Career Clinic: Is there a left-wing side to law?

First, comments like employment law being "often more about helping the big business than the claimant" suggest you think that "big business" is always wrong, which is far from the case. If you go into a training contract at a City or large commercial firm with that sort of attitude, you will have a terrible time. I would question why you have even accepted a contract with such a firm (if in fact you have). But if you do an employment seat at one of those firms then their clients will indeed be large businesses, for the most part. It would be interesting to see if you are still so pro-claimant at the end of it! You don't have to qualify into an area you don't like or approve of, but I think it IS important to understand how the law works in as many areas as you can get exposure to. There are all sorts of options once you qualify. I heard a lawyer from a union body speak recently at an event and his job sounded really interesting. But all these organisations need good people who know what they're doing, so technical excellence should be your primary focus.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 10:35

Have you ever considered that your views might change as you mature and that you won't always have a 6th Form common room outlook to life?

Librarian -18 Dec 2008 | 11:25

You yourself should not follow 'obvious patterns' in assuming left-wing views grow out with age. Prescott was quite old last time I checked.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 11:45

If you wanted to work for a union have you, erm, considered applying for a job with one?

Anna Hill -18 Dec 2008 | 11:48

I can't apply yet, I'm an LPC student with a City TC. So I am considering my broader options, that is all.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 12:21

If you have such strong moral objections, clearly you'll not want to be paid from funds derived from working for such morally bankrupt clients......If you seriously want to follow your political principles to such an extent, I suggest you apply to a civil rights or criminal practice - to do anything else would be to stain your hands with the filthy lucre of late-capitalism. BTW, if you've such considerable objections to private equity, I take it you don't buy products (eg white bread), stay in hotels, watch Sheffield Wednesday or ride on trains - all businesses which have benefitted from private equity investment?

City Woman -18 Dec 2008 | 13:12

There are loads of opportunities out there for you. There are lots of "left-wing" firms, who undertake human rights, family, pro bono and other less lucrative areas of work than their city counterparts. You could work for a union, or a charity. You could also work either for local or central government. At this stage, I would keep your head down and work hard throughout your training contract. You may well end up liking the work at the City firm and you should be open-minded at this stage. If not, it's amazing how many doors a training contract at a City firm will open if you choose to leave once qualified and go into a more public-spirited area of law.

Solicitor, in-house -18 Dec 2008 | 13:33

Just to clarify, it's not that I morally abhor such things; it's just that for me the motivation is not there for me to stay in the office late working on such matters. I am quite willing to work hard, just for something I believe, besides making my slave master more money!

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 13:39

You don't like private equity? I'd suggest you find out what private equity means - the historical sense of the concept - and then refine your stand.Do you hate lending? Are you an objector to lending, or just so-so? Does investment tickle you silly, or does donating just freak you out? Odd.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 13:49

A partner at Rowley Ashworth trained and worked for some time post-qualification at a magic circle firm so the switch can be done. The biggest hurdle you will probably have is getting a seat and qualifying in Employment as it's fiercely competitive.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 14:23

Forgive me for saying this, but I can't help thinking that your question is naive and uninformed or just an attempt to have your conscience assuaged. Why did you apply for a City TC if you had such strong moral compunctions about working for companies or businesess, as these will invariably be the bulk of (if not all) your firm's clients? These entities are essentially morally neutral - surely it's rather what an individual client does or doesn't do that would cause you to have misgivings about working for them. Similarly, areas of law are essentially morally neutral. As already pointed out, if you want to work for (what in your opinion is) a more ethical employer or cause, do so.

City Lawyer -18 Dec 2008 | 15:00

Law? Morally neutral? Thats the most absurd contention I've ever heard. The whole legal system is based on liberal-capitalist principles.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 15:21

Do employment or PI work for Thompsons, all trade union/Claimant.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 16:10

Okay, so your question does make you sound a little naive, but I think I know where you're coming from. I too did not like the idea of practising law simply to make rich clients richer, but this is only a problem that really applies to corporate/commercial work. I work in commercial litigation, both for claimants and defendants, and find it very satisfying in terms of being able to help clients in their times of greatest need.That said, whatever area you practise in (no matter how "left wing"), you will not always be on the side of the angels, and that is simply something you have to accept it you want to practise law (there are two sides in every case, after all).Also, I would agree with the posters who have advised you to gain experience in as many different areas of law as possible during your TC, as (i) you never really know what you might like until you try it for yourself, and (ii) even if you want to join a more left-wing/charitable/liberal organisation at the end of the TC, the experience will be valuable in terms of what you can bring to such an organisation.

