Rookies put on notice
A London law firm partner has urged incoming trainees not to charge aspiring solicitors for application advice, warning that successful applicants are increasingly seeking to cash in on their training contract wins.
Paul Leamy, a partner at Temple Bright, took to LinkedIn to call on law firm early talent teams to actively discourage future trainees from monetising their recruitment know-how.
Leamy said he had noticed a “growing trend” of candidates who had successfully navigated competitive vacation scheme and training contract processes offering application advice on social media in return for what he described as “not insignificant fees”.
“This exploitative behaviour doesn’t sit well with me at all,” he wrote.
The partner argued that many of those now charging for advice are likely to have received support themselves while applying, adding that in his view, “paying it forward should not be for monetary gain”.
Leamy reserved particular criticism for one unnamed social media creator who, he claimed, “habitually sniggers” while analysing rejected applications in posts.
“So irritating!” he wrote, adding that he had seen little in the creator’s content that he found “particularly impressive”. Some of the guidance being offered was, in his view, “bum advice”.
He also warned would-be lawyers against assuming that securing a training contract automatically makes someone an expert on graduate recruitment.
“Just because someone has been successful in securing an opportunity, it doesn’t make them an expert on the process,” Leamy warns. “There are many factors at play. And despite their wild claims, I don’t believe these individuals have any ‘magic sauce’ to share.”
The partner also raised a more serious legal point, questioning whether trainees running paid application advice businesses were keeping on top of the regulatory requirements that could come with them.
He said he hoped future employees were complying with “all the legal obligations” applicable to their businesses, flagging in particular a potential requirement to register with the Information Commissioner’s Office and pay a data protection fee.
Turning to aspiring solicitors, Leamy urged them not to pay for application advice, pointing instead to the “whole army” of successful applicants and lawyers willing to help for free. “Reach out to people at your target firms,” he concluded. “You may be surprised at just how much some people want to pay it forward.”
The post drew support from across the profession. Shoosmiths head of emerging talent Samantha Hope commented that she “100% agree[d]”, while Patrick McCann, former director of learning at Linklaters and now chief executive of the City of London Law Society, warned that aspiring solicitors are “really up against it” and should be able to access help without fees.
Solicitor Iqra Ali also thanked Leamy for “calling it out”, questioning how people could monetise advice when they themselves were likely to have benefited from free support. “It’s exploiting those who are desperate for help and would do anything to get that help,” she added.
I’m in two minds about this.
On the one hand, it ludicrous for a future trainee to sell their advice on getting a training contract. Not only are you grossly overestimating your value (you basically were successful once), but you’re also commoditising people’s aspirations. If someone successfully built a piece of furniture, should they then start a furniture building guide and sell it?
On the other hand, if there’s a market for it (which there clearly is), surely capitalising on it shows entrepreneurship and a commercial mindset, albeit at the cost of looking like a bit of a Wally.
Finally! Someone has said it! It wasnt this previlant about 10yrs ago but it seems like alot of legal influencers want to max out their pockets but doing the most. Charging for calls and app reviews when it just seems wrong!
Well said Paul Leamy. It should be banned in my opinion. It doesn’t show entrepreneurship at all; it shows exploitation and disregard for the core tenants of the profession. People seem to forget this.
Couldn’t agree more. We (grad rec in a very big firm) have seen a start-up attempting to sell successful application forms on to aspiring lawyers, which really puts us in two minds regarding the integrity of the 1) the person who got a training contract and is now selling their form on, and 2) the aspiring lawyer prepared to buy it. Feels like something the SRA ought to be looking into.
All firms spend countless hours offering advice on navigating their recruitment processes, running events, answering email enquiries, partnering with Legal Cheek and other student-facing groups to support aspiring lawyers. There’s plenty of help and support available without anyone needing to pay for it.
Agreed. Also as someone who went through the rigorous TC process a few years ago, it’s something that people should research, understand and progress through themselves rather than how much they’re prepared to pay.
You won’t have that benefit when you are in the job – you’ll have to find the answers yourself
If your TC was that good, surely you would be earning enough, and in any case wouldn’t have enough time to be doing this side-hustle?
I think most of these courses are ran before people start their TC.
Once they start the TC I think most stop because they simply do not have the time and probably also feel a bit cringe and ashamed when they realise how they were not actually that special
I disagree with his principle but completely agree re. the practical points of complying with obligations. In principle, this is a service that people should be entitled to offer, like any other. It depends on how they hold out their experience, but trainees or NQs do have experience worth selling. The usual maxim caveat emptor is important. Aspiring trainees ought to be aware of this warning.
Absolutely spot on. It’s exploitative because of how difficult and competitive the processes now are, and it’s dishonest to hold oneself out as an expert at having passed something once (with almost certainly elements of luck or BOD along the way…).
It’s also not necessary in order to get good advice – I am always extremely happy to have a follow up conversation, coffee etc. with anybody that takes the time to come to one of our recruitment events, open days, vac schemes etc. and meets me there – and I am far from the only one at my firm – and I’ve got 5+ years’ experience interviewing people for schemes and TCs so I’d hope would be able to offer a decent enough insight. I certainly wouldn’t dream of anyone paying for it (indeed the coffee’s on me!). I’d encourage anyone to tap your network, however nascent it may seem, you’d be surprised how many lawyers there are out there that want to help young talent get on the ladder.
Spot on and in fact, any trainee caught doing this should have their TC revoked.
How is it exploitative? If “selling your experience to people who want the benefit of your experience” is exploitative, then especially in the age of AI I think someone needs to have a long thing about what exactly is the law firm business model.
I love the huffing and puffing about applicants being exploited. I think if firms are complaining it’s because they suspect they might not be picking the best applicants and are somehow being tricked by those who paid.
Who is paying for advice that is based on a sample size of one? Aren’t you supposed to have a basic level of critical thinking skills by the time you are applying for TCs?
Well said. That’s it.