News

Ince & Co trainee sacked over ‘professional standards’

By on
48

First-year rookie’s dismissal expedited after partner let slip over firm drinks

A trainee solicitor at Ince & Co has been given his marching orders after failing to meet the firm’s “professional standards”. Ince & Co stressed the decision “followed careful consideration”.

An Ince & Co insider has told Legal Cheek that a partner was overheard discussing the first-year trainee’s impending exit during the firm’s monthly drinks. This, according to our source, sent HR into “overdrive” and the underperforming newbie was promptly dismissed the following day. On this, a spokesperson for Ince & Co — which takes on around ten trainees annually on a starting salary of £37,750 — said:

“It is highly regrettable that a partner was overheard discussing the matter, and that partner now accepts that it was inappropriate to have done so.”

The remaining rookies were officially told the news of one of their counterpart’s firing after being summoned into a meeting room later on in the day.

The 2018 Firms Most List

A spokesperson for Ince & Co said:

“We have always taken great care in the career development of our trainees at Ince & Co and believe we offer an outstanding training programme. Nevertheless, and despite being placed on a performance improvement programme, we took the decision to bring to an end a training contract of one of our first-year trainees purely for reasons of professional standards. This decision was not taken lightly and followed careful consideration within the firm.”

In our Trainee and Junior Lawyer Survey, shipping law specialist Ince & Co scored As for tech, office and canteen, as well as Bs for quality of work, peer support, partner approachability, work/life balance and perks.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

48 Comments

RoF Rozzer

“An Ince & Co insider has told Legal Cheek”

Quit lying Tommy, this was pinched directly off RollOnFriday where it appeared early this morning.

Nice try though.

Anonymous

Tommy to spend some time on the naughty step for nicking this from Roll on friday without crediting them. Tsk tsk

Alex Aldridge

We received this tip off independently. You do get people sending info to more than one publication! Fact it was published elsewhere first is just bad luck – not stealing. Note that we didn’t badge the story an exclusive.

A trust fund with a trust fund

Be honest Alex, your tip off was you browsing the roll on Friday website in your usual inebriated state

A parrot with a retard

Don’t be silly, Alex is too inebriated to read or write. It’s all done for him by his learning support parrot

Anonymous

Hi Alex.

Anonymous

Maybe people would be less quick to judge if you didn’t shamelessly steal from ROF every week. How is it they only publish once a week, and yet they always beat you to the punch?

A trust fund with a trust fund

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

Anonymous

RoF pinched Legal Cheek’s BPP dress code story the other day. Not entirely a one-way street.

Anonymous

Utter bollocks.

Anonymous

Right, except if you read the RoF article you’ll find this:

‘The manual, first reported by the Legal Cheek blog, states that students can also be docked points for scruffy hair, dirty clothes or if their appearance is “generally poor”.’

http://rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/5629/fromTab/58/currentIndex/9/Default.aspx

Blatant pinch. This is exactly what Legal Cheek constantly get shit for, ie copy-pasting a RoF post and slipping in ‘as reported by Rollonfriday’ or some such. I’m just saying RoF aren’t as unimpeachable as people to think.

Anonymous

Wrong – they’re getting shit because they didn’t say any such thing about the above article. Nice try, Tommy.

Anonymous

A decision taken after careful consideration over a few drinks.

LC staff

That’s how we make all our decisions!

Anonymous

Nice ROF steal!

Anonymous

HR trying to avoid a claim for constructive dismissal I think.

Whizz Kid

There is no claim for constructive dismissal if the trainee has less than two years service, except where the trainee’s termination was on the grounds of discrimination.

Worried shite trainee

Slight tangent, I thought trainees were technically apprentices and had additional job security. Anything in that?

Anonymous

No Cupcake

Whizz Kid

Both a trainee solicitor and one who trains as an apprentice are protected under employment laws. It is my understanding, that there is no additional protection for apprentices, the dismissal just has to be legal. With less than two years service, you don’t have a claim, unless you can claim discrimination.

Enough is enough

Not quite as simple as you say. An apprentice wrongfully dismissed may, at common law, recover damages for the value of the lost qualification. An employee can only recover damages for he wrongful termination limited to the wages that would have been paid if the contract was terminated lawfully…

The common law has been substantially modified by statute as to who is or is not an apprentice…

Do you want the full lecture? I would rather go to the pub!

The Brown Knight

Yeah, dumb ass! 2 years continuous service.

Why do 6 people give this thumbs up??

Oppidan

I worked for a company where the HR director was mouthing off on his mobile in the back of a cab about firing people. Cab driver father of one of the employees. HR director ( and tw@t) was fired😁

Anonymous

Cut and pasted from RollOnFriday.

What do you actually pay your journalists to do?

Weeeeeeeeee

No one cares about ROF anymore. And it doesn’t have nearly as cool pictures.

Anonymous

It’s just the barefaced lie by Tommy though:

An Ince & Co insider has told Legal Cheek = Tommy read RollOnFriday

Anonymous

Considering how hard it is to get a training contract ended early (outside of fraudulent actions etc.), it is actually quite the achievement that this person somehow managed to get fired 1 year into a training contract even if it’s with a garbage-tier firm like Ince & Co. It’s an achievement on par with getting a Third class degree without extenuating circumstances.

Anonymous

Ince & Co aren’t that bad, they’re no Irwin Mitchell. If you want to do shipping law, I think they’re pretty good. Also much better hours than the MC.

Anonymous

This. Ince & Co are a decent firm.

Anonymous

Yes I suppose Ince & Co isn’t a bad firm, much like how a North Korean labour camp isn’t a bad way to spend your summer

Anonymous

Ince & Co are not slave drivers. Those who work there do pretty interesting work and aren’t expected to bill 2,000 hours a year. I’d take a job there over a transactional gig at a US firm or MC any day.

Anonymous

Loose lips sink ships

Anonymous

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

Anonymous

Alex has long been a plagiarising twat.

Yet he still lives on a sink estate. So obviously not a very successful plagiarising twat.

Whoopee

I now live with your mother. She enjoys this. She told me to tell you, but \i’m not sure if she was talking to me because I wasn’t the only man there.

Anonymous

My mum is like that. Nothing wrong, she is a woman and can do what she likes.

Whoopee

Fair enough – that’s a pretty good comeback actually. Sorry.

Anonymous

Roasted.

The Brown Knight

Whats a sink estate?

Anonymous

Just for reference. Are sackings for ‘professional standards’ common?

Anonymous

At blue-blooded archaic dungeons like Ince & Co, yes. Just avoid shops that bang on about their “heritage”.

However, I’m surprised someone was bright enough to get through the assessment centre/vac scheme process only to get fired within the first year of a TC. Normally they’d let them drag on to at least get a practicing certificate but not offer them a solicitor role in any department.

Anonymous

I wish Legal Cheek would send out an investigative team to find out more (haha). There are so many unanswered questions in this article. Not holding my breath.

Anonymous

Do you know what happens when you hold your breath too long

Anonymous

Either a bad swim or a great wank?

Spalin

Great comment, comrade.

Join the conversation