Burden of the past

lostinrates

suki1001 wrote: »

. If the law society have said it isn't a problem, then i don't see why it would be ..

Because the law society aren't the employers, and in truth it's a hugely, hugely competitive market. Too many young grads enter it each year, and many people with experience reinterred it over the last few years. Parts of the legal profession were hit incredibly hard by the credit crunch. I am NOT justifying an imbalanced approach to people of any group, but to fail to admit it exists, by those of us who see it, would be equally wrong, giving an unfairly rosy picture of the industry.

The law society have been strongly encouraging my husband to do something which they think 'should work' ATM, because they want to use him as a example case so that others can follow suit. The truth is they don't know, are not prepared to fund it, or push it themselves, but want him to make the financial investment for the benefit of all society members. They are often removed from the coal face and frankly from the day to day realities their members face in the work place.

lika_86

Speaking as someone who has nearly finished a training contract with a City firm, I hope this doesn't sound harsh or pessimistic but I wanted to try and give a realistic view of the process and competition as far too many people aren't given a realistic assessment of their chances.

Obviously law is a varied profession and firms range from the corporate commercial glass palaces in London to your one man band high street firms in small market towns and the nature of being a solicitor varies massively (as do the hours and pay!).

However, the credit crunch hit the whole profession hard and this, combined with the government withdrawing funding for legal aid TCs has led to firms reducing their trainee numbers or freezing recruitment, competition has therefore increased and many firms receive many more applications than places available.

The reality of your competition is that most will be 20/21 years old and expecting to graduate with 2.1 degrees or better. They will have work experience stints with firms and have spent their time at university juggling committee positions, sports clubs, societies, volunteering and part-time work. These will not necessarily be good candidates, this is now the minimum that is expected.

As part of the recruitment process, you will need to explain why you are studying part time and why you have been out of work for 7 years and show that you can cope with a full time job. Can you realistically do this? A full time degree isn't really full time, you might have 15 hours of teaching time a week. You need to show employers you can cope.

Once you have a training contract you will have two years to learn as much as you can and show your firm why they should give you a job at the end, it's a two year job interview effectively. You will be required to frequently step outside your comfort zone and do things that you aren't sure of. Hours could be long (although vary depending on firm and practice area). Responsibility is often minimal as a trainee in the grand scheme of things but the workload is often heavy and can be time pressured.

I wouldn't advise you abandon the idea but if I were you I'd try and get a full-time job for a while (ideally in a law firm if possible and with your psychiatrist's approval) and see if it's something that you can deal with. There's nothing stopping you from studying for a degree for 'fun' and seeing how things go and taking things step by step, but I think you need to be aware of the realities.

I wish you the best of luck.

skateykatey

as above. I was going to quote but would make my post huge.

I did a law degree but didn't take the LLB route. I knew I never wanted to be a solicitor as I just wasn't prepared to take on board the stress of a) trying to gain a training contract and then b) working all the hours god sends for two years and competing against others. I'm just not that ruthless.


In any event, if you get less than a 2.1 from a 'good' University then you may as well not bother applying for a contract.

I just took the subjects that interested me rather than the core ones.

I still work within the law but I don't have the stress.

It's still a good degree and well regarded so it hasn't harmed me.

Perhaps that could be an option for you???

Goldiegirl

If you want to do a degree, I think you should go for it, and then see where you are at the end of it.

Having a degree opens up all sorts of avenues, not necessarily in the law, so you could see what opportunities are available at the time.

Good luck!

Annisele

I did the GDL and then the LPC, both part time. A couple of careers people told me quite frankly that I was too old, and that I'd have real problems getting a training contract as a result - I was 26 when I was first told that!

I tried very hard to get a training contract and failed miserably, but I'm still glad I did the course. I don't work in the legal field now, and my current job doesn't technically require any qualifications at all - but the majority of my colleagues are solicitors or barristers. I'd struggle to actually do my job without the stuff I learnt in my law courses.

lostinrates

Goldiegirl wrote: »

If you want to do a degree, I think you should go for it, and then see where you are at the end of it.

Having a degree opens up all sorts of avenues, not necessarily in the law, so you could see what opportunities are available at the time.

Good luck!

Absolutely, but only if the reality still makes the choice attractive.

Ladyhawk

It really doesn't sound like you have much direction at the moment... You mention being a solicitor or lecturer among other things. It also doesn't sound (and I am in no way medically qualified) that your illness is well controlled if you are still experiencing voices. You will have people's lives metaphorically in your hands, no matter which branch of law you go into. Do you really think you can cope with that level of stress?

ValHaller

What would you have done if you had not suffered the trauma and what followed?

I am just wondering whether the idea of the law is a follow on to these events? It seems that the idea of the study is well formed but the vision to do anything beyond that is quite unclear.