Shoosmiths offers no payouts to deferred trainees

Disgraceful. Shoosmiths should be ashamed of themselves.

Anonymous -30 Mar 2009 | 15:38

Reminds me of Martineau Johnson informing their trainees by email that they wouldn't get jobs with the firm. It took MJ at least 4 years before good candidates would send their CVs to the firm. It will be the same for Shoosmiths.

Biggles -30 Mar 2009 | 16:15

I assume Shoosmiths has earmarked a certain number of training contracts to be withdrawn. But if everyone defers instead of a few withdrawing, then what?

Trainee2B -30 Mar 2009 | 16:23

I am one of these unlucky trainees. Absolutely gutted. Wish I had accepted the offer from another firm who is not doing this now!

Anonymous -30 Mar 2009 | 16:58

Absolutely terrible. Shame on you Shoosmiths!

Banker -30 Mar 2009 | 17:42

Although it might sound twee in these troubled economic times, this is poor form by any reasonable standard. Shoosmiths should get it in the neck for this.

anon -30 Mar 2009 | 17:43

I think lawyers at all levels are now treated as industrial prostitutes.

The Litigator -30 Mar 2009 | 17:54

Looks like Shoosmiths have the DLA Piper manual on how to treat staff! Can law firms rescind training contracts?

Anonymous -30 Mar 2009 | 18:02

This is no surprise to me.

Ex-Shoosmiths employee -30 Mar 2009 | 18:03

Shoosmiths - we're Different and Better.Different - yes. No-one else has adopted this innovative approach.Better - ...?And to think I had to explain why I was 'Different and Better' in my application to this firm!

Anonymous -30 Mar 2009 | 18:11

And I thought my firm were outrageous by compulsorily deferring me. I empathise with you Shoosmiths trainees. This is completely out of order!

Anonymous -30 Mar 2009 | 18:13

I pity the talented, hard working youngsters who chose this firm and are being treated in this way. Pathetic. If my firm ever did this I would resign. Fortunately my partners and I are in this for the long haul and although we make tough decisions from time to time, we do so as human beings. You reap what you sow. Quite frankly, this is amazing news. Don't the partners there make enough money already????

Partner at a Rival Firm -30 Mar 2009 | 18:30

Who on earth is going to withdraw and give up a training contract? You'd be mad to. There are no jobs elsewhere - just thousands of other students with good grades on the hunt for a job. I feel very sorry for them all. They no doubt thought they were joining a good firm with a career ahead of them. Wrong on both counts.

Amazed -30 Mar 2009 | 18:41

UNBELIEVABLE!! Totally agree with the comments above that the firm will now struggle significantly for years to come to attract the best graduates! Can anyone out there answer the question as to whether Shoosmiths can actually do this i.e breach of contract?

Anon -30 Mar 2009 | 20:05

I cannot believe how incredibly blind the commentators are. These are tough economic times and firms are perfectly entitled to manage themselves in a way which is commercial. Tough luck on those who missed out. If they think they can do better elsewhere then go. However, they'll find the real world isn't very easy.

David MacPherson -30 Mar 2009 | 20:31

This is bad news. I hope it does not set a trend for other firms. Its completely out of order and I hope Shoosmiths earn a bad rep for this. I feel for the trainees. I wish them all the best.

Anonymous -30 Mar 2009 | 20:36

This is digusting for the trainees. Having spent years at university studying law then being offered a training contract with this firm and to get a blow like this. How many more years are they going to get in debt having taken out students loans?

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 07:55

I can understand firms deferring trainees, but this doesn't make sense. They have already paid LPC fees, so why not just defer them all and abandon the recruitment process for 2011? Far less reputational damage.Also, once an applicant has accepted a training contract, the LawSoc guidelines prohibit them from making further applications. Surely there must be some sort of remedy available for those whose contracts are withdrawn? They have relied on Shoosmiths' offer of a TC and lost the opportunity to apply for or accept a TC elsewhere. Sounds like estoppel to me...

