Career Clinic: Can a 39-year-old mum move into the law?

I'm also interested in this query: I'm 32 and wanted to go into law after university at 21 but couldn't due to financial constraints. I ended up being a miserable teacher (not fulfilling for me at all), but left teaching 4 years ago when my twins were born and have just had another baby. (I've also been a GCSE English examiner for the past 3 years so I haven't been out of touch with work completely.) I have a place at The College of Law for the part-time GDL and have arranged my loan...but the career prospects still worry me. I know I can work through the GDL and the LPC and still look after my children but if I want to work part-time after that, I'm worried it will affect my employment prospects.I'm hoping that I can find a firm who want a hard-working, mature woman who ALWAYS gets things done on time and to the exact specification required (as examiners do) and who has enough experience of handling difficult people and situations (I've worked in 11-18 comp schools!)to be an interesting, committed and mindful contributor to a team. At the moment, I'm interested in wills and conveyancing (yes, I realise that my chances of high-flying commercial deals and partnerships are limited at my age), so perhaps someone will give me a bit of a boost and tell me that more mature, calm and focused work returners are valued in the law arena?

Anon -11 Jun 2007 | 15:07

Am 36 with 2 young kids, and will start a TC in the City in a couple of months' time. Probably not in the best position to comment, since I have not actually started work, but.... I did my GDL part-time before the kids were born and could not imagine working full time, doing a part-time GDL/ LPC and bringing up the kids all at the same time. That said, the LPC year (full-time; only the odd consultancy for work) has been a fantastic opportunity to spend plenty of time with the kids before they go off to school - the sort of time not available in a 'standard' working life. That said, I am expecting to pay back this time when the TC starts. I would not have considered the TC without solid childcare arrangement to back things up. In this case, it means a partner who is happy to go part time, nursery places plus the possibility of an au pair. With luck a lawyer's salary will be enough to cover this in the mid-term. In the short term we have released some equity from our house to cover the shortfall.

LPCer -11 Jun 2007 | 15:41

Not really in a position to comment(26 with no kids) but my father qualified as a lawyer last year. He had to do all his courses part time (as he was working full time) so he has been studying since I was at Uni. It's possible but you will need lots of support from family and friends. However do not be disheartened - you will probably be one of the few lawyers with job satisfaction as you won't take your job for granted due to all the hard work you had to put in. Best of luck!

City firm -11 Jun 2007 | 16:57

Go for it. Law firms are interested in committed, intelligent people and will take them on a later stage (a female colleague of mine went into a City firm from the Law Commission aged over 40). The career development prospects will be less, however. Also, a City career in private practice won't give you a good work-life balance. If you've got relevant media experience, try a TMT firm like Bird & Bird, Bristows or Taylor Wessing.It doesn't have to be private practice. You might want to consider a career as an employed solicitor, in commerce, the Government Legal Service, Local Authority or for the non-for-profit sector (charities, co-operatives etc), all of which tend to offer greater flexibility (albeit usually on a more modest salary).

Associate, US firm -11 Jun 2007 | 17:16

I think you stand a reasonable chance of getting a legal career. The recent age discrimination legislation has brought home to people the value of older candidates (and the fact that they could be in trouble for rejecting someone on that basis). The difficulty you will face is that you do not fit the mould. You will need to show interviewers that you are going to be happy doing the photocopying (and other 'menial' trainee tasks) for someone who will often be almost 20 years younger than you.I don't think there will be any issue with the fact that you are a mum (no-one has to know unless you choose to tell them). Lots of women in the law are. As you're already working, I'm sure you know all about organising childcare. The only additional issue is likely to be the short notice at which you can be asked to do things (particularly in corporate work in the City - something big comes in and a load of trainees are required to cancel their plans and work all evening). This is one of the things that makes law a difficult profession for women of all ages. But of course, if you were doing conveyancing in the suburbs, you would have much more regular hours. There is no 'one size fits all' answer to your query. My response mostly relates to the City environment because that's what I know first hand.

Anon. -11 Jun 2007 | 17:42

You gotta be kidding me. Which law firm is stupid enough to waste their resources on a 40 year old? And in practical terms, at 40+ you as a 1st year trainee will be older than most of the junior partners, and probably as old as the equity partners. Get real.

