Career Clinic: Are ILEX diplomas taken seriously as a way in to the legal profession?

Why?

Why leave copywriting? It's a great career. And people actually like you. You're in a good position to specialize in copywriting for legal websites, etc.

Scott -21 Apr 2011 | 02:34

Don't do it!

Why do you want to go from copywriting to law?

Having gone from marketing to law, I wish now I'd stayed in the former! I found the copywriting element to be far more interesting, challenging and creative than fee earning - admittedly I worked for small clients so had far more scope and input on the campaign as a whole.

You may well find yourself banging your head against the wall when it comes to applying much if any of your copywriting skills and abilities to any legal BD, if you want to do some of that, and the practice of law may well sap most of your creative talent as most of your work will be very, very dry - so keeping some small projects going on the side may be a good idea!

Anonymous -21 Apr 2011 | 09:20

One of our legal secretaries has done this and then left to a smaller firm. I think if you train in the firm as a legal exec while being a secretary it is hard to make the transition. The other thing is finding a company who want to take on a legal executive, rather than a trainee solicitor. Another of our colleagues did the legal exec route and she is a valued part of the team. However, she has specialised in the property department doing a lot of SDLT and post-completion admin - less of the 'interesting stuff' but that could be down to her appproach - willing to take all of it on, rather than pushing for newer work.

The other point to mention - there is nothing 'exciting' in law. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

Jimbo Jones -21 Apr 2011 | 09:21

You may have answered your own question...

It is rare to see Legal Executives doing 'exciting' work in the legal profession, but then again, how much legal work is 'exciting'? In truth, not alot. In big firms, the difference between a Solicitor and anyone else in the firm is a.) the salary and b.) the scale and importance of the work they will undertake & lead. The Solicitors get the big deals whereas the non-Solicitors get the smaller stuff. You are right that its harder to become qualified initially, but once you are you have a set career ladder and will find it much easier to get to the top than a legal exec.

Bored Paralegal -21 Apr 2011 | 14:04

When does the fun start?

Do you have to change career? Does it have to be law? If no to either question, good for you.

If you must be a lawyer, please note there aren't many high-flying legal execs. There is little enough nourishment for the soul in law, I wouldn't want to get stuck forever doing the low-paid and repetitive grunt work.

Drone -21 Apr 2011 | 14:37

Why not?

If you are serious about a career in law then I would recommend qualifying as a legal executive lawyer. I did just that by way of career change in my early 30s. I can say that I have a very satisfying career as a lawyer; I am valued by my firm and respected by my colleagues; my case load is in no way different from that of my solicitor colleagues (commercial litigation) and I am paid a salary commensurate with my experience and value to the firm (which is a large national practice). So, yes, go for it!

Anonymous legal executive -21 Apr 2011 | 14:41

ILEX route to Solicitor Qualification

You can of course re-qualify as a Solicitor once you have done the ILEX. But you will be forever viewed as a second class citizen whilst a Legal Exec by your colleagues. And it is true the Legal Execs often get the drudge work to do, but some firms like that as those people have no aspirations to partnership.

If you really want to be a Solicitor, firms recruiting will appreciate that you have been honest about that and have made sacrifices for it.

Senior Legal Counsel -21 Apr 2011 | 15:04

Got the T-Shirt

I did this long ago. I was 37, had a non-law degree, could not afford to take 2 years off work. I did the ILEX exams part time while working full time. Then I did the LPC part time as well. Altogether it took 8 years so it's not necessarily quicker. And balls-aching. But no TC required. I agree with the poster who advises getting a job somewhere different from where you trained. When I wanted to do the LPC my boss said it would not make me a better lawyer (true). But he agreed with me when I said I would have higher status and credibility as a Solicitor.

If you are going to do it, you have to take it seriously and plan to spend a lot of holiday time studying. The upside is you can do it one step at a time, and take stock every now and then if it doesn't suit. Good luck.

Percy -21 Apr 2011 | 15:13

Yes they are (or should be)

I must declare an interest as Deputy Vice President of ILEX but I have had (and intend to continue to have) a great career as a lawyer doing lots of 'cutting edge' work.

I'm a partner in my firm, an advocate (so I can appear in Court) and was lucky enough to have a case which went to the House of Lords (as it then was).

To be technical, ILEX lawyers are fully recognised under the Legal Services Act and can be Judges too (not managed it yet myself but maybe one day!).

As an employer I employ several ILEX lawyers to do 'proper' work and encourage more junior staff to train with ILEX as well.

As the ILEX route is less than 50 years old, there can still be some reluctance to accept the 'new kids on the block' but if you work hard and do a good job then you will succeed.

Then again, copywriting has always seemed much cooler than law so if I had the choice who knows . . .

Best of luck with whichever route you take.

Nick

Nick Hanning -21 Apr 2011 | 15:22

Ignore the naysayers

Law can be a great career, but you have to carefully choose the kind of firm you work for and the kind of work you do. An ILEX diploma limits both - there is no real prospect of working for a major City firm in anything other than an admin role. Of course if that's not for you then that may not matter.

Marc Daniels -22 Apr 2011 | 11:43

old perceptions and new horizons

Two thoughts... 1) Among some in the profession there will be a persistent sense that ILEX is less credible and less worthy than other legal quals - not much you can do about this and it may not matter anyway. 2) Going forward the successful law businesses of the future will employ from a range of backgrounds, skills and experiences and (away from the very top firms) will value the rounded skills set significantly more than just the straight legal qual. My advice - have a passion for it, get some good experience within a forward thinking environment and be prepared to look at no traditional employers - could be a fascinating time.

