Targeting City law firms
In our latest career conundrum, an aspiring solicitor who hopes to work at a City law firm asks whether a masters degree will help recruiters look past their 2:2.
“Hello Legal Cheek. Please keep me anonymous. I achieved a 2:2 in law from Durham last year, and since then I’ve been doing a few non-legal roles to earn a bit of money. My question is really will completing a masters help law firms see past my 2:2? I have strong mitigating circumstances (a close family member was unwell during my final set of exams), but I’m still worried I’ll end up on the rejection pile in what I know is a very competitive process. I am targeting commercial law firms in London and the masters degree would also be law. Thank you.”
If you have a career conundrum, email us at tips@legalcheek.com.
No.
With the mitigating circumstances you describe, I think a few firms would be interested given you went to Durham
Don’t waste your money on an LLM. Get some good paralegal experience at a City law firm
I agree with this approach. If you’ve got 12k burning a hole in your pocket, stick yourself through the SQE and gain paralegal experience. You’ll be a much more attractive prospect to law firms doing that!
Very true. The masters on its own won’t help unless it’s a very niche area of law while the SQE will put someone in good stead with many many regional firms and will help somewhat with pretty much any firm.
Paralegal experience will go much further though. If this person is based in the north east then NRF and CC in Newcastle are probably the shouts to get a CV polishing without the course fee.
.
Sound advice now comes the hard part of finding a law firm that will take on an actual grad. Every paralegal role requires 6-12 months exp. If only this was included in the degree
Don’t waste your money!
In my experience of recruiting and interviewing grads over the last 5 years (MC) it is extremely rare that having a postgraduate degree makes a material difference to the strength of a candidate’s application. Good work experience (and ability to speak intelligently about it!) far more important.
I have a TC at a top 5 firm by revenue (international), my law degree was a 2:2, I did have mitigating circumstances but the point is firms will still take you as my firm cares more about potential and you as a person than a good test day or bad test day. My uni was not top 30 (non Russel group). Everyone fixated on what uni they went to are amusing to me as that’s not what’s the most important. Cambridge applicants went to the same vac scheme with a first class and didnt secure a position. Sometimes its is luck, personality, mitigating circumstances and performance. BTW I love my firm.
Also dont do a masters unless you absolutely want to, my firm is paying for my masters with sqe 1 &2 so you doing one is a waste unless you want to as they will likely send you to do one with the sqe anyway. If you must do something do the sqe as a number of future trainees fail (unfortunately the sqe is the real deal) which opens direct tc places. You could grab one of those places without a vac scheme if you are on or have completed the sqe course
Tell us you’re going to DLA without telling us you’re going to DLA…
The reality is that elite law firms, especially the US firms, absolutely prioritise students with stellar academics from top universities.
You can argue that this isn’t the case all you want, but I’d urge you to review the publicly available statistics from top firms, not just the anecdotal musings of a future trainee.
Its not DLA, though they are amazing. Its also not K&E but I would love to work there to see what its like, they seem great. Not all firms prioritise grades, i have seen the stats maybe I am an exception but I didnt just get one offer. Either way you be negative and ill live my truth
hahahaha the DLA comment is spot on
Genuine question: why does DLA Piper attract so much criticism online? It offers international work, strong training, broad practice areas and positive trainee feedback. Beyond prestige rankings, what are the main downsides?
For me, the deciding factor was simply NQ pay at US firms. Otehrwise DLA, Eversheds and NRF would all have been on my shortlist.
I think it’s unwarranted hate in the same way that Dentons does because they have expanded on the basis of pure size rather than the highest complexity/quality work. (DLA still does very good work though)
Big City Firms? No.
You won’t get past the AI filter buddy…
Maybe some regional firms can still be accessible, but in this market its pretty painful – even for people with 1st and 2.1!
Am sorry about the circumstances which affected you. Were Durham sympathetic. Personally think doing very well in Qualifying Exams might be a good target. I guess that you are pretty bright to have got into Durham which is a most highly regarded university.
Maybe you could get a letter from a sympathetic tutor at Durham.
i suspect that the advice in this thread is probably correct in the general negativity about doing an LL.M. Possible exceptions to that view are doing a masters in humanitarian law overseas eg at University Frankfurt Oder.
I wouldn’t recommend doing a Masters straight away. Instead, try to gain some work experience and focus on applying to training contracts that accept a 2:2. If you do decide to pursue a Masters, you would really need to achieve a distinction, ideally from a top university, for it to significantly strengthen your profile and generate more interest.
That said, there is always a way forward. I went to a non-Russell Group university, got a 2:2, qualified at a mid-sized firm, and now work at one of the biggest firms in the world in commercial contracts. So, if you’re resilient and determined, it’s definitely possible. Good luck!