Investment Banker -11 Jun 2007 | 19:41

There is legislation in place relating to age discrimination. However, law firms are not necessarily waking up to that fact. I know of several women who have got training contracts in their late thirties and early forties. It wasn't easy but it can be done. Don't just think of the City though but consider the Government Legal Service or local authorities which offer family friendly working practices. Whatever option you go for, you will need reliable childcare provision as people will not be impressed if you have to up and leave for your children. I know that sounds harsh and unfair but I am afraid that's the truth. I don't see why a law firm wouldn't spend money on a 40 year old. Lots of twenty somethings leave on qualification so law firms don't recoup their investment on them, for example. In your cv and interviews, show what transferable skills you have from what you were doing previously. It is not unusual for people these days to have more than one career. In fact, it may be necessary given the current pensions situation and the fact that we are supposed to all work until we drop dead.

Anonymous -11 Jun 2007 | 20:38

The response from "Investment Banker" above should tell you all you need to know about whether you really want to start a legal career in the City!

Anonymous -12 Jun 2007 | 07:14

Er, not wanting to work at the perceived centre of the universe, 'London' or 'City' means that the world outside, especially small firms in the towns and provinces, may value reliable women work returners who can get the job done without the histrionics of youth. And not everyone wants to work with the arrogance of some City workers, as displayed by some comments above. The fact is that we may all be working until we're 70 and so no-one should be written off at 35-40 with up to 30 years work left in them. What's more, a mother paying for her kid's school and university fees may be much more serious and focused about work and career due to having to provide for her family than a twenty-something paying City prices for cocktails and high heels who may be just as unreliable having had a late night on the town! Moreover, we 'older' women (ie: over 30) have many more skills than twenty-somethings that will fit in very well in some areas of law, especially the more sensitive issues that require maturity and empathy - we're not all interested in banking and corporate wheeling and dealing! Having been a teacher and examiner before going into law, I also know that we of the 'older' generation have a much sounder basic education and higher level of communication skills than the GCSE generation of the last 12 years or so that makes us brilliant for the nitty gritty stuff that requires absolute accuracy. Finally, I'm happier photocopying for a junior partner 10 years or more younger than me and getting paid 20k-odd than facing 30 stroppy and abusive 14 year olds for £1.92 an hour - based on the 80 hour week/49 week year I used to work! Let's face it, it's a much nicer and often easier life - that's why we're in law and not teaching!

Anon -12 Jun 2007 | 10:13

Investment Banker confirms why it is important to choose your firm carefully. In my experience of hunting for a TC at the age of 35, the (large City) firms divided down the middle.... around half seemed to want the usual cannon-fodder, whereas the other half saw value in experience from a previous career. It was generally the US firms that took on small numbers of trainees which showed more interest. I believe this in part is due to them seeing ALL trainees primarily as a potential investment for their future and the trainees thus being supernumary to headcount. In contrast, the firms taking 50+ trainees view the majority simply as cheap labour and factor their time into the firm's business plans. They know that (say) 80% will not last more than 4-5 years, so simply want smart people to do the donkey work for them (...and a fraction of them to progress further).The large firms are probably right to do so. On my LPC at the moment, I would say that the majority of students have simply drifted into the law... perhaps due to the inertia of an undergraduate law degree.... and have not really considered whether it interests them or not. Most will not last. Only a very small number of people demonstrate anything approaching genuine motivation. By contrast, the few mature students have clearly thought carefully about the implications of a career change and whether the law is right for them. I believe many will last longer in the law than the 20-somethings.In the end I was offered several TCs and (based on the advice of a senior partner in another firm) choose the firm which my heart told me felt right. I don't think that "Investment Banker" would be popular there.

LPCer -12 Jun 2007 | 10:45

I would definitely say that you should follow your dreams. I'm a 35 year old mother of 3 and am just completing my GDL via distance learning at the college and am due to start the part-time LPC in September. I spent 8 years as a fairly miserable nurse and wanted a career which was more academically challenging with better renumeration. I have really enjoyed the GDL and have loved the academic challenge of it. I would suggest you try to secure some legal work experience whilst you are studying as this will strengthen your TC chances. Once I was sure that law was where I wanted to go I became a Paralegal for a large insurance company and the experience has been vital. I am concerned about the prospect of juggling childcare with a full-time TC but I have a fully supportive husband and we have had time to plan around this. You only live once and you don't want to look back and say "what if...". Good luck!