ex-city lawyer -18 Dec 2008 | 16:25

Lots of your colleagues will be left-wing at your City firm. But lots will be very very right-wing with extraordinarily ignorant views, such as everyone asking for state support are lazy oiks. As for working for big business and keeping the machine going, etc etc this is a question for you not for anyone else. I would say your skills could be better used elsewhere but i also think that a few years at a City firm will teach you a lot which will mean you are more valuable to a more ethical cause than you are now. You will learn how to get on with people with very different views from your own - clever people, notwithstanding bigotry which i think is pretty important if you want to change the world. Also you can do pro bono work while with a big firms eg for Liberty which takes volunteers for evening work (once a month commitment). NB our world in the City has become unpredictable and so what is the case now might not be in a years time - so i'd wait and see how the land lies after a stint in your firm before making big decisions. Lastly - there are a LOT of causes which would appreciate support from a legal brain - get out there while you have a bit of free time and find out!

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 16:27

This is a very interesting question. And I agree with previous posters that commercial law is most definitely morally neutral - if you're looking for something a bit more socially relevant, or socially important, then public law or criminal law might be your best bet. But, by the very fact that you've already got a commercial TC, it doesn't sound like your left-wing ideologies were hindering you too much. Or maybe your left-wing ideologies weren't as strong as you thought - you probably already knew that criminal and public law, and claimaint-based employment law, are less lucrative than corporate and commercial work. Sad but true. You have every right to follow the money if you like, but it might be a bit rich objecting to the work you have to do once you've decided to go down the commercial path.

Anon -18 Dec 2008 | 16:40

City lawyers work for big businesses, simple as that. Most are more ethical than you might think, often more so than private individuals. Take the job, earn the money and give large chunks of it to deserving causes if it matters to you; that will be of more benefit than working for them directly.

Dullard -18 Dec 2008 | 16:45

I used to think I wanted to go to the left-wing side of law, then I did a fair bit of work experience, did some union work, criminal, family work, child protection, etc. the list goes on. Depressing, occasionally corrupt and frequently horrible clients is my view. It takes a strong stomach to do some of this work (whether within the law or elsewhere), and very few people come out the end of their careers feeling like they've made a difference. Not to put you off your views, but that's where I got to after a year unfortunately, and I do now work in the City and enjoy it. I'll give you an example - let's say you did union work in Yorkshire (where I hail from). You think big business is stuffing the miners (a popular view when I were a lad). You want to represent the miners for their PI claims against the coal board. You find some chap called Beresford keeps beating you to instructions...

Stupot -18 Dec 2008 | 17:26

To Anon: I think you are being really simplistic. Firstly, working for big business is most certainly not morally neutral. Secondly, the choice to work in commercial law rather than criminal law is unlikely to be motivated purely by money, or at all - what about intellectual stimulation?? It is also pretty ridiculous to think that typical "left wing" areas are criminal or public - neither of which necessarily are left wing - what about the CPS?! Try legal work for human rights organisations or OXFAM or similar, or lobbying groups acting as advocate. I think that being left wing is partly about believing in support and assistance for those who can't provide it for themselves - as a City lawyers you can have these ideals and give money to people or organisations that do the day-to-day work.

Champagne Socialist -18 Dec 2008 | 17:33

Interesting comments so far guys, thanks.Just one thing to add at this stage: I took a TC at a City firm so that I could have the GDL and LPC paid off - I'm already in too much student debt to do anything else! Plus, as you say, I was keen to have a great firm on the CV as leverage, in the City or elsewhere.

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 18:16

You will soon be a 40% taxpayer for the rest of your working life - that should ease your conscience, plus you can do voluntary work in your spare time/give to charities? I prefer the fact that my salary is paid for by big companies and not coming out of the pocket of a charity!

