of the barristers (turns out, very good friends with the judge) said that he wanted all of us to say what we thought first. We did, and we all thought the person was exceptional. One of only two candidates to get full marks from all of us. The barrister then said he knew the candidate and told us who they were (we all knew the judge). Not only had the judge not put in a good word, but he hadn't even told that barrister that his child was applying for pupillage with us. That candidate was offered pupillage, and the fact that their father was a judge and former member of chambers had, I promise you, not a single thing to do with it. They were the best candidate (along with the other person who got full marks, who was also offered pupillage). Which makes sense to some degree, because you're bound to pick up a thing or two when your father is a senior judge and former barrister, right? Which is the point I made above. But still, they got that pupillage entirely on merit, when I fully expect outside observers assumed nepotism.
The bottom line is that nepotism happens, but it is much rarer than most people think. It is also very easy to jump to nepotism as a conclusion when you have no actual evidence of anything inappropriate taking place, and I'm afraid the latter is far more common than the former, mainly because it is regularly not acknowledged that children of well positioned parents are, in fact, often very strong candidates in and of themselves, partly because of the influence that their parent(s) have had on them.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about everything - maybe that is the reason that you are not getting on as well as others around you?
In my experience, nepotism is much more rife in the smaller law firms than in the larger firms which have a lot more to risk. I think what you need to appreciate is that someone coming from an affluent and well connected family is literally groomed for the role from a young age - they get the education, the extra curriculars, the training, the experiences and the list goes on. It is not necessarily the link that gets them there - it is the CV and abilities that get them there and they always had a head start.
In my experience, nepotism is much more rife in the smaller law firms than in the larger firms which have a lot more to risk. I think what you need to appreciate is that someone coming from an affluent and well connected family is literally groomed for the role from a young age - they get the education, the extra curriculars, the training, the experiences and the list goes on. It is not necessarily the link that gets them there - it is the CV and abilities that get them there and they always had a head start.
Original post by one_two_three
In my experience, nepotism is much more rife in the smaller law firms than in the larger firms which have a lot more to risk.
This is absolutely right. Same for smaller barristers' chambers. Smaller institutions tend to mean it's more likely that one individual will be able to exert a lot of influence, more likely to be fewer checks and balances and/or more likely to be a less robust process overall.
Original post by NQ Lawyer
I’ve written on this topic previously, and I would be curious to see what people have to say about this candidate “x”.
Candidate x completed his TC at a top 200 city firm. Rumour has it his father (who is a QC and High Court Judge) is friends with the top 200 city firm’s Managing Partner. Rumour has it that connection at the very least landed him a TC interview and most likely, the TC offer.
On qualification, Candidate X then obtains and accepts an NQ offer at Skadden Arps. How often do you see NQs at Skadden coming from top 200 firms? One of my friends who’s a corporate associate at MacFarlanes applied to Skadden for a job (3-4 PQE level) but didn’t even land an interview. Yet candidate X, who trained at a top 200 firm, with little corporate experience, bags a job there at NQ level.
Am I missing something or does this scream nepotism? No doubt his father probably knows partners at Skadden…
ps: I find it odd how people on TSR fail to admit that there is nepotism going through on in the legal industry…
Candidate x completed his TC at a top 200 city firm. Rumour has it his father (who is a QC and High Court Judge) is friends with the top 200 city firm’s Managing Partner. Rumour has it that connection at the very least landed him a TC interview and most likely, the TC offer.
On qualification, Candidate X then obtains and accepts an NQ offer at Skadden Arps. How often do you see NQs at Skadden coming from top 200 firms? One of my friends who’s a corporate associate at MacFarlanes applied to Skadden for a job (3-4 PQE level) but didn’t even land an interview. Yet candidate X, who trained at a top 200 firm, with little corporate experience, bags a job there at NQ level.
Am I missing something or does this scream nepotism? No doubt his father probably knows partners at Skadden…
ps: I find it odd how people on TSR fail to admit that there is nepotism going through on in the legal industry…
No one fails to admit there is nepotism. The issues most people have with your posts is:
a) theyre getting really repetitive and really old
b) you conflate nepotism and contextual recruitment constantly (which just makes you seem a bit dim and mean spirited)
c) you are trying to make it out to be a much bigger issue than it is.
Its really weird that this bothers you to the point where you keep going on and on about it.