Anonymous -12 Jun 2007 | 11:45

I am 39 and finishing my LPC, will be starting my training contract in the city soon. My experience tells me:- yes, it can be done, "even" at late 30s, to get a training contract- ask yourself very carefully why you want to be a lawyer? don't be tempted by all the glamourous image. The real work, City or not, is different from what you read. So spend some time working as a paralegal.- the question is: how realistic is it? Before I started my GDL, I had the same questions, and got the same answers, broadly speaking it's to sell your previous experience, work hard, show commitment and choose the type of firms carefully. I was also very encouraged by various examples of success. Now having just done it, my view is yes, go for it if that's what you REALLY want. But be prepared to jump through the hoops (and you have to be VERY thick-skinned): e.g. university grades - nowadays a 2:1 is the minimum for your CV to be considered, as almost two thirds of graduates get a 2:1. Years ago, only perhaps about 15-20% graduates got 2:1. So hardly an apple-to-apple comparison, same for A-level grades and other academic results.The other issue everybody always comes back to is why have I left it so late. Rightly or wrongly, they believe if you want to be a lawyer so badly, you'd have done it ages ago. Lastly, coping with application forms, which target the university leavers when you have a lot more to say is an art form. The new anti-age discrimination law helps, but not materially.So all in all, I would think long and hard before embarking on this route, as being a lawyer, even for university leavers, is never easy, certainly not in the city.Perhaps the fact that LPC/GDL providers tend not to give out statistics of their mature students getting training contract one-year after graduation is telling us something.

Banker -12 Jun 2007 | 12:07

I was very interested to read about the ladies with family committments coming into law 'late in life', as it were. My experience is this. My background is non-legal - in fact, I used to be an air stewardess. When I had my second daughter (I now have four) I realisd I would have to give up my beloved career so I decided to do a law degree, which took me 6 years through the Open university, working alone in a very isolated part of Scotland whilst bringing up my 4 daughters. In 2005 I began a part time Legal Practice Course at the College of Law. I found the course extremely challenging, not least because I felt I stuck out like a sore thumb because I did not work in the legal world, nor had I any experience. This undermined my confidence greatly. At the end of 2006 my family and I moved to York and I was offered a job in the conveyancing department of a large law firm. I thought this was my big break. At the age of 45 I was little more than the office junior, I never saw my children or my husband and the pay was diabolical. I had nver been so stressed out and unhappy. I was miserable as hell. I have not worked since I gave up this post only 3 months after I began. I have applied for other jobs since but my age, lack of experience and, I suspect the fact that I have children, all count very much against me. The legal profession is not family-friendly. I do not wish to be negative, I am simply responding to the query with my experiences. Good luck to all of you out there. I hope you find your training contract; to date, despite roughly 100 applications, I have nothing to show for my nearly 9 years training.

Beverley -12 Jun 2007 | 12:13

I am a 40 year old trainee and at a City firm (not MC). "Investment Banker" shows him/herself up to be the short sighted, bonus grabbing stereotype that we expect. I know - I used to be one. I daresay that "Investment Banker" may be looking for an alternative vocation once M&A activity and the current asset bubble pop. That's short termism for you.As far as applications go, my own experience was very mixed. A couple of City firms made all the right noises but the vast majority were only interested in 23 year olds from Oxbridge as cannon fodder. I suspect that firms outside the Square Mile will be more receptive and will value your experience.Good luck.

40 yo trainee -12 Jun 2007 | 12:24

I'm commenting on this article from a midlands shire county perspective. I took the traditional route and qualified at 25, but have seen plenty of older entrants both male and female. If you get the right firm you'll probably get promoted faster than the 20 somethings, so I wouldn't let your age and previous career hold you back.Having said that, please don't assume that law offers a nicer life! I've worked in commercial firms in my county where the norm was for clients to scream and swear at you, and in one particularly memorable moment when I was working at a general high street/legal aid firm I was assaulted by a client who didn't like my advice. Add that to largely middle aged male partners who think female staff are 'fair game' to harass and it doesn't offer a particularly nice life at all. And I get paid an awful lot less than my school friends who went into teaching - and have done for all except the first year after I qualified (and that bearing in mind that they were on a lot more than me when I was doing my training contract, and didn't have to pay LPC fees)... but they all think lawyers earn a fortune! I wish... not out here anyway.

provincial -12 Jun 2007 | 14:08

Go for it! I fell pregnant during my training contract and my firm have been nothing but supportive, both in relation to my maternity leave and on my return to full-time work earlier this year. Sure, it's busy, but that simply makes me more efficient than I used to be and I am looking forward to qualifying, and staying on, at the end of the year. My partner and I both work in law full-time and share childcare arrangements, which has never been an issue as far as work is concerned.My firm is also one of a large number of firms who employs trainees who are changing career. Most law firms have cottoned on to the fact that taking on people who have already had a career can mean bringing a wealth of commercial experience and possibly contacts to the job. The idea that having a career means that you cannot have a family is both limiting and outdated - people do it all the time! I think that the key is to be flexible, and to find a firm that will allow you to be. Law does have a reputation for being stuffy and inflexible, but this is not the case everywhere. Good Luck!

