Oxbridge law gets a taste of its own medicine with rejection letter

Continuing the discussion from our previous post ‘It’s not what you know but who you know’, we were intrigued to see the news story of law student Elly Nowell. The 19 year old recently parodied the University of Oxford’s own rejection letter with an email stating that Magdalen College ‘did not meet the standard of other universities’. The letter was a viral hit and has managed to open the debate on whether Oxbridge colleges should change their intake to reflect wider society.

Elly wrote, “While you may believe that your decision to hold interviews in grand formal settings is inspiring, it allows public school applicants to flourish and intimidate state school applicants, distorting the academic potential of both.” Elly continued to criticise the interview process and the rituals and traditions that these institutes hold, highlighting the gap between minorities and white middle class students who attend.

Elly has since decided to study law at University College London. However should she be afraid that she has damaged her future prospects as a lawyer? The upper echelons of the legal profession are still dominated by Oxbridge graduates who represent a narrow group of the public. Should top law firms continue to deem the Oxbridge elite better than other graduates?

The idea that the profession is only interested in one type of person is becoming outdated. Clients come from a range of backgrounds so it makes sense for firms to reflect this. Many lawyers are now proactively broadening access to the profession with initiatives such as PRIME. And with ever increasing tuition fees, perhaps recruiting graduates should no longer be based on hiring the best students from the top universities. Law firms will need to widen the scope to bring in the best new talent from around the country.

Let us know what you think. Do you think that  firms should be widening there scope of graduates that they recruit? Are Oxbridge law graduates really a better class of lawyer?

It’s not what you know but who you know

This week saw the launch of Nick Clegg’s ‘Business Compact’ initiative, promoting greater social mobility in UK’s businesses. More than 100 firms such as Barclays, Tesco, BP as well as 10 top law practices, have already signed up to the scheme to help open up careers to people from less privileged backgrounds.

The Business Compact has been designed to ensure that the very best and brightest young talent across the country, regardless of background and upbringing, have the opportunity to succeed in business and of course consider a career in law. The scheme requires participants to formally advertise work experience opportunities as well as pay interns wages or expenses. The idea is to make the process more transparent and open. The scheme also encourages members to support schools and communities through mentoring schemes and staff visits.

Nick Clegg has claimed he wants to end the ‘Not what you know but who you know’ culture currently allowing privilege and connections to drive opportunity. Some have claimed that there is hypocrisy in this statement as Nick Clegg himself managed to gain work experience when he was younger through family and friend connections which inevitably helped his career.

This scheme follows on from the legal professions own social mobility initiative PRIME, which was launched in September 2011. PRIME is committed to provide work experience for talented, ambitious and motivated students in the full range of careers available in the legal sector. 23 UK and Irish law firms have already joined forces to introduce more teenagers from less privileged backgrounds into a career in law. The initiative was launched to provide fairer access across the board in order for the legal profession to become a true reflection of the wider society.

Let us know what your opinion is? By offering financial support do you think that it will attract more young people from poorer backgrounds into the profession? Or do you think it will remain a culture of ‘not what you know but who you know’?

Eggs, Milk, Bread, Legal Services

As the Co-Operative Group is currently undertaking its largest recruitment drive for lawyers ahead of its conversion to become a Alternative Business Structure (ABS) and expand into the legal services market, we wondered how the new Legal Services Act, will affect the Legal profession. Will consumers feel more comfortable getting legal services from a big brand they already know, or would they prefer to stick with traditional law firms?

The new Act allows non-legal organisations such as banks and supermarkets to offer legal services. By offering more choice and better value to the public, the government is hoping the new regulations will encourage economic growth in the sector and raise the profile of the UK as a first class legal services market.

Buying mobile phones and insurances is common place at many supermarkets and providing legal services such as injury, personal finance and family law is just the next step in creating a more accessible, efficient and competitive market. Brands such as AA, Saga, Which? and Halifax have all expressed intentions to become ABS and provide basic legal needs to the mass market. Despite the fact the Act has been dubbed ‘Tesco Law’, the supermarket giant has not announced any plans to offer legal services. However following a disappointing Christmas trading in the UK where shares dropped by 15% could it be the next organisation to follow suit?

While consumers have little knowledge of legal services, it is argued that they would value a trusted consumer focused brand to provide these services. The advantage that household brands have over the legal profession is that they are recognised by the man or woman on the street, whereas lawyers are not. However critics are arguing that the new regulations will undermine the quality and independence of advice.

Let us know what you think. Do you think consumers will prefer to use legal services from a household brand they know and trust? Or do you think traditional law firms will remain predominate in offering legal services? And will it have any impact on your career?

Bankers’ Bonuses Legal Bonanza

As the bonus season is fast approaching, British banks have been warned to prepare for legal action if they make dramatic cuts. Many bankers are considering suing for ‘loss of earnings’ if they do not get the bonus they think they are entitled to.

Banks however, have also been warned by Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, and by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to restrain on bonuses and dividends in order to build up the financial strength in the face of the euro crisis. “We must be just as tough this year in the bonus season that’s coming up as we were last year, if not more so,” Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, told BBC Radio 4.

Numerous bankers are seeking advice from City lawyers to gauge their options in regards to this issue. Many feel that they deserve a bonus if they have done well this year and managed to reach specific targets set for them. However bonuses are expected to be smaller due to the economic climate. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) City bonuses are expected to total £4.2bn which is down 38% on the £6.7bn paid out last year.

Although banker’s bonuses remain discretionary in theory, many could argue that the right to receive one has become so strongly embedded in their corporate culture that they may still have a legitimate expectation of receiving one. The legal challenge however lies with bankers’ bonuses being irrational.

It can be argued that if bonuses are contracted on performance and that has been achieved then the banks are obliged to pay them regardless of shareholder and public opinion. However is it right to reward these professionals after several banks have been bailed out by the government or they haven’t reached their targets? Should they get paid on results? What do you think? Are you sympathetic towards bankers’ claims that their bonuses are too small in the current climate? Let us know what you think.