Anonymous -18 Dec 2008 | 23:39

Your biggest asset in law is your brain. It really does not matter the size of the client files and the fees generated. Its about the 'application of the rule of law', albeit there is the ADR nonsense if you believe in it, which I don't. Say you are working on a big project: you can be objective to the client's objectives, do the fee work and charge out fairly on profit costs - if the client is suggesting not applying the rule of law or is sailing close to the wind, you can advise them to do something else. You have the brain and the power of one voice to say : stop, hang on a minute, what about this, let's be reasonable here - report conduct to colleagues, police, Law Society, judge, FSA, Ombudsman etc. You can and many lawyers do say "no" to sharp practices. The rule of law and how it is applied is your choice when it is fair, moral, ethical, professional, objective or not. Use your head wisely and your voice when it is needed. A level playing field is a level playing field - there is always a choice and you get to make it.

ANON -18 Dec 2008 | 23:48

Have you considered working for charitable organisations? I would presume that there would be vacancies for an 'idealist' candidate like you. The most important thing to remember is that the big businesses you despise actually help humanity by job creation.

In-house counsel, Oil &Gas -19 Dec 2008 | 09:10

I think when you are at the training stage you need to keep an open mind about what you are learning and the business sectors to which you are being exposed. I did a training seat in the employee/industrial relations group of a major Australian law firm. Not only was it hugely enjoyable (lots of interesting law + experiencing the cut and thrust of industrial negotiations), I learnt that things are not always as clear cut as "bosses = bad; unions = good". In fact, I found the industrial relations environment to be just as clubby as it was gladiatorial ...

Anonymous -19 Dec 2008 | 10:58

I got fed up with working on transactions that other people were making lots of money out of (but not me) and also had problems with working for clients which were tobacco companies, for example. You've opened a bit of a can of worms, posting on this site - most readers are City lawyers some of whom have very right-wing views so don't be surprised if you have a deluge of unhelpful and bitchy comments. You can go towards areas where you might be able to help people, for example, if you work in an employment dept and stop a client shafting an employee, that's good - you can work for good from within, so to speak. And you may also realise, as someone said, that big business isn't always in the wrong. Do your TC, see how you feel at the end and then look for something more public-spirited. There are firms that are big on pro bono, you could work for a trade union (and they could do with reform from within) or a charity for example.

Helen -19 Dec 2008 | 11:20

There's something you can do right now, and that's voluntary work. Citizens Advice Bureau is the obvious one. Also, have you considered working for FRU - the Free Representation Unit ?

May -19 Dec 2008 | 11:55

You sound fairly savvy to me - you took the City training contract so that you could have your GDL/LPC fees paid, and so your CV would look impressive to a future employer. ("Ah, she managed to secure a training contract at XYZ LLP - she must be bright. Let's hire her.) With that sort of thinking I don't think you'll have any problem finding work post-qualification with an employer whose values more closely align with your own.However, in the meantime, can I suggest that you take a more gracious view of the opportunity your firm is offering you? Forget the numbers of other hopefuls that you beat to your TC place; forget the pretty reasonable money they'll no doubt be paying you. The reason I'd ask you to take a more gracious view of your prospective employer is that real people (your future supervisors, for example) will invest a lot of time and energy into making you a good lawyer. Yes, you will have passed the LPC - but you really will know nothing when you arrive. In fact, you'll be more of a nuisance and a liability. And yet people will give you tasks to do, supervise you, correct you, and generally teach you more on the job than they ever can at law school. And it would be much easier for them not to bother - they'd probably get home earlier themselves, for example, if they didn't have to re-do something that they'd let you have a stab at. Your employer isn't an evil, abstract entity that's out to screw the little guy, it's a collection of people working pretty hard for their clients (not all of whom are "evil" either...) who are going to work even harder to train you. If you can't be grateful for that, at least try not to show contempt by buggering off home early. And a final point: no-one forced you to work for a City law firm (although your comments about student debt suggest that you feel that having had to pay for your undergraduate degree entitles you to take what else you can get from whoever you can get it from, entirely guilt-free...) and now that this is what you're going to do, I suggest you do it to the best of your abilities and don't moan about working late when required because you don't "believe" in what you're doing. Accept that you have made a bargain, and perform your side

Ex-lawyer -19 Dec 2008 | 12:25

If by left wing, you mean 'betterment of mankind' then yes, it exists. In the City it will be niche and probably poorly paid, by its very nature, but it's there. Trusts work for charities can be rewarding, as can private client work if you find the right firm. It will also be very competitive. But I suspect you're looking in the wrong place - why not work in criminal defence or something along those lines for a bit? I did. Didn't stay left wing for very long afterwards mind, innocent until proven guilty certainly seems to be an outdated principle these days. That aside, whatever happens please do not vote Gordon Brown back in, I would quite like a pension.