Trainee99 -31 Mar 2009 | 10:18

It is a terrible shame but Shoosmiths are not the only firm to do this. I have recently had a training contract rescinded because of the current climate. It makes me wonder whether I will be able to get a training contract anywhere if such large firms are doing this.

disheartened -31 Mar 2009 | 10:26

What are the SRA or Law Society doing? The SRA can take £100 a year off us to be 'members'. How on earth are the law firms getting away with this!

anti-idiot-firms -31 Mar 2009 | 10:57

I am not an employment lawyer, but the affected trainees should seriously consider clubbing together to talk to one. If any employment lawyers are reading and fancy doing it on a no win, no fee basis...

Errrm -31 Mar 2009 | 11:00

To do this to young graduates in this climate without any form of compensation is remarkably shoddy. The bad PR from stunts like this take a long time to be forgotten. It would be interesting to know what the firm's clients think of this sort of behaviour. I look forward to reading stories of doom and gloom at this firm as the recession deepens.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 12:20

I have just been on the Shoosmiths website. They are recruiting trainees for 2011 - very odd given what has happened! A couple of quotes from their graduate recruitment page which made me chuckle given how they have treated their prospective trainees - "What do we have planned for the next 5 years? Our vision is to become the UK's 'most valued law firm'." And - "We are a top 20 UK employer in the independently researched 2007 edition of "Britain's Top Employers" published by Guardian Books and also achieved the highest overall score in a lawyer satisfaction survey of the top 50 UK law firms conducted by Legal Week Intelligence in 2007."

Trainee2B -31 Mar 2009 | 12:46

The article says if they do not receive enough voluntary deferrals and withdrawals they will make compulsory deferrals - NOT compulsory withdrawals. If it is a case between making current staff redundant and forcing future trainees to defer, then thay have made the right decision. And the LPC fees and maintenance will still be paid, so they will still be in a better position than those who couldn't get training contracts at all.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 13:53

'I am not an employment lawyer, but the affected trainees should seriously consider clubbing together to talk to one. If any employment lawyers are reading and fancy doing it on a no win, no fee basis...'.Yeah great idea; sue the firm that is offering you a training contract (even if it is deferred). That would be a great start to your career with the firm! Get real... Shoosmiths aren't doing anything wrong. We are in the midst of a recession if you hadn't noticed.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 13:58

These are difficult times and so it is not really surprising that Shoosmiths is having to do this. At least they are being upfront with their trainees. Surely it would be worse to take them on and then make them redundant later? At least this way they can enjoy travelling the world!

Daddy -31 Mar 2009 | 15:45

At least Shoosmiths are being transparent about the whole process. Hopefully it will prevent current staff being made redundant. It makes perfect sense to offer potential trainees the option to withdraw if they've had second thoughts, with LPC fees paid; many smaller firms don't offer any financial help in the first place. It's a shame, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 16:35

Complete transparency would be explaining to their trainees exactly how much trouble they are in. Maybe if they did that it would be like rats off a sinking ship!

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 17:09

Has it not occurred to you that Shoosmiths might not be in any trouble, but is deferring its trainees as a precautionary measure?? No-one knows when the recession will end and this is a practical and pro-active approach to the situation. Look at the bigger picture!!

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 17:20

Thank you Daddy AKA Shoosmiths PR department! Who on earth is going to offer to withdraw? I bet Shoosmiths don't publish data on the number who take up this "offer".