Also if you're writing about who I think youre writing about, he spent 2 years as a corporate paralegal at Fried Frank and a year as a paralegal in investment management, both of which set him up fairly well for the NQ role he got. This also goes back to a point I made on your last post, do you really want to have to grind for three years as a paralegal to get a TC with nepotism? Like how good can connections possibly be if it takes that much grind, at that point you're actually more qualified than most applicants for the job.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by one_two_three
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about everything - maybe that is the reason that you are not getting on as well as others around you?
In my experience, nepotism is much more rife in the smaller law firms than in the larger firms which have a lot more to risk. I think what you need to appreciate is that someone coming from an affluent and well connected family is literally groomed for the role from a young age - they get the education, the extra curriculars, the training, the experiences and the list goes on. It is not necessarily the link that gets them there - it is the CV and abilities that get them there and they always had a head start.
In my experience, nepotism is much more rife in the smaller law firms than in the larger firms which have a lot more to risk. I think what you need to appreciate is that someone coming from an affluent and well connected family is literally groomed for the role from a young age - they get the education, the extra curriculars, the training, the experiences and the list goes on. It is not necessarily the link that gets them there - it is the CV and abilities that get them there and they always had a head start.
I only make a fuss about nepotism because it is prevalent at every (big city) firm I’ve been at. Even been told by HR at one firm not to mention that one of trainees (now associate) is the daughter of the managing partner. That individual has even changed the order of her middle name & surname on LinkedIn to make it seem less conspicuous. So when I hear people on here say it’s because of their merit etc. I take that with a pinch of salt.
I imagine if you took your application and placed it side by side with theirs you would see that they are broadly similar. I imagine the people that you are working alongside did not get a 3rd at university, do no work experience and generally just partied until they turned up to work in a suit one day.
They are qualified to have the job - they got the job because their application is exactly what the firm where looking for because they knew someone who told the exactly what the firm were looking for. They have likely been coached through the progress. They always had a headstart and that is not nepotism - it's inequality. You will have to work harder for what you get but if you focus on yourself and your own progress and target yourself to where you want to be then it doesn't matter what they are getting or doing. At the end of the day, if they prove themselves to be incompetent and should never have got the job then it doesn't matter who they know in the firm, no one is going to carry that liability.
They are qualified to have the job - they got the job because their application is exactly what the firm where looking for because they knew someone who told the exactly what the firm were looking for. They have likely been coached through the progress. They always had a headstart and that is not nepotism - it's inequality. You will have to work harder for what you get but if you focus on yourself and your own progress and target yourself to where you want to be then it doesn't matter what they are getting or doing. At the end of the day, if they prove themselves to be incompetent and should never have got the job then it doesn't matter who they know in the firm, no one is going to carry that liability.
Original post by NQ Lawyer
I only make a fuss about nepotism because it is prevalent at every (big city) firm I’ve been at. Even been told by HR at one firm not to mention that one of trainees (now associate) is the daughter of the managing partner. That individual has even changed the order of her middle name & surname on LinkedIn to make it seem less conspicuous. So when I hear people on here say it’s because of their merit etc. I take that with a pinch of salt.
You can call it nepotism... similarly you can call it business development.
Don't think anyone will deny that if your parents are esteemed members of the judiciary, fund managers, board members of FTSE 100 companies or managing partners of law firms you will inevitably have a huge leg up in life. You get to inherit a network built over decades by your parents and you probably get to spend a week lurking around the office of a prestigious law firm / investment bank / fund when they create an internship for you as a favour to your parents so that you can say you interned at said firm / investment bank / fund on your LinkedIn which inevitably gives you a massive leg-up in applying for your next position.
That is the reality of life though - and there really is no point complaining about it. But that isn't to say every firm or every person working at a firm is a beneficiary of nepotism. Sure you have your one person who's ludicrously privileged and probably got a massive advantage in the process but that doesn't take away from people who don't enjoy those advantages. From a firm's perspective - why wouldn't you hire someone who is more well-connected and would likely drive business to your firm over a similarly qualified candidate that doesn't have those networks?
These people absolutely are the minority though - and while it is annoying - there is no point being salty about it. Better to see how you can improve yourself - daddy and mummy's connections provide an advantage but they are by no means a golden ticket.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by mlaw17
You can call it nepotism... similarly you can call it business development.
Don't think anyone will deny that if your parents are esteemed members of the judiciary, fund managers, board members of FTSE 100 companies or managing partners of law firms you will inevitably have a huge leg up in life. You get to inherit a network built over decades by your parents and you probably get to spend a week lurking around the office of a prestigious law firm / investment bank / fund when they create an internship for you as a favour to your parents so that you can say you interned at said firm / investment bank / fund on your LinkedIn which inevitably gives you a massive leg-up in applying for your next position.
