Post quickly vanishes
A partner at City law firm RPC has come under fire for offering mentoring sessions to young aspiring and junior lawyers at £75 a-time.
Rachel Ford made the offer in which sees mentees book 45 minute slots at £75 a time through her personal TikTok page where she documents life as a lawyer while offering advice to those seeking enter the profession.
Ford — who uses neither her full name nor discloses her RPC connection — made her account private just hours after posting, making the video no longer publicly visible.
Legal Cheek obtained a copy of the video before the account was locked down over the weekend, in which she explains that as an aspiring and junior lawyer, she “really would have loved to chat to someone in the industry who was experienced.”
“I felt like there was no one really like that back when I was trying to get into the industry or training,” says Ford, who specialises in cyber and tech insurance. “I really love passing on knowledge and experience to more junior members in this industry. Love building people up, love giving people the tools for success, love just connecting with people. I find it very, very fulfilling.”
Ford — who has spent nearly 10 years at RPC and made partner in 2024 — goes on to say that she is running “one-to-one mentoring sessions” and directs interested viewers to a Linktree (a landing page that allows you to share multiple links on social media) in her TikTok bio, which shows that 45 minutes of her time will set you back £75. The page (see screenshot below) no longer appears to be live.
“I’m actually only going to do four this month because life is just chaotic over here and I balancing a lot,” she continues. “But I don’t want to let this bit of me go so I am here if anyone wants to chat.”
Unsurprisingly, a City law firm partner charging for mentoring has not gone down well.
Future trainee solicitors who saw the TikTok told Legal Cheek they were puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the partner’s stated passion for mentoring and her decision to monetise that support. Some noted that partners at major City firms are hardly struggling financially, and questioned why someone who claims to love giving guidance would charge people for it.
The criticism also spilled over onto the message boards of Reddit. “The fact that she is doing this and there are so many of us that do this for free is absolutely pathetic,” wrote one user. “Shame on her.”
“Imagine being a partner at a mid-size commercial law firm and charging anyone £75 an hour…” a second commenter posted. “£75/45 minutes, to be clear,” a third clarified.
“I feel like RPC are surely going to have something to say about this!” a fourth remarked.
In a statement to Legal Cheek, RPC’s managing partner Antony Sassi said:
“We recognise that everyone has a life outside work and value the diversity of thought and experience that brings. Our social media policy accepts that there is often a fine line between personal life and professional, particularly online. At RPC, we take our professional responsibilities and the reputation of the firm incredibly seriously and make it clear that we all need to exercise caution in treading that line, even when clearly operating in a personal capacity and with the best of intentions.”
He continued: “As a firm, we are deeply committed to supporting people at different stages of their careers — whether they are aspiring lawyers, those in the early years of practice, or professionals balancing the demands of work and family life — through a range of established initiatives. These include structured mentoring opportunities that we actively encourage people to participate in, alongside longstanding and highly regarded pro bono and community engagement programmes.”
This is really poor judgment.
Of course lawyers are allowed to charge for their time, but this feels different. A City partner charging students and junior lawyers £75 for “mentoring” just does not sit right, especially when so many people are already trying to break into the profession without family connections, spare cash or insider knowledge.
There is an obvious power imbalance. A partner has status and credibility. People may well think they are buying access, influence or some kind of inside track, even if that is not what was intended.
It also feels completely at odds with all the usual talk about social mobility and widening access. If senior lawyers genuinely want to help people coming into the profession, there are plenty of ways to mentor for free through universities, charities and access schemes.
The lack of transparency only makes it look worse. If you are selling advice based on your experience as a senior lawyer, people should know exactly who you are and what your connection is.
Maybe it is not a huge regulatory issue, but it is definitely a bad look. It makes the profession seem even more transactional and exclusive than it already is.
I don’t think any law firm partner should be on TikTok
Sounds like quite an outdated and traditional line to take. Why so? Lawyers should not feel out of reach and being on social media in this way cuts through all the unnecessary pomp. I’m all for that.
Is she an equity partner? If so, this is wild!
I mean, I struggle to see the issue here. She has not done anything wrong. She is a partner with clear experience, and I expect she would have useful insight for anyone who decides that a paid consultation is worth it. Equally, if students or junior lawyers do not think £75 for 45 minutes is good value, they are entirely free not to book it. There are plenty of free mentoring options, LinkedIn connections, university schemes and informal routes available. What feels slightly odd is the suggestion that someone charging for their time is inherently improper. Lawyers charge for their time. That is quite literally the business model. You can think it is not for you without treating it as some sort of scandal.
She’s a partner with clear experience and insight, and like any professional in the legal industry, her time has value. If someone feels that a paid consultation is worthwhile, that’s their choice, just as others are free to explore the many free mentoring routes available.
More broadly, it’s encouraging to see women in law confidently owning their expertise and setting boundaries around their time. That kind of leadership and transparency helps set a strong example for other women coming through the profession.
Going by the comments, I think the tone of this article has missed the mark. That’ll happen when your evidence for outrage is Reddit, those people are looking to be offended.
Don’t really see the issue tbh. Teachers do tuition on the side for a fee. Why can’t lawyers do mentorship on the side for a fee? Don’t think the “she’s a partner so people will think they are buying access/influence/inside track” argument works. THAT would be the thing that makes this dodgy. A professional offering mentorship in their field for a fee isn’t of itself dodgy.
Context is key: lawyers are not just any profession. We should be seen to uphold the best of traditions, and that includes the excellent tradition of supporting the next generation of lawyers free from commercial considerations or incentives.
I’d be appalled if a member of my chambers was choosing not to give their time to their Inn of Court or other body supporting aspiring lawyers, but running a side hustle and charging young people for ‘mentorship’.
the problem to me is that A partner at this firm would be paid so low that they’d have to consider taking outside income.
This is such a non-story. Why are we turning Reddit comments into “news”. I’m surprised the managing partner even felt the need to provide comment
The corporate censorship of individuals outside of work is absolute insanity. She has a profession, she can utilise it as she wishes. People can elect to use that should they so wish. She is not giving out legal advice. It is purely mentorship and if anything, courageous to put herself out there and utilise her skills. So sick of corporates thinking they can own and control everything people do. Her time is valuable and has a cost. Why should that not be paid for? Ridiculous. Bravo to her – ignore the online mob lady!
I can’t believe people are defending this. It is grifting pure and simple. There are proud traditions of pro bono work, and of lawyers giving their time to support the next generation across countless initiatives: Inns’ advocacy training; Bridging the Bar, Lawyers who Care and many others.
I’m embarrassed to see someone putting up financial barriers to any form of mentorship. What’s more, she is doing so despite being of substantial means.
A partner who needs to charge aspiring solicitors £75 for 45 min sessions either must be monumentally bad at her job or is in that much debt…