City solicitor keeps it brief in rhyming bid to woo voters for top young lawyer post

By on

If only general election manifestoes were this simple


City law firm employment law specialist Richard Taylor has made a succinct and rhyming pitch to young lawyers in his bid to be elected to a senior position with the Law Society’s Junior Lawyers Division.

At the risk of embarrassing young Richard, Legal Cheek did a bit of digging to provide the electorate with more information before taking a decision on his suitability for such a high-flying post.

Until recently, Taylor (pictured below) was in the employment law team at the London office of Washington DC-based Steptoe & Johnson. But despite still being promoted on the Americans’ website this afternoon, an S&J personnel official told Legal Cheek that Taylor had “moved on to another firm” last week.


However, the official would not provide further details and Taylor’s LinkedIn page lists his current role as “gardening”. Nonetheless, the Steptoe official did confirm that Taylor was bidding for a JLD role.

Taylor bagged himself a first in law from Liverpool University in 2008, picking up an award along the way for having the highest grade in land law. That alone should see off any competition in the current election.

It was then off to Nottingham Law School for the Legal Practice Course before a training contract at the Manchester office of global firm Pinsent Masons.

On qualification, Taylor didn’t hang about at Pinsent, instead shooting off to City firm Slaughter and May, proving that the old school tie brigade will occasionally look beyond Oxbridge for its recruits.

But Taylor only spent a little more than a year in Bunhill Row before taking the Yankee dollar — moving to Steptoe in November 2013.

The JLD was created eight years ago, when its predecessors — the Young Solicitors Group and the Trainee Solicitors Group — merged.

It claims to have 70,000 members. But then all one has to do to qualify is be a current or former Legal Practice Course student, a trainee solicitor, or a qualified solicitor of up to five years’ experience.

H/t @RichardBLaw



He went Uni of Liverpool? ???! That’s not even that prestige- my friend got in with BBC grades for law with criminology in 2013



It’s at the lower end of the russell group anyway



This guys a joke or either really puerile-sorry I sound rude, but with gardening we can’t take him seriously



Hmmmm….someone’s been getting pumped an ego boost



He’s not all that to be honest


Not Amused

Ok, I am going to be honest. But in order to do so, I want to leave this specific guy alone. So let’s not talk about the magic land of solicitors. Let’s talk about the magic land of barristers.

It will no doubt shock you the way it shocked me, but no. No the people who get elected to these positions of “power”, they are not actually brilliant. You see all the brilliant people – they’re too busy being millionaires to have a life. People like me – we’re too busy earning a living and having a family.

So who can do these unpaid jobs?

Along come the under employed. The less able. The ‘oh for God sake who cares as long as someone does it’ candidate.

It’s sad in a way. Except when you remember that the most important thing for the Bar is that the successful are successful. Without that success, what are we?

So please, be a little bit more realistic about every pretence of democracy in the profession.



I received by JLD election slip and was pretty hacked off when I saw this guy’s statement. It literally translates as “I can’t be @ssed”. What annoyed me was that the two minutes I’d spent skim reading the other candidates’ statements before coming onto his was probably more time than he’d spent piecing together his own. Pretty poor form.

Also, for what it’s worth, inability to use the subjunctive (i.e. “If my statement was lengthy and dense”) is a ground of its own to pass over this candidate.

(Although I appreciate that I’m probably in the sad 3% of lawyers who read these things…)



I liked his statement (inability to use the subjunctive notwithstanding). Quite frankly it stood out and made me notice him and that is a useful skill when you’re trying to get your point across. He is, after all, the only one we’re talking about. The other two statements reflect very impressive candidates, however there are hundreds of those in our profession. An Asian solicitor who’s a member of an Asian Solicitors group; a female solicitor who’s a member of a Women in Law group. Sigh. They may be worthwhile causes and I’m sure they are fascinating and wonderful people but reading it on paper it just turns into ‘blah blah… see how great I am… blah blah… here’s another thing I can add to the list the next time I want to stand for something… blah blah blah”.

I may be envious of them for their time management skills and ability to have fingers in all the relevant pies, however that’s not what I want in a candidate for this role. I want someone who can get points across in a memorable way. It’s better to have someone who will provoke discussions about a topic than someone who will deliver a crafted speech and blur into the monotony of everyone else doing the same thing.

Then again, maybe he’s a complete tool. Still, the tool has my vote.


Comments are closed.