That is the reality of life though - and there really is no point complaining about it. But that isn't to say every firm or every person working at a firm is a beneficiary of nepotism. Sure you have your one person who's ludicrously privileged and probably got a massive advantage in the process but that doesn't take away from people who don't enjoy those advantages. From a firm's perspective - why wouldn't you hire someone who is more well-connected and would likely drive business to your firm over a similarly qualified candidate that doesn't have those networks?
These people absolutely are the minority though - and while it is annoying - there is no point being salty about it. Better to see how you can improve yourself - daddy and mummy's connections provide an advantage but they are by no means a golden ticket.
Don't think anyone will deny that if your parents are esteemed members of the judiciary, fund managers, board members of FTSE 100 companies or managing partners of law firms you will inevitably have a huge leg up in life. You get to inherit a network built over decades by your parents and you probably get to spend a week lurking around the office of a prestigious law firm / investment bank / fund when they create an internship for you as a favour to your parents so that you can say you interned at said firm / investment bank / fund on your LinkedIn which inevitably gives you a massive leg-up in applying for your next position.
That is the reality of life though - and there really is no point complaining about it. But that isn't to say every firm or every person working at a firm is a beneficiary of nepotism. Sure you have your one person who's ludicrously privileged and probably got a massive advantage in the process but that doesn't take away from people who don't enjoy those advantages. From a firm's perspective - why wouldn't you hire someone who is more well-connected and would likely drive business to your firm over a similarly qualified candidate that doesn't have those networks?
These people absolutely are the minority though - and while it is annoying - there is no point being salty about it. Better to see how you can improve yourself - daddy and mummy's connections provide an advantage but they are by no means a golden ticket.
I agree with you. I was salty about it because it happened time and time again at the firms I worked but I guess I was just unlucky to have been exposed to it time and time again. I remember being interrogated at my TC interview at a US firm because I got a 1 week non-legal internship in 2011 thanks to my dad’s connections. They made a big deal of that which is funny given that it’s that very firm that gave the daughter of the managing partner a TC.
At the end of the day, you’re absolutely right to focus on oneself. Whilst I may not be at top firms like these people, at least I got to where I am today entirely out of my own merit, and not out of nepotism.
Original post by NQ Lawyer
I agree with you. I was salty about it because it happened time and time again at the firms I worked but I guess I was just unlucky to have been exposed to it time and time again. I remember being interrogated at my TC interview at a US firm because I got a 1 week non-legal internship in 2011 thanks to my dad’s connections. They made a big deal of that which is funny given that it’s that very firm that gave the daughter of the managing partner a TC.
At the end of the day, you’re absolutely right to focus on oneself. Whilst I may not be at top firms like these people, at least I got to where I am today entirely out of my own merit, and not out of nepotism.
At the end of the day, you’re absolutely right to focus on oneself. Whilst I may not be at top firms like these people, at least I got to where I am today entirely out of my own merit, and not out of nepotism.
You just gave an example of you benefitting from nepotism. This is hilarious.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Work experience year 12
- Nepotism
- Why can’t I become a wooden actor?
- Which Unis have best links to businesses for Placement years?
- Best uni for business management placement year?
- Answering questions: What careers can a degree in Law lead to?
- LSE for law opinions
- Can I do an arts degree at a non target uni and get into career in finance?
- justin bieber wasn't actually bad for a pop singer
- Feeling underprepared for employment
- how can i improve this response?
- Career Advice - Law with a Quantitative Finance degree
- Law essay competition feedback?
- internships please is really important!!!!!!
- Choice Model Management
- focus topics for a law personal statement
- Do I have to do history?
- Starting my Training Contract in 2025... but no idea what to do in the meantime.
- 20% discount on popular postgraduate degrees
- Transitioning from Software Engineering to the Bar via GDL
Latest
Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 1 day ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 2 days ago
LAW: How to answer a problem question in Contract LawLast reply 2 days ago
What is better LLM SQE or SQE Preparation Courses - or Training contract?Last reply 1 week ago
What are the chances of getting any job offer with my background?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How important is having a duty slot as a criminal barristerLast reply 1 month ago
can i get a job at a top law firm as a barrister with sh*t grades??Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 1 day ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 2 days ago
LAW: How to answer a problem question in Contract LawLast reply 2 days ago
What is better LLM SQE or SQE Preparation Courses - or Training contract?Last reply 1 week ago
What are the chances of getting any job offer with my background?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?Last reply 2 weeks ago
How important is having a duty slot as a criminal barristerLast reply 1 month ago
can i get a job at a top law firm as a barrister with sh*t grades??