Trainee Solicitor, 27, Mum of one. -12 Jun 2007 | 14:18

i'm 38 and a partner in a city firm with a baby a few months old - i work full time - it can be done but you have to juggle well and the problem starting out is the lack of control over your own case load - your delegated to and opposed to doing the delegating - if you can make sure that you can have access to your office at home, you can probably catch up on work in the evenings after bed time - expect to be doing an early start however - top tip - always get home for their bath and bed time, otherwise you will regret it

Anonymous -12 Jun 2007 | 16:45

Spending your own money to prepare for a career in law is a gamble, whatever your age. What you need to ask yourself is this: if you were at the age of a university garduate now, would your qualifications allow you to join the firm/areas you are interested in? If yes, then your subsequent career/experience would be a bonus and age would be less of an issue to a law firm. If your academic qualifications would not be sufficient, then it would take a tremendous effort for a law firm to be convinced your subsequent experience more than compensates that. In my experience, many of the "mature" candidates that are successful in getting a TC would not have problem getting one if they had applied 10-20 years ago. The ones who may be disappointed are those who hope their subsequent career/experience can compensate for a less-than-satisfactory academic qualifications. Remember, firms will NOT lower their academic standard, whatever your age, as the competition is extremely intense.

ex-partner -13 Jun 2007 | 10:53

As 'Investment Banker' comments on almost every question posted here, promptly, and usually in an ploddingly stereotypical way, I suspect his/her actual job is rather more akin to watching repeats of 'Wall Street' rather than any real-life experience. Good luck with your career move, and perhaps consider specialist firms outside the magic circle. They are more likely to value staff who have different backgrounds and personal circumstances. The 'cannon fodder' point made above is spot on in relation to City firms.

Business Development, Law firm -13 Jun 2007 | 16:49

Perhaps checking out the attitude of 'i am better cos i am older' types (as demonstrated by some of the messages here) may help you. Much as we don't want to stereotype 'mature' candidates, neither should all 'young' candidates be regarded as irresponsible drunks!

LPC -13 Jun 2007 | 17:41

The pay quoted in the firms of LW are not the norm be it London General and especially the provinces. Even if you do manage to secure a TC after the expense of pre-TC exams (circa £12-15K + loss of earnings for this period) your salary is most likely to be capped at the minium for 2 years. Mine was £12k at a West End high street practice. The wage on qualification in many high street practices is not that much higher and as for the future earnings, the equity partners of these firms take less than the salaries being quoted for newly-qualified MC firms. I have also worked in the City and the pay is higher but don't expect what is quoted in LW. The reality is that there is only money with a few firms and in those firms the secretaries will be earning more than you if you are to work outside London. So teacher keep teaching; you will probably find no difference in pay, given the practice area you want to go into and certainly less holiday. If you can find a job you will be going into it probably £20k in debt with little means to repy this. Mum, taking the above financial constraints into account - a family life is very difficult being a lawyer. There's lots of stress and it's good to have an understanding partner. From what I have seen it is also very difficult for a woman to progress in what is a predominantly male environment. All sounds very negative but I'm still in the profession after 8 years.

male, 3 children -13 Jun 2007 | 17:45

LPC... you have misread this thread if you believe that it stereotypes recent grads as "irresponsible drunks." There is no mention in these or similar terms. The discussion simply says that mature people have more experience- something which by its very nature must be true, and experience can only be gained with time. The challenge for the mature applicant is to find firms which value those parts of an individual's experience which are valuable to a (second) career in the law.

LPCer -14 Jun 2007 | 10:32

The GDL and LPC are not cheap (roughly £18k in total, plus living costs) and there is absolutely NO guarantee of a job at the end. If I were you, I would get a training contract in the bag before you even think about putting the money down. Law seems to get more and more competitive year on year and the truth is that there are some very talented and interesting people at law school who 15 years ago would have sailed into the profession but who simply cannot find a training contract. I might add that these people have tried their utmost. The whole thing's a complete lottery in my opinion. Also, let's be honest. Age is certainly not on your side and I'm sure a firm would be sceptical about spending £50,000+ on training you up for a (part time) working life of 15 years max. It doesn't make economic sense. THINK BEFORE YOU ACT!

anono -14 Jun 2007 | 11:16

The odds are stacked against you to the extent that this is really a no-brainer. The market is already awash with very competent lawyers without training contracts. The best bet for future success would be to utilise your energy and skills elswhere.