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 17:26

No-one is arguing with them deferring people. The outcry is about there being no compensation.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 17:31

Shoosmiths' need to make deferrals is readily understandable. Their handling of it is not.Contractually, a firm cannot cancel a training contract or change the contractual start date without consent (unless their training contracts contain the right). Training contracts are usually for a two-year fixed term without an early notice provision. There is separate regulation from the Law Society affecting this. Any decent corporate would be offering some form of compensation to trainees, many of whom will have sizeable debts. Trainees though need to consider whether they prefer to commence work at a later date when presumably there will be more work around, better experience gained and more chance of vacancies on qualification. My advice would be a) check with the Law Society/SRA about their policy and regulations on contracts being cancelled or varied; and b) for those who wish their start date honoured and who no doubt wouldn't be able to find an alternative training contract, politely point out the financial loss through forced deferral and ask for a goodwill payment. For anyone else, litigating would be pretty straightforward in the county court albeit obviously unattractive. Many law firms' lip service to employment law provides regular work for employment lawyers. However enforcing rights against one's employer in the legal field is rarely a good career move hence a diplomatic negotiation style is required - all good practice for the future career.

Employment Lawyer -31 Mar 2009 | 18:02

For goodness sake, they are not entitled to any money for being deferred. They probably aren't even on a formal contract yet but have been made an offer subject to various conditions. I feel sorry for them for having to defer but that is the state of the current market. Cash bonuses for doing so are nice, but in no way obligatory. They are still having their fees paid for.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 18:11

Thanks, helpful advice.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 18:13

I agree with 'Employment Lawyer' and hope the posting after them wasn't from someone pertaining to be a qualified solicitor. Simple contract issue - offer + acceptance = contract. So if the terms are vague/there are all sorts of carve outs etc Shoosmiths are ok, otherwise, they should be coughing up.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2009 | 19:51

Hope the person incorrectly using 'pertaining' isn't a lawyer either. Using words you don't understand is unacceptable in a lawyer.

Pedant -01 Apr 2009 | 10:49

What an absolute disgrace, hopefully this will deter people from making any applications to Shoosmiths for future years. It's no wonder that many potential trainees are looking outside of the commercial firms for training contracts.

FourChavs -01 Apr 2009 | 12:22

This is unsurprising - the firm is very well known for preaching about its "Different and Better" aspirations, but practising a very different approach...

onanon -01 Apr 2009 | 15:44

I think whether Shoosmiths could lawfully withdraw or unilaterally amend the contract very much depends on its terms - their trainees who haven't yet started work probably only have a conditional contract (eg conditional on passing the LPC). So one instinctive view is the firm can do as they please unless and until there is a binding contract. An alternate view is the only basis on which the contract such as it is can be unilaterally varied or terminated (or prevented from becoming a binding contract on its current terms) is in accordance with the condition ie only if the prospective trainee doesn't pass the exams etc as opposed to the employer preventing the event from taking place by withdrawing the contract.Whatever the technical legal answer, I agree with the consensus that offering no financial inducement is remarkably short-sighted and penny-pinching. What irony given today's G20 protests. Certainly I would take that display of judgement into account when assessing the corporate responsibilty and culture of a firm tendering for work. Treating people fairly in tough times as well as good is what the fair employer tries to do.

An in house lawyer -01 Apr 2009 | 17:03

Can people not read???Shoosmiths are not withdrawing contracts, only deferring them! As part of the process they are asking if any students would like to withdraw from their training contract, perhaps because they no longer have an interest in law, in which case they could walk away having had their LPC fees paid for and having received maintenance money. It is shameful that solicitors/future solicitors do not seem able to understand what they have just read!!

Anonymous -01 Apr 2009 | 18:43

Reality check please.....i) this is only a deferral, not revocation;ii) in the real world i.e. without the mindless salary increases that have been taking place for the last five years (mainly fuelled by the magic circle), trainees would be paid a token amount as a gesture of goodwill whilst they 'trained'. People seem to forget that law firms are doing trainees a favour by training them, regardless of pay. If all firms did not pay their trainees until qualification, would anyone still qualify into the profession? Me thinks yes (and you do too if you are being honest. Ok so a few money-grabbers would be lost as accountants etc. along the way but would that really be a bad thing?!! We would instead be left with those who are truly committed. After all, how many 6th form students really analyse how much x firms pays a trainee before embarking on a law degree? Probably none - in reality they still want a fulfilling, well paid career, which they would still get post qual.

