The TSR Community Awards 2025 are now live >>

Commercial law after Humanities PhD?

Hi there,

I am a recent graduate of History with a strong academic and extracurricular background. I have been offered a fully-funded PhD in the area of History/Postcolonial studies, which is a great opportunity that I'd like to take for its own sake. However, I would also love to go into commercial law because I am interested in the business-regulation intersection and I think that commercial lawyers are trained to become excellent leaders and communicators.

My question is whether a non-law/non-business PhD would harm my chances of eventually applying for a TC down the line? Are law firms potentially less interested in graduate students who have stayed in academia? I want to make as informed a decision as possible.

Any insight is appreciated.
E

Reply 1

Veni Vidi Fugi

I can only speak to the Bar, but I think the skills gained from a PhD overlap significantly (albeit not completely) with the skills needed to be a good lawyer. The points that were relevant in my case were (1) the fact that a PhD requires the ability to work independently (2) the fact that it is invariably a test of endurance (3) the fact that it requires you to synthesise a large pool of data (4) general academic ability, and (5) writing skills. Per se it is less likely to provide direct help with things like client management skills or oral advocacy. To that can probably be added the leadership criterion that you raise, although some graduate students do take leadership roles organising conferences, subject groups etc.

So, summarising the above, I think the skills I gained on the PhD make me a better lawyer. But that's not to say that I think doing one was necessary to my career. I also suspect, without having information to that effect, that some people do prefer candidates 'fresh' from undergraduate/Master's level study. I imagine that such people are in the minority, but I do think they probably exist.

In summary, I think the impact of having done a PhD is probably less than one might imagine, albeit probably a net positive. The other side of the equation is the time and cost of doing one. Since you have funding, then it's really a time question. If you really want to do it, and you think you'd always regret not doing one, those are strong reasons to go ahead. But I wouldn't proceed on the assumption that it's a necessity, and I would bear in mind the (hopefully remote) possibility that, for all that it may open some doors, it may close others. But that's true of many choices.

Reply 2

Stiffy Byng

I do not think that spending time completing a doctorate would be any impediment to a legal career. I have several colleagues who have doctorates, in various subjects.

The only downside which I can see is that, because you will be older than the average trainee, and may have held a responsible position such as teaching undergraduates or helping with the pastoral care of undergraduates while doing your doctorate, you might find being back at a grunt level position a bit irksome, but that would be temporary.

Reply 3

EliPSS

Original post

by Veni Vidi Fugi

I can only speak to the Bar, but I think the skills gained from a PhD overlap significantly (albeit not completely) with the skills needed to be a good lawyer. The points that were relevant in my case were (1) the fact that a PhD requires the ability to work independently (2) the fact that it is invariably a test of endurance (3) the fact that it requires you to synthesise a large pool of data (4) general academic ability, and (5) writing skills. Per se it is less likely to provide direct help with things like client management skills or oral advocacy. To that can probably be added the leadership criterion that you raise, although some graduate students do take leadership roles organising conferences, subject groups etc.
So, summarising the above, I think the skills I gained on the PhD make me a better lawyer. But that's not to say that I think doing one was necessary to my career. I also suspect, without having information to that effect, that some people do prefer candidates 'fresh' from undergraduate/Master's level study. I imagine that such people are in the minority, but I do think they probably exist.
In summary, I think the impact of having done a PhD is probably less than one might imagine, albeit probably a net positive. The other side of the equation is the time and cost of doing one. Since you have funding, then it's really a time question. If you really want to do it, and you think you'd always regret not doing one, those are strong reasons to go ahead. But I wouldn't proceed on the assumption that it's a necessity, and I would bear in mind the (hopefully remote) possibility that, for all that it may open some doors, it may close others. But that's true of many choices.

Thanks - I am definitely leaning towards taking it and this is reassuring to hear.

Reply 4

EliPSS

Original post

by Stiffy Byng

I do not think that spending time completing a doctorate would be any impediment to a legal career. I have several colleagues who have doctorates, in various subjects.
The only downside which I can see is that, because you will be older than the average trainee, and may have held a responsible position such as teaching undergraduates or helping with the pastoral care of undergraduates while doing your doctorate, you might find being back at a grunt level position a bit irksome, but that would be temporary.