Paul Gilbert -26 Apr 2011 | 13:20

It Depends...

As ever, it depends on the kind of firms you want to work for, the kinds of work you want to do and how much value you can bring.

As a generalisation, the ILEX qualification may be looked down on in some circles because there can be a perception that people who did not have the qualifications to go down the solicitor route do ILEX instead. Some FILEX staff I know started out as secretaries or administrative assistants and were given the chance to do the ILEX qualifications because they were seen as being bright and the firm saw value in getting them qualified so they could earn fees.

I have come across very able FILEX qualified colleagues in the firms I have practised in. Those people are not viewed as inferior at all.

Two FILEX colleagues I have met over the years have requalified as solicitors. That route has not been seen as an inferior way of qualifying. Actually it has been seen as a positive for the firms as it meant that the solicitor came with prior experience, reputation and contacts.

However, I have not worked for big firms. Don't want to either. So I don't know how the bigger firms actually perceive the qualification.

Birmingham Law Society has annual awards that member firms can nominate others to receive. One awards category is Legal Executive of the Year, so they get their 5 minutes of fame and the invitation to the black tie dinner just like the others.

If you must go into the law, then best of luck.

high street solicitor -26 Apr 2011 | 13:47

Think long and hard...

I moved from finance to law in my early 30s, and chose the ILEX route for the same reasons as you - ie cost and time.

Whilst I do not regret moving to law, I do have some regrets about choosing the ILEX route to qualification.

I am a Fellow, but I will be starting the LPC part-time in September with a view to qualifying as a solicitor. ILEX is a GREAT qualification. Having done a law degree, and qualified as an accountant, in my view the ILEX course/qualification is of a very high calibre.

However, the qualification is simply not recognised by my firm (a large regional) as being of any use. You are either a solicitor or you are not. Whilst I am a fee earner, incidentally just promoted to a 'NQ-equivalent role', the salary and the respect of my colleagues, particularly those of more advanced years (ie the partners), is not commensurate with my ability.

If I wish to advance my career in law the best I can do now is to complete the LPC and move firms, probably as a NQ solicitor which, as someone who will have had 8 years experience by that time, is pretty hard to take.

However, in these times of few TCs, if you want to show you have some ambition then perhaps doing ILEX is better than doing nothing. It might be a way to get a foot in the door as a paralegal, and then once on the inside you may have better opportunities to get a training contract.

If you're sure you want to move into law that is.

I wish you all the best.

littlelegalgirl -26 Apr 2011 | 14:01

Careers advice

Again, like Nick Hanning I have to declare an interest in that I work for ILEX Tutorial College (the training arm of ILEX specialising in distance learning legal training) and I specialise in this type of question.

As far as your academic exams are concerned, I would be advising you to do the GDL first - that keeps your feet in both camps, as the GDL is also recognised by ILEX. In fact, it exempts you from pretty much 3 of their 4 years of exams. You then do the Graduate Fast Track diploma (approx 1 year) to satisfy ILEX requirements to be a legal executive. So already you've done 3 years of exams instead of 4 if you went the pure Level 3/Level 6 route.

Obviously, you must be in legal employment by now - which I presume you'd be doing anyway even if you went the pure vanilla solicitor route. As part of the ILEX professional qualification, ILEX requires you to undertake five years of qualifying employment of a paralegal nature, of which at least 2 of those 5 years must be at least 20 hrs a week casework or fee earning type work. Qualify as a legal executive and see how that goes for a couple of years?

If you don't feel it's right (for whatever reason) and you still want to become a solicitor - you can as you already have the GDL under your belt. It has a 'shelf life' of 7 years to use it to start your LPC. Start your LPC and - this is the best bit, so long as you have qualified as a legal executive before the end of your LPC, you should be in a very good position to apply to the SRA for exemption from the training contract. (The SRA recognise legal executives have already 'done their time' in the office already, without having to worry about another 2 years training contract).

If this sounds long-winded, I'll leave you with this... a non-law graduate like yourself could become a solicitor in just 5 years from now via the ILEX route. It would take you 6 years to go the pure vanilla solicitor route - 2 yrs GDL, 2 years LPC, 2 years TC - assuming of course, you get one. Do look at this as I think it's the best one for you 'hedging your bets' and maximising the academic qualfications to exempt yourself from parts of each of the two professional paths. Good luck!

Rosemary -27 Apr 2011 | 16:00

No shortcuts

It is never worth taking a short cut. The long and short of it is that there is a reason why most firms prefer GDL/LPC graduates, so why limit your future career opportunities before you even start it?

You must make a difficult decision. Either commit fully to a new career and taking the GDL/LPC route or sticking where you are. Why don't you apply for TCs? It would give you a good indication of how you will be received before you incur the unnecessary costs of retraining. if you are not getting a look in now, you are not more likely to get a look in after you have retrained. That way you have tested your market potential.

I wish you good luck. PS why not apply to the firm Nick Hanning works in! If he is not prepared to take you on, you have got your answer as he is probably the most receptive to your situation.

The very best of luck.

Blueberry -27 Apr 2011 | 21:23

Bonpensiero

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

The general consensus seems to be ... well there isn't one actually. Roughly half of you are saying no, roughly half are saying yes. And quite a few of you are saying 'Why the hell do you want to change to law?' All of which leaves me with no clear conclusion either way.

I think I had better get some work experience before I commit to either the GDL or the ILEX route. If I decide to go ahead after that, I will probably take Rosemary's suggestion and do a combination of GDL and ILEX. I think.

Thanks again to everyone.

Marc Rothman -29 Apr 2011 | 17:41