Anonymous -19 Dec 2008 | 16:13

Ex-Lawyer - your post is hilarious! The poster might be a student but that doesn't mean they are stupid enough to think that firms take on trainees out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because trainees are cheap labour!

DD -19 Dec 2008 | 16:17

Champagne Socialist- I don't think it's wrong to say that working for a commercial law firm is morally neutral. I suppose it depends what you mean by morals, ultimately. I would say morals are generally considered to be principles or rules that define what is right and wrong in the liberalist tradition of the western world. When it comes down to it, I think it's fair to say that capitalist/commercial activity isn't about fairness, or justice, or individual freedoms (which is what liberalism is based on), it's about making money. That, quite frankly, is a morally neutral activity, ie it's not considered to be necessarily a good or bad thing. It's just capitalism, which doesn't really have a big attachment to right and wrong- and that, I think you'll find, is what I meant by "morally neutral." Certainly, contract law has some morally relevant issues within it, such as restitution etc, but the overarching rules of commercial law are not about making a judgement about the activity itself. Also, I must defend the criminal and public lawyers out there (so few of them appear to comment on Legal Week), I never said these areas were obviously "left wing", but I did say that they had more social relevance (and were also perhaps less morally neutral)- ie ordinary people tended to be the clients, rather than companies (although they can be too). And I certainly don't think it's right to say that there's more intellectual stimulation in company law- I imagine in any area of law where it's fast-moving (such as criminal law and many other areas...company law not precluded), there isn't much room for intellectual stagnation. I think you're doing a disservice to the intellect of some criminal and public law lawyers out there with that comment. Of course, I also never said that you can't have a social or moral conscience and work for a City firm- of course you can! The two are certainly not mutually exclusive, but it can be difficult to object to doing specific things once you've actually got a job and are being paid to do them.

Anon -22 Dec 2008 | 17:21

The key driver of any law firm is to make money. No matter what the firm does, you will need to get used to this from day one.

Anonymous -23 Dec 2008 | 14:00

You state you "have strong moral objections to things like private equity and a great deal of what goes on in the City in general"With all DUE respect [ie with absolutely none] you clearly don't know the faintest thing about "the private equity and things that go on in the city" save what you've read in whatever pathetic rag you choose to read.... I've nothing against lawyers wanting to do something worthwhile but someone as ill informed as you really takes the biscuit. The employment lawyer I employed to make 30% of my staff redundant this year wasn't being "left wing" and I've done many private equity deals where the workers ended up being significant beneficiaries. Why don't you grow up and do a bit of research into the facts - that way you might actually make a decent lawyer one day although from your utterly asinine posing I doubt it

GC Bank -24 Dec 2008 | 09:58

Perhaps you would like to explain to the employees of Whittards whose jobs have been saved by a PE house why their new owner is so morally-objectionable?

PE in-house lawyer -24 Dec 2008 | 11:59

I think we all know that Whittards' employees have only been saved for a few weeks. Their new owners will soon shed rather a lot of them, so for a sizeable number, the reprieve is temporary, if no less welcome because of that.

Helen -24 Dec 2008 | 12:40

As Brown says, private equity undoutedly has good sides to it; principally in its effects.However, I strongly object to the concentration of capital that facilitates it in the first place.That is a valid concern.

Anonymous -24 Dec 2008 | 13:56

"I strongly object to the concentration of capital that facilitates it in the first place" - a huge amount of PE funds are derived from pension and other superannuation funds (Calpers, Ontario Teachers etc). I fail to see what is morally reprehensible about these people (often public servants) being able to receive a decent pension, or why it is wrong that their retirement savings are concentrated and then invested to good effect. But perhaps I should read more Polly Toynbee to understand better how the PE industry works.

