Career Clinic: Which firms are most grey-friendly?

Not being grey-friendly is now against the law, although I know that this doesn't exactly answer the question. I think that the legal profession is probably a lot better than banking in valuing the experience of applicants who have had a previous career rather than writing them off as too old. You see plenty of grey hairs around law firms. I have had trainees in their 40s who have all been offered jobs on qualification and the age issue never came up. Rather than recommend particular law firms I would advise you to press ahead with your applications and not worry unduly about the age issue. Just make sure that you demonstrate in your applications what extra skills and experience you can bring to the firms to which you are applying.

Anonymous -24 Apr 2008 | 11:22

Dewey & LeBoeuf....there are loads of us here.

Trainee -24 Apr 2008 | 12:31

I agree with previous response that it is not just a question of which firms are more grey friendly. You clearly need to stress the additional experience and maturity you will bring to the role which should enable you to learn more quickly than a naive 21-yr-old fresh out of law school. More importantly, you need to convince the firms that you are not too big for your boots and will happily do your stint of proof reading/bibling/data room indexing under the instructions of a much younger associate.

associate, city firm -24 Apr 2008 | 12:55

You're peers are young impressionable trainees just out of law school, and you are complaining? I'll do another training contract any time!

Investment Banker -24 Apr 2008 | 14:46

I am in kind of the same boat - I am 30-something, a paralegal applying for a training contract and feel very old when trainees at my firm do not remember classics like The Karate Kid. I have started to look at trainee profiles from different firms. That has told me a lot. Off the top of my head two firms which value experience (or so they seem to from their website!) - Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons and Finers Stephens Innocent.Hope that helps!

I remember the 80's -24 Apr 2008 | 15:25

On other posts Investment Banker has criticised carelessness and lack of attention to detail. Does he not know the difference between "your" and "you're"?

Pedant -24 Apr 2008 | 15:40

Oh IB you're [sic] that's awful!To the poster, it depends if you are in your 30's having bummed around or if you are in your 30's having had a relevant and potentially useful previous career. eg: been flipping burgers and working behind bars for the last 15 years - forget it. Been an engineer/accountant/ management in industry etc etc - they should bite your (IB please note) arm off.

GC (Bank) -24 Apr 2008 | 16:14

Oh dear, I think that IB is in need of some binomial instructions:"Your"=Second Person Possessive; "You're= abb. "You are"

Ben Bernoulli -24 Apr 2008 | 16:21

I agree with other posts, age doesn't matter. My firm has trainees in their twenties and trainees in their forties, all staying on in qualified posts.

trainee -24 Apr 2008 | 17:12

Simmons & Simmons have always had several "mature" trainees at any time. I believe that one of their current ones is in his fifties!

Anonymous -24 Apr 2008 | 17:22

I was 30 when I started my training contract and the issue of age did not come up once. Nor was it raised when I changed firms after qualifying. I didn't even have that much relevant pre-law career experience. I did, however, look preternaturally young so that probably helped. Of course, that's all changed after 10 years in the profession ...

Birmingham Lawyer -24 Apr 2008 | 17:32

You all seem to be accpeting the premise of the question. i.e that mid- 30s is 'old' Frankly astonishing !

In house lawyer ( mid 50s -24 Apr 2008 | 17:44

If you already have a life think very hard about the sort of lawyer and, indeed, firm you want to join. Do you really want to compete with a bunch of eager young spunkers who have nothing better to do than sit at their desks all night kidding themselves that they are important and adding value to a transaction? Let's be honest, most NQs and junior lawyers are no more than glorified, over-paid, self-delusional admin assistants, who only do it because they believe a life in City law will provide them with a rewarding and fulfilling career. If you are sad and have no friends, family or a life, then a career at a big City firm is for you. Otherwise, look to the regions or work in-house where, if you are good at your job, the pay differentials really will not be that great in the long run.

the voice of reason -24 Apr 2008 | 18:02

Of the two firms mentioned above for heaven's sake do not, please, go to Finers Stephens Innocent.

Anonymous -24 Apr 2008 | 20:46

Macfarlanes have a fair number of 'mature applicants'. I would advise against the MC. SJ Berwin might be interested to hear from you too.

Anonymous -25 Apr 2008 | 11:21

I am 30 and was thinking of applying to Finers Stephens Innocent....why should I avoid that firm?

Anonymous -25 Apr 2008 | 15:41

I re-trained as a solicitor at the age of 30. If you have had a previous career then the difficulty is being patronised by some of the more egotistical partners. It won't happen that often but brace yourself.

Regional Solicitor -25 Apr 2008 | 17:35

Get trained wherever you can. Do not hang around. Although being older may be a disadvantage when seeking a training contract, it becomes an advantage if you want to change firms at a newly-qualified level.

Travers Smith -25 Apr 2008 | 17:36

Previous posters are right that you should think about what kind of lawyer you want to be, and what kind of firm you want to work in, before making your choices. Don't waste your time trying to find out which firms are grey-friendly, everyone will tell you that they are but you'll never know for sure until you've been working there. Although age discrimination is alive and well, most firms do value maturity and experience and if you have one career under your belt and a genuine reason for switching careers that you can articulate you should stand head and shoulders above the youngsters you are competing with. You are in the same place as they are on legal expertise, but you have years of business experience. Expertise + experience = better value.

Ed Simpson, Managing Director, Maturelawyers.com -29 Apr 2008 | 12:41

Just because a firm has (a) an employment department or even (b) a human rights department it does not follow that they have good working practices concerning Age Discrimination or any other discrimination for that matter. Symbolism such as "Investor in People" or "Two Ticks" is no guarantee either.

ANON -29 Apr 2008 | 20:56