Nicola -14 Jun 2007 | 12:17

I think you should go for it. My aunt made the switch from teaching to law in her thirties (while pregnant with her second child). She is now a higly successful barrister specialising in family law. Personally, I would advise against training with a City firm as you could end up being fairly disillusioned with the level of work. Go for somewhere smaller, where your experience and ability is more likely to be appreciated.

NQ, City firm -14 Jun 2007 | 15:21

I am 34 and just landed my training contract in a top 10 firm. There is no magic to it: you have to spend the time going to firms' open days and you very quickly discover you are better informed and youwill stand out. when you are in a unique situation, people would rather put a face to an application. At Simmons & Simmons, I found a 40-year-old trainee during one of their open evenings. So, it is doable, but be sure you understand what you are committing to.

40-year-old trainee -14 Jun 2007 | 18:23

My best advice would be not to even consider this course of action. I am a solicitor, now 40 who qualified after many years as a paralegal . The profession is so awash with newly admitted solicitors all vying for work I would not advise anyone to set out in this climate. The level of indebtedness to actually qualify is laughable. I have always been lucky workwise as I have contacts in the field. The legal profession requires you to spend six years before qualifying and rack up huge debts but there is no huge reward financially or otherwise that justifies the expense . You could earn more, have a better work /life balance and satisfaction in almost any other field. I know estate agents who earn more and enjoy family life better than most of my contemporaries. I can only conclude that the law is over subscribed - do not do it, why bother getting 50k into debt to join a merry band of zillions vying for a training contract to be allowed to do the photocopying (which is what City trainees get to do amongst other stuff). Where is the fun in it or the sense when you could do a short training course in almost anything from floristry to plumbing and earn more without the crazy debt and bother with no guarantee of even a job . Most City trainees and lawyers I know hate it - what kind of weirdo could enjoy working for a company which has an on-site gym, coffeee bar, church , bedroom er all because you don't actually get enough time to go home and visit your own bed, church , gym etc If you work out of the city I doubt you will earn enough to pay off the debts and enjoy life before retirement . Good luck but I would not do it .

Solicitor -15 Jun 2007 | 14:25

Absolutely - a 39-year-old mum can move into the law. I am studying via ILEX, which is a great non-traditional way to get into law. I'm 30 years old and have been working as a legal assistant in-house. Before this, I used to work as a pub licensee, so this was quite a big change for me. My salary is slightly lower than I would get if I worked for a law firm, but the respect from my colleagues more than outweighs this, as does the vast experience I am gaining and the autonomy and responsibility I have. I study at the same time as I work and I don't need to find a training contract when I finish because the ILEX qualification requires five years' on-the-job experience, to be gained whilst you study. Some law firms will even support you when you study ILEX (e.g. Wragge & Co), although others are far less keen (mainly those City firms who have their pick of trainees working as poorly-paid paralegals, with the carrot of a training contract dangled in front of them). I love my job, thoroughly enjoy my studies and still have time for a social life! I wholeheartedly recommend it (which is why I'm happy to give my name).See www.ilex.org.uk.

Tricia -18 Jun 2007 | 18:29

'Investment Banker' obviously hasn't taken the time to learn more about his own industry. These days investment banks in both London and Wall Street are desperately seeking ways to lure women back into the work force. Many of these women probably left because of rude, uninformed men like this one. On the flip side, I've been in the law firm world for over 10 years. A thick skin, and a huge time commitment. Being a first year in an older age, putting up with young overpaid egos may be tough. (I don't want to stereotype, there are plenty of nice young lawyers out there). In any event, you don't have to work in a big firm, or in a law firm at all. The benefit of a law degree is that there are many other careers where you can benefit from it. Best of luck.