Anonymous -01 Apr 2009 | 19:28

Eh? Wanting a salary while you're training is money-grabbing? Er... we don't all have rich parents who will keep us for 2 years (or indeed rich parents who WANT to keep us for 2 years). And a training contract is a contract so if Shoosmiths want people to defer they should be paying them some kind of compensation. After all, if you bought something and were planning to have something delivered by a certain date and then it was put back several months you may well expect compensation. Shoosmiths don't have a terribly good reputation and this is a good illustration of why that is.

Helen -02 Apr 2009 | 10:46

Helen - I do not think the post which you are replying to is Shoosmiths-specific - it is making a generic point about trainees in general.

Anonymous -02 Apr 2009 | 14:21

A deferral is not the same thing as a withdrawal, true, but it's the precedent it sets. If they don't have to pay any compensation, then why couldn't they defer for a further year at the end of the current deferral? All the time prospective trainees are barred by a rule of professional conduct precluding them from applying elsewhere. Not all trainees can 'just go travelling' - some may have families and other commitments (law isn't always arrived at in the early 20s).

Anonymous -02 Apr 2009 | 16:28

I do not understand why some posters are claiming that Shoosmiths is not asking trainees to withdraw (ie go beyond deferrals). The article says quite clearly in the opening line: "Shoosmiths has asked its 2009 trainees to withdraw from their contract with the firm or defer until 2011". The firm's spokesperson repeats that withdrawals are on the table in the final paragraph. Seems some posters are struggling to understand clear English.

Anonymous -02 Apr 2009 | 20:46

I can see why trainees are outraged and disappointed, but they have to balance their position against the general economic climate and perhaps view it as an opportunity to go travelling or to get some general life experience before being sucked into the system. From the point of view of a firm, it may be a case of having to either deferring trainees or making redundancies and then taking on trainees who will spend the next two years being involved in the most mundane of tasks whilst the market remains quiet. Whilst to ask trainees to defer without offering any financial compensation may appear tight, surely the firm owes a greater duty to its existing payroll than that of the future? Partners do NOT take kindly to having their remuneration reduced, so it is unrealistic to think they will take a hit in order to benefit trainees and existing employees. It just doesn't happen, full stop. In the long run, the trainees may be glad that they ended up training and qualifying in happier economic times. I know it is easy for me to say, in a relatively busy department with a steady income, but I think there are two sides to every story.

Anonymous -03 Apr 2009 | 11:06

"I do not understand why some posters are claiming that Shoosmiths is not asking trainees to withdraw (ie go beyond deferrals). The article says quite clearly in the opening line: 'Shoosmiths has asked its 2009 trainees to withdraw from their contract with the firm or defer until 2011'. The firm's spokesperson repeats that withdrawals are on the table in the final paragraph. Seems some posters are struggling to understand clear English." It's you that can't understand clear English! None of the posts state that Shoosmiths haven't asked trainees to withdraw. They merely make the point that Shoosmiths is not making withdrawal compulsory; only deferral!

Anonymous -03 Apr 2009 | 11:39

The controversy is, unlike other firms, not offering any compensation (for those who want their start date honoured). About six months before they were due to start, shortly before final LPC exams, trainees are told we want you to withdraw or defer. They are given a short timescale to respond. There are 20 trainees due to start in 2009. Those deferred for a year will lose £25,000 (plus benefits). A goodwill gesture of £5,000 would cost the firm £100,000. There are 115 partners. £1000 each. Morally, offering nothing is dishonourable.

Anonymous -03 Apr 2009 | 15:51

My sympathy lies with those then-lucky individuals who chose Shoosmiths' offer over another, only to now find themselves with (potentially) nothing.

Anonymous -08 May 2009 | 14:29

I am very surprised to see how Shoosmiths has chosen to handle this. I certainly have a wide choice of whom to procure legal services from, and by demonstrating such a shocking lack of empathy and judgment Shoosmiths has disqualified itself from handling any of my work.

a GC -25 May 2009 | 11:17