The scheme is intended for students from less privileged social and economic backgrounds in an attempt to make the legal profession more accessible as City Law firms are often viewed as remote to many who don’t come from a specific background or school. Promoting greater social mobility in UK businesses has been high on the agenda this year with Nick Clegg launching his ‘Business Compact’ initiative and the legal profession launching its own social mobility initiative PRIME, in September 2011. 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. Both initiatives are committed to provide work experience for talented, ambitious and motivated students in the full range of careers available in the legal sector.

This scholarship is a fantastic opportunity as, not only will the successful applicants benefit from the financial contribution, but the work experience and mentoring will be equally critical to their success. Hopefully this scheme will encourage further initiatives across the profession enabling those from less privileged backgrounds to access the legal profession more readily.

Let us know what you think. Should more law firms be offering scholarships? Do you think initiatives like this will help diversify the profession? Will this greater diversification improve the legal profession?

In the wake of his trip, David Cameron has said he will not “rule out quotas” as a way of getting more women into top executive jobs and that the Government is prepared to consider introducing legislation if organisations do not tackle their lack of female representation at the top. Cameron stated how Nordic-Baltic countries are leading the way in Europe on the issue, with a quarter of boardroom posts now held by women in Sweden, and 40% in Norway where quotas came into force in 2008.

At present, only 15% of FTSE 100 directors are women with one in ten of Britain’s biggest firms still having all-male boards. At this rate it would take a further 70 years to achieve true gender balance in the UK. A government-commissioned report has urged top firms to more than double the number of women on boards by 2015.

However the idea of quotas is deeply unfashionable as many women do not want a promotion on the basis of their gender but rather for their competence. Securing promotion for women and encouraging female entrepreneurs is the preferred option. Many feel that the best way to tackle this problem is not to impose a quota, but instead to encourage organisations to recognise all of their existing talent rather than just the element that wears boxer shorts.

The debate on women at the top looks set to continue, but changes are beginning to take place. So before quotas are enforced do you think legal firms need to stay ahead of the game and start promoting more women now before it is enforced? Let us know what you think, are quotas good, bad or just plain unrealistsic?

The company secretarial market is home to an exceptionally talented group of professionals trained to advise companies on an array of complex regulations and help guide them through periods of corporate activity and commercial change. With ever increasing demand from clients for the more senior level company secretaries, we believe that this is exactly the right time to launch this new service.

With an extensive knowledge of the market, we are able to access a network of extensive contacts that extends beyond that of any traditional head-hunter. We have developed a detailed understanding of what makes this market tick which ensures that we are focused on the changing requirements of candidates and clients. With this new division, we are now able to offer a more bespoke approach to any business looking to recruit a senior company secretary.

For more information visit our new division http://www.dmjrecruitment.com/executive.cms.asp

Mergers are becoming more popular across a wide range of sections in the legal profession for a variety of reasons, however a key factor is that it simply makes business sense. For many firms it is a logical progression that will help expand and develop services. By partnering with another firm, it enables a practice to continue to grow rather than struggle on its own in an increasingly fragmented market.

Many UK law firms have been reluctant in the past to enter into a merger, however with the introduction of the new Alternative Business Structure, the whole profession is about to change. With news of these recent merger talks, it signifies a shift with managing partners now wanting to take the leap.

In our experience it is not just large firms that want to expand, but a lot of smaller practices are now considering this move too. As a result of considerable demand from a range of our clients to assist them in growing, we have a dedicated mergers division. And with a large network of clients throughout the UK, and our in-depth knowledge of the workings of law firms from small one person practices to huge international firms, we are well placed to advise firms on the options and opportunities available to them.

Let us know what you think – is it wise for more mergers to take place in the current economic climate? Is the risk of joining with another firm just too high?

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?

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’?

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?

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.

It’s been a great year for us at DMJ and we have lots of exciting things planned for 2012 including our rebranding – so watch this space! We can’t wait to get started and are looking forward to what the New Year brings. In the meantime, thank you to all our readers and we’ll be back blogging again very soon!

Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! 

The debate over the harmonisation of patent law across the European Union has been raging for many years but disagreements among EU governments have so far hindered any efforts to create the single patent regime. Following strong opposition from Spain and Italy over language issues earlier this year, 25 countries of the 27 EU members were prompted to move ahead with the process. However the only remaining issue yet to be decided on is the location of the central division.

Munich, Paris and London are all potential locations however ministers still haven’t been able to agree on which one to pick. The current favourite amongst ministers is rumoured to be Munich, but why does location matter?

The country that wins the Central Division will hold an unrivalled market as well as economic gain. If London is unsuccessful in its bid, it may mean that UK Patent lawyers would need to relocate in order to practice in the competitive profession.

So what does this mean for UK lawyers in the long term? Could this even mark the death of UK patent law as we know it? It’s far too early to tell but we will be watching this debate develop with great interest. What’s your view? Let us know by commenting below.