It’s really hard but not impossible to get a TC with a 2.2 especially if you have mitigating circumstances. It would be better for you to focus on gaining any legal experience you can instead of an LLM since masters does not seem to matter much especially for MC. If you really want to do an LLM do one of those SQE 1 +2 focused ones from uni of law or bpp and sit the SQE which would make you much more competitive as a candidate.
Having a 2:2 doesn’t do you any favours. But move on and put it behind you. The more you dwell on it, the more it will become your scarlet letter. Agree with the other commenters – start building your work experience portfolio as best you can. This is actually very valuable.
Perhaps also do not pursue city law firms as your only options because I do think you’ll struggle with that. Explore other ways of gaining experience and/or qualifying – such as in-house or solid paralegaling now with the SQE.
I got a 2:2 and still qualified as a solicitor (in-house). It took me longer – but I gained really valuable work experience (including non-law) along the way. I was lucky to complete a competitive non-law grad scheme at a company who dgaf about grades – and during this I did very legal adjacent work.
I now work at a very reputable company and alongside people from different unis from Oxbridge to polys. Based on my appraisals etc (and even conversations with external law firms), I am pretty good at what I do in terms of legal knowledge and skills as a solicitor. My salary is on par with those with same experience/PQE. My grade truly is a thing of the past – literally never comes up.
Stay positive and move on. Grades only really matter to get through the sifting process of law firm applications. There’s more to life and a great legal career than that.
Skip the masters and target realistic firms. In a recruitment pool where 2:1s are the norm, unless you have some exceptional experience or skill that is desirable to the recruiting firm (which in my case I don’t think my masters counted towards), it’s going to be an upstream battle against thousands of applicants who have better academics, which is one of the more important factors during the recruitment process at this stage of your career. By all means this shouldn’t dissuade you from targeting bigger firms as the Durham name carries weight and you will no doubt have earned your place there, but if becoming a solicitor is your dream and you aspire to work in a big city firm, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with working your way up smaller firms. I finished the LPC alongside plenty of intelligent aspiring solicitors whose dreams died because they only ever applied to the big firms despite having 2:1s from some very respected universities, whereas I secured a training contract by paralegalling at a smaller city firm with less than 50 employees. A small minority of those classmates who persevered did eventually gain a TC, but I’m now almost 10 PQE on them at a Tier 1 firm for my specialism, after making a few moves in my career when the focus turned more to my experience and technical ability. I did achieve a 2:1 at a solid red brick, but the point I’m making is that sometimes it’s just about hedging your chances by adjusting expectations (for now). Good luck!
Sorry you had family issues. That is rough. But I find it hard to believe you just got a 2:2 because of the final set of exams and you’re looking for validation / encouragement now given where you’ve landed. You don’t just get a 2:2 because of finals, that’s a really low and terrible grade which probably captures the range in which you were performing throughout your degree in general (even if there was a bad day come exam time). A low 2:1 (i.e., below 65%) is also a really low mark and I think hard to get unless you’re not even trying. Grades are not the be all and end all but less than 65% (which is a pretty average grade and shows average academic ability) should be the minimum. Controversial opinion but college is not that hard: a few essays and a few exams over a few years while you have no full time job or other real responsibilities (appreciating this is a generalisation and doesn’t apply to absolutely everyone and every circumstance obviously). All you have to do is go to your lectures, read the materials, submit your assignments on time and study appropriately for exams.
Contrary to what others say, I think doing a masters will help you. It’s a fresh academic chance and you can start the ball rolling with vac scheme / TC applications again with a fresh set of grades to put on top of your CV. It’s also a good way to expand your education, meet more people and have a fun year. If you had a bad last year of your degree, then you deserve to enjoy it a bit. If you get a first in your masters, it further validates your story. If you get a low 2:1 or 2:2, it shows that is actually the range you are at. After that, some good legal experience will also stand to you. If you have the option to do both, you should. A masters is only a year and once you have it, nobody can take it from you. One final point – masters programs (while more reading / writing involved) are actually easier to achieve higher grades in. You would genuinely have to not turn up to get a 2:2 in a masters (and I am talking about LLMs here). Some of the dumbest people I have ever met who are terrible lawyers have 2:1 masters.
I wonder if it is correct to describe a 2:2 as a “low and terrible grade”. For some of us,the challenge was to get into the pass list at all, never mind getting at the top of it.
Perhaps, but needing validation is not equivalent to demonstrating good academics. With inevitable exceptions of course, those who were challenged to get into the pass list are not likely to succeed in a tc.
Categorically the worst piece of advice here.
Tell me you lack empathy without telling me you lack empathy
“2.2 as a low and terrible grade”.
