News

Norton Rose Fulbright becomes latest firm to unveil retention rate in the 60s

By on
11

Firm keeps 16 of its 26 NQs, with two more on fixed term contracts

International heavyweight Norton Rose Fulbright has kept 18 of its 26 newly qualified lawyers (NQs). With two of those on fixed term contracts, this amounts to an autumn retention score of 62%.

The firm has revealed it made 18 offers to nine male and nine female final seat trainees; all accepted. NQs at the 59-office firm will enjoy a recently enhanced salary of £75,000, Norton Rose Fulbright having in July announced pay increases of £3,000. Trainee remuneration got a boost too, from £42,000 for first years to £44,000, and from £47,000 for second years to £48,000. Profit per equity partner (PEP) at the firm — whose plush London office is located just across from Tower Bridge — is £440,000.

This latest retention rate is quite the drop on its previous scores. In spring 2017, the global giant unveiled a solid 83% figure, while this time last year it was 85%.

It makes the City firm one of nine to reveal an autumn retention figure in the 60s. Berwin Leighton Paisner (67%), Browne Jacobson (67%), DWF (66%), Freshfields (66%), Squire Patton Boggs (65%), Dentons (64%), Mishcon de Reya (64%) and Taylor Wessing (62%) have all posted similar scores.

Trainee autumn retention 2017

Firm Score Breakdown
Burges Salmon 100% 28/28
Watson Farley & Williams 100% 15/15
Fieldfisher 100% 13/13
Blake Morgan 100% 9/9
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton 100% 9/9
Forsters 100% 8/8
Sullivan & Cromwell 100% 4/4
Latham & Watkins 95% 21/22
Ashurst 95% 19/20
Macfarlanes 92% 23/25 (two on FTC*)
Slaughter and May 91% 29/32
Travers Smith 90% 18/20
Ince & Co 90% 9/10
Stephenson Harwood 90% 9/10
Blake Morgan 89% 8/9
Reed Smith 86% 12/14
Allen & Overy 85% 40/47
Linklaters 84% 47/56
Gowling WLG 84% 21/25
Bird & Bird 83% 15/18
White & Case 83% 15/18
Covington & Burling 83% 5/6
Osborne Clarke 82% 14/17
RPC 82% 14/17
Clifford Chance 81% 42/52
Addleshaw Goddard 81% 38/47
Bond Dickinson 81% 22/27
Eversheds Sutherland 80% 44/55
Herbert Smith Freehills 80% 28/35
Hogan Lovells 80% 24/30
HFW 80% 8/10
Clyde & Co 79% 34/43 (one on FTC)
Mills & Reeve 79% 15/19 (one on FTC)
DLA Piper 78% 75/96
Simmons & Simmons 78% 21/27
Shearman & Sterling 75% 12/16
Pinsent Masons 74% 67/91
Mayer Brown 73% 8/11
Withers 73% 8/11
Charles Russell Speechlys 71% 17/24
Trowers & Hamlins 70% 7/10
Berwin Leighton Paisner 67% 16/24
Browne Jacobson 67% 6/9
DWF 66% 33/50
Freshfields 66% 27/41
Squire Patton Boggs 65% Not disclosed
Dentons 64% 18/28
Mishcon de Reya 64% 9/14
Norton Rose Fulbright 62% 16/26 (two on FTC)
Taylor Wessing 62% 16/26
Kirkland & Ellis 56% 5/9
Weil Gotshal 50% 5/10
Stewarts Law 25% 1/4

*Fixed term contract

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub.

11 Comments

Anonymous

Oh Katie, you have such a nice smile.

(1)(1)

Googled some lyrics to increase the creep factor of this guy by 205%

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Lol, hope you’re at CMS in the nice open plan desperate for the toilet, but wait, what’s that- it’s a raging desk boner

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Word on the street is that the toilets at CMS are now open plan too.

(5)(1)

Anonymous

Are they at least opposite one another so you can stare down your opposite partner before inviting them over to inspect why you are known as the lumberjack?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Mediocre retention, but apparently a total shagfest so still a great choice.

(4)(0)

B. J. Clinton

Oh lawdy…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This article doesn’t mention that 2 in the intake didn’t put themselves forward.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

that shouldn’t matter really. Retention rates are meant to show both, how attractive a firm is to the trainees and whether the firm had spots for all its trainees.

If a trainee chooses to leave a firm without qualifying of their own volition, it is a signal that the firm was not able to accommodate their desired practice or that the firm in some way fell short of the trainees expectation(s).

Knowing at least one of the people who didn’t put themselves forward, I can say with some certainty that the second of the two was active here.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Much better than CMS. What a shithole

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.