Anonymous -19 Jun 2007 | 16:50

I would go for it. My mother (in her 50's) qualified as a barrister recently and is receiving a high volume of instructions already. You may find yourself at an advantage over younger peers - clients get maturity and the experience that comes with it at NQ rates. If you stick at it, you may well be in practise longer than those who qualify first and become mothers second.

associate -19 Jun 2007 | 17:53

Anybody who beleievs investment banks are seriously trying to attract women back to the industry is simply naive or don't really work in investment banking (and Investment Banker is right I'm afraid). Don't believe all the noise the banks make to the outside world! (I know cos i worked in M&A for a bulge bracket in Wall Street for many years). There are areas that have, by tradition, more women and they are more accomodating, e.g. asset management. But go into capital markets/M&A/trading and count the number of women, esepcially those married, and you'll get the real picture. Of course there is a shortage of skilled bankers, but don't forget much of the work nowadays is cross-border so a vacancy can equally be filled by a married woman as someone from Moscow, Poland or China! The so-called women-friendly policy is still way beyond what an average person would find acceptable.I am also concerned that the number of successful examples may not quite present the real picture of mature candidates' prospects in law. They often are described in such a way as if they are successful because of their age, rather than "in spite of". It's important to point out what their qualifications, experience, background and contact is to give a full picture. We don't say to a school leaver "go into law, 'cos I know a 23-year old graduate who's made it as a solicitor". So why should we give the same answer when the number "23" is changed to "39"?

associate in City -20 Jun 2007 | 11:27

I have noticed the posting from "Investment Banker" and my comment is: "If you are really a successful "investment banker" why are you spending time reading a legal week career clinic page? If you were so successful you would be busy doing deals rather than surfing the net. Perhaps you are thinking of returning to the law as you have not made a success of things in the front office? I think your comment is despicable and you should be ashamed of your anachronistic and extreme views.

Ex-lawyer, Allen & Overy -21 Jun 2007 | 15:56

Well, I'm stunned at the prospect of someone retraining into the law as a good option post-children! I qualified with a top 20 firm approx 15 years ago, loved the work when I had no family and thrived on the long hours and demands. I have since left that kind of work with the birth of my own children. I only know two women still working in the city, and they've both chosen not to have children and pity those of their friends who do try to combine the two. The demands are incredibly high. Have you checked out the billing requirements for most assistants? You'll need to bill over 1,500 hours a year and if that sounds easy, remember that lots of your time ends up being non-chargeable. That's a lot of hours to carve out of your life. It is difficult enough to do with years under your belt, and competence and confidence in what you do takes years to acquire, realistically. I'm not saying that newly qualified lawyers are incompetent, of course not. But what you do have to do is to put in even more work than those with more years under their belt to make sure you've got it all right. And to convince your clients and your partners that you've got it right. Combine that with the Sports Day/sickness/childcare disasters/plumbing breakdowns that all families have to deal with and I'd think you were well on your way to burn out before you start. Salaries of course are great and you can buy a lot of the help you need, but the mother is nearly always the CEO of domestic arrangements and don't expect that to change when you put your black suit on!! I work on the High Street now, and the demands are still very hard to meet successfully when you combine them with the needs of a young family. Clients, we wouldn't exist without them, but they demand a lot. They pay a lot and they expect an excellent service. Expect to be very tired. Look after your marriage and your children too. I feel tired for you already!!

working solicitor mum -06 Jul 2007 | 18:19

You can do whatever you want in this world, don't listen to no negativity, if you want it you will get it. Whether you have one kid or 20, whether your 39 or 99, whether your're rich or poor, nothing matters, no one can stop you except yourself. If the 40-year-old solicitors just qualified as a solicitor now and she's telling you not to do it, that theres no career prospects, why did she do it then?

Anonymous -22 Jul 2007 | 18:25

Hi! It is great to see mature woman pursuing their dream. My first career was in hotel industry. I did not complete my law degree until I was over 30 years old. Followed my man around the world and gave up my own career for a while. Come back to the UK 4 years ago. I have just obtained a training contract in the legal aid sector. Working in the City and commercial is not the only career path. I earn very little compare to someone who works in the city. I am about to start my training contract after 26th November 2007, the bonus is I do not have to be on a trainee salary. If there is any one come late into the legal profession, the charity sector is much more open to someone who has other experiences and more receptive to mature candidate.

47 years old trainee -04 Nov 2007 | 09:45

Go for it! I can't really add much to the volume which has been written above, apart from saying that I went to the Bar in my thirties and obtained pupillage at a very good set. It may be different on your side of the fence, where a more corporate hierarchical and less individualistic approach is needed, but I had plenty of interviews and found that panels were generally impressed rather than deterred by my 15 years experience in "the real world". Just remember that you need good academics + maturity/experience, and not one instead of the other.GOOD LUCK!!!

Robert -13 Mar 2009 | 18:06