PE in-house -29 Dec 2008 | 13:21

To anon: thanks for the reply but I still think you are missing the point on the morally neutral issue. The primary aim of the vast majority of the businesses we are talking about is to make money, and such businesses will do so at the expense of people if of assistance to bottom line. Any such business (which considers money more important than people) is not acting in a morally neutral way and nor is anyone who is involved including legal advisers. I don't think it is impossible to be successful in business and to be 'moral' in this sense, but I reckon businesses with such values are few and far between. Some high-profile companies have in fact acted in morally reprehensible ways - this is quite well documented, although I guess your view will depend on how you interpret the information available. I find commercial law (not company law) more intellectually stimulating - did not intend to put criminal lawyers down, just that I personally wouldn't find that work intellectually stimulating.

Champagne Socialist -05 Jan 2009 | 11:11

PS - in reply to PE inhouse re "strongly object to the concentration of capital..." i read somewhere (Guardian probably) over the xmas break that the gap between rich and poor in the UK now has gone back to Victorian proportions. If this is right, how can this possibly be a good thing for the vast majority?? It would be this concentration of capital that is objectionable to some.

Champagne Socialist -05 Jan 2009 | 13:43

As stated, use your brain - is this perhaps an issue that is being seen as morally reprehensible: calling in administrators and then immediately buying parts of it back, ie pre-pack administration (weighed up against) entrepreneurs having to write off large sums in any event. As well as the problem that some creditors are in the "know" whilst others are not and receive nothing. Every creditor will have a supply chain of some form, getting something back when faced with administration is seen as somehow palatable, but being completely cut out of the creditor loop - that appears morally reprehensible. On another issue, there is the issue of mismanagement and detrimental man-management - failing and receiving a large bonus package + pension pot seems morally reprehensible - should/could the Unfair Contract Terms Act be used to nip this one in the bud? Managing failure on the other hand still has to be done where the outcome is failure - picking up the bonus cheque + pension is therefore not morally reprehensible - its' a thin line, especially for all of you 'smart thinking' your mortgage and pensions rather than doing the decent thing and reporting practices to the relevant bodies.

ANON -05 Jan 2009 | 20:52

Dear "ANON" - please could you explain what "'smart-thinking' your mortgage and pensions rather than doing the decent thing and reporting practices to the relevant bodies" means??? Sounds very interesting and I would like to try it.

Financially Incompetent -06 Jan 2009 | 16:07

As an employment lawyer whose professional existence now consists of advising on redundancy procedures, I think you're a little misguided if you think there is much scope for left-wing activity (as opposed to frustrated and compromised left-wing principles) - unless you join a trade union firm (and take the associated pay cut). Equally, what idealism there is in the legal aid world is being edged out by ever-harsher financial realities (lower fees vs higher running costs). I think you will find that in a financial downturn, hard-edged pragmatism is going to be the order of the day.

Associate, mid-size firm -07 Jan 2009 | 11:58

GC Bank - well said, you hit the nail on the head, the poster clearly has no idea what goes on in the City. They have obviously read a few headlines about asset-stripping equity firms and bankers making millions and have concluded that work in the City, and capitalism as a whole, is 'morally corrupt'. I'm not sure HOW you managed to get into a City law firm, since you have the commercial awareness of a geriatric Maasai goat herder .

Majorca -07 Jan 2009 | 16:45

Financially Incompetent - have you considered a LILA!!! Turning to your post - 'smart-thinking' is where you know a colleague or two or more are engaged in shady or downright illegal practices and do nothing, ie do not refer to the senior partner, or to the Law Society/Bar Council for investigation or Financial Services Agency, etc, etc: ie you are wilfully blind to the obvious and everyone around you does the same, usually surrounded by an acerbic atmosphere or fear that if you put your head above the parapet you will be shot down and in the tribunal system (where you must not ever ever go) and/or the masonic lot will kick in. However, having now had the credit crunch, those that survived with mortgages and pensions are probably going to be more wilfully blind to the obvious and doing smart-thinking rather than going to the FSA and whistleblowing.

ANON -07 Jan 2009 | 19:58

Yes, but why accept a TC at City firm to find it? If you truly are looking for something which 'helps the masses against The Man' then consider criminal defence work, or prisoner rights claims, or human rights work. As a NQ in those areas you'll be lucky to break £28k outside of London though. Why didn't you go for those types of jobs in the first place?

Employment Lawyer -08 Jan 2009 | 12:58