Tell me you are privileged without telling me you are privileged
“college is not that hard: a few essays and a few exams over a few years while you have no full time job or other real responsibilities”
Tell me you have no recruitment experience without telling me
“ I think doing a masters will help you. It’s a fresh academic chance and you can start the ball rolling with vac scheme / TC applications again with a fresh set of grades to put on top of your CV.”
Where to start…
Imo, a masters can be good for the CV but a bit of experience is better. While a LLM might help marginally more for TCs if it’s a good and niche course, it’s much riskier than paralegalling somewhere, paying the bills and then having some experience that gets you in the eyes of recruiters as more than a graduate
@U2 – On your first point, a 2.2 is a terrible grade – that is the whole point of the post. If you’ve ever looked at the grading system in a university (you can ask your lecturers for the guidelines when they give you feedback, they’ll show you and you could read it yourself). Anyone who says it is a good grade is not living in reality.
On your second point – not privileged, form a socio-economically disadvantaged area outside of the UK, first in my family to go to university, no connections, no vac schemes just got my job through perseverance and trying to improve on each attempt. I had a part-time job in university where I worked Thursday evenings 4pm-10pm and all day Saturday and Sunday. The comment I made acknowledges that it is a generalisation and obviously certain people have real issues / family circumstances for the entirety of their studies.
On your third point – that’s a personal opinion and objective piece of advice for someone who is trying to demonstrate that they have academic ability beyond their undergraduate results. There’s no other way to show that other than by doing a masters. Equally, masters programmes have plenty of law fairs and exclusive internships / job opportunities / networking opportunities because they are aimed at graduates looking to break into the job market.
Your question was where to start; perhaps engage with the substance of the words written in front of you rather just assuming.
No and don’t look for a training contract. If you have money for an LLM, just use it to complete the SQE.
As someone who reads the applications, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, worse than someone with lower than necessary or expected results bleating on about mitigating circumstances. It is a red flag on a red flag. That would send the application straight into the no pile. And the LLM won’t make a difference either. There will be plenty of people posting encouraging messages or anecdotes on this one, they are not giving good advice.
That feels a bit categorical. In practice, most firms I’ve spoken to treat mitigating circumstances as context rather than an automatic red flag. Of course, they won’t override consistently weak applications, but they can explain a single data point in an otherwise strong profile.
Similarly, “lower than expected results” aren’t usually fatal on their own if the rest of the application shows strong academics, work experience and improvement over time.
It may well vary by firm and by volume of applications, but saying it’s an automatic “no pile” doesn’t really match what many recruiters or trainees report in practice.
I am really sorry to say this but your chances currently do not sound great. I say this with nothing sympathy for your situation but you would not believe the number of applications we get with similar mitigating circumstances. Clearly, I do not know the situation but we see hundreds of applications where people have faced extreme adversity and still achieved amazingly academically from elite universities. Applying for vac schemes and TCs will be an uphill battle.
Grad Rec teams and hiring partners have to answer to the senior partners on every hire and if they can’t 100% justify your spot, they can’t take the risk on inviting you to interview.
For what it is worth I would say:
Either way, good luck to you!
Seems very good advice from Grad Rec at City Firm.
Agreed.
I understand that Fiona Shackleton only got a third and look at her!! Do what makes you happy but steer clear of City law firms who will not take you and only do a Masters degree if you have time and money . No point in building up more student debt. Lastly l, do you desperately want a TC or would you consider another career. Keep your eyes, ears and options open.
Don’t bother with the Masters. It won’t move the dial. The SQE is marginally better, but still won’t open as many doors as people think it will, even with paralegal experience. My recommendation is to pivot away from law for the short term. Try and get a commercial role on a grad scheme with a large multinational such as BP, GSK or Vodafone. Law firms appreciate commercial acumen and professional experience. You can use your actual work experience to improve your answers to competency questions when you apply for training contracts. Good luck.
It’s honestly a bit disappointing to see certain individuals particularly those from US firms, unsurprisingly so quick to drag others down and position themselves as arbiters of someone else’s potential.
Yes, grades matter, especially when it comes to the largest firms. But they’re not the definitive measure of your capability, and they’re definitely not the final word on your future.
What matters far more now is experience, adaptability, and the ability to build skills you won’t learn at uni or a big firm. I’ve worked with some incredibly talented people who didn’t come from an elite uni or have perfect academic records, yet consistently outperform others because they bring something different to the table.
If your only definition of success is landing a role at a top-tier firm, it’s probably worth broadening that perspective. especially now your path isn’t likely to be the traditional one. There’s more than one way to build a successful and fulfilling career in law.
Focus on getting experience. If academia genuinely interests you, then a master’s could be a great option. But most importantly, recognise that a non-linear path doesn’t have to be a setback it can be your advantage.
Your journey doesn’t need to look like anyone else’s to be worthwhile.
If I was going to study again I’d go for a solicitors apprenticeship. Learning on the job supports your studies and visa versa.