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.
Lawyers provide a public service for those without a pot to **** in too, Stanley. Your analysis presupposes that our upside is unlimited, I don’t know a single reputable firm that doesn’t engage its social responsibility.
Charging students is unbecoming and greedy, it warrants criticism.
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.
“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.”
As a female lawyer, I find this incredibly patronising, and also completely wrong-headed for a number of reasons. Women lawyers do not routinely fail to “confidently own their expertise” to the extent that is remarkable to see a woman partner doing this, and I find it astonishing that in 2026 someone would insinuate that this is the case. Also, service to the profession (in the form of mentoring, sitting on committees, serving on industry bodies, writing articles etc) is not particularly dominated by women. Nor would it be better for gender equality if women stepped back from service to the profession – most people take part in these activities at least in part for self-serving reasons, and demonstrating some service to the profession is often necessary for professional advancement.
I don’t think it’s about suggesting women don’t already do this, it’s about recognising and reinforcing it, especially through social channels where so many young people consume their news and look for guidance. The point is less about rarity and more about visibility for younger female lawyers coming up the ranks. As you say, service to the profession is important, but so is normalising the idea that time and expertise have value. Both can coexist without diminishing the role women already play.
The idea that “time and expertise have value” is fully normalised in the legal profession! How can you not realise how absurd it is to suggest otherwise? It really sounds like you are dialling in from the 1950s! You are not helping young female professionals by suggesting that charging for mentoring is somehow a radical step forward for women everywhere.
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’.
When lawyers give their time to organisations that arrange free mentorship / advice for students, they do so within the confines of that organisation. For example, with “Aspiring Solicitors” you can only send messages through their portal and there’s a word limit. It’s an inferior service. If people want to pay for a better service, they should be able to. Just because you’re a lawyer, doesn’t mean you have to be a saint.
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.
To be fair, I did watch one of her videos where she said she was “on track” to make £200K this year – I consider that to actually be really quite low for a partner. It implied that it’s possible she might make less than that, which I thought was a bit shocking.
Obviously she’s hardly impoverished yada yada yada but just providing some context. At the same time, offering 4 1:1s a month @ £75 each is hardly going to make much of a difference…
Overall this was just really poor judgement on her part and it’s a shame because her content was great and refreshing. I’m not a mother yet, but seeing how she balanced everything gave me a lot of hope for the near future. I do hope she does the obligatory apology video + returns. I somehow doubt it. Social media and being a lawyer sadly rarely mix well.
She is a salaired partner. Equity in there makes 400K-1mil
DING DING DING!!!! She’s not being paid well enough so has to get a side hustle!
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.
I do wonder how many of the commenters supporting this are qualified, let alone senior, lawyers. This isn’t exactly an “side hustle”. It’s something RPC would expect partners to do to support the profession and community, which someone has quietly monetised. Even as a full equity partner I presume RPC limits what work members can do on a paid basis – and as a salaried partner there would be more restrictions. RPC’s response speaks volumes.
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…
Not a great look for the partner to be honest.
Doesn’t scream peak of your career and earning potential by flogging £75 p/hr zoom calls to students.
Can we get legal advice within them 45 minutes? If so it’s worth £500 at partner charge out rate so an absolute bargain
RPC aren’t charging anything like £500ph for partner time
a bunch of wage slaves defending the partner because they still think e- proximity to power is the same thing as having a realistic chance of becoming it.
commercially, it is embarrassing. charging £75 for “mentorship” values an RCP partner’s insight below tutors on superprof. professionally, it is even worse. how broke do you need to be as a partner that you monetise the anxieties of broke, desperate students and call it guidance. at least kirkland partners were KIRKLAND partners and priced themselves accordingly.
it is one thing to be a grifter. it is another to be a cheap one, while displaying an almost total absence of noblesse oblige.
I can’t believe how many people seem to be ok with this.
Of course it’s not illegal or a regulatory issue but it does leave a very sour taste and seems like very poor judgement on her part.
Mentoring is great – I do it myself, but it’s supposed to be about helping those further down the ladder than you, not a side hustle.
It wouldn’t even cross my mind to charge for it and I would honestly look down on anyone who did – especially someone who is supposedly already at the top to whom £75 should be a drop in the ocean.
Clearly RPC’s clients need to be getting more bang for their buck, if their partners have time to fit in this sort of grift 7 days a week.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of whether she should’ve been charging for mentoring, she posted very good content on being a working mother in law whilst juggling a full-time career with two young children.
She talked movingly about burnout and how to look after yourself and returning to Work after maternity leave. She talked about juggling her career with that of her husband and difficulties this could cause. There were many posts on these topics and it is a shame that a Reddit threat has been able to derail what was actually very valuable content for working mothers in the profession.
No one I have seen talks quite so openly about how tricky it can be. This is actually a loss to women in the profession and a real shame that someone is being shut down in this way.
“a real shame that someone is being shut down in this way” is a very manipulative and cynical to frame this.
She is a partner at a leading City law firm trying to sell careers advice to aspiring lawyers. Insanely bad judgement.
Then she deletes her TikTok page. She’s shut herself down because she’s an idiot.
I assume most women with careers in law don’t spend their time on TikTok though!! I really doubt that she was reaching many professional women that way. There are so many groups for women lawyers capable of providing support on returning to work and work/life balance issues, even if a given lawyer doesn’t have support in their firm/chambers. And the fact is that as a working mother myself, I find that this is a constant topic of conversation among women and men lawyers generally. It may have been a taboo subject 10 years ago but today I really don’t think it is
She’s unlikely to be reaching senior lawyers. But everyone under the age of 30 is on TikTok. Her content would be reaching women who are aspiring lawyers or at the start of their careers and seeing someone speak about work/life balance and how to navigate being a mother and Partner would be useful to people that want to become a mother and Partner in the future
If you are a law firm partner with a passion for mentoring, please volunteer your time to the amazing Bridging Barriers charity.
RPC’s average PEP is £490,000
Yes – that stands for Profits per Equity Partner. She is clearly not an equity partner.