Editors' Blog

The best solicitors are conscientious self critical perfectionists.

The pressure to perform comes from clients, colleagues regulators and employers, as well as from the individual concerned. Often those pressures from different directions are contradictory causing real distress to anyone trying to do what seems right. Second guessing, malicious hindsight and competitive criticism are rife.

It is all too easy to become overwhelmed, whatever level one occupies in the profession. Everyone is suffering the same way and cannot reasonably be expected to divert much energy to helping those less able to cope.

The answer lies in a more philosophical attitude but so many are desperate for some imagined ideal of 'success' that all perspective can easily be lost.

It is possible to work at a maximum intensity at some stages of life but not others and such intensity can only be short-lived. Some will never be able to function at their best unless they have time to reflect.

Every solicitor needs to become sufficiently self-aware to know his or her own limits and be able to work contentedly within them. If that involves career compromise then so be it. There is no shame in defining one's own priorities and all must have the confidence to accept that some employers might not share the same priorities without that reflecting on the essential human and professional qualities of the individual.

If a particular situation becomes uncomfortable that is not an adverse reflection on the individual. It is an indication that a round peg might be in a square hole.

If less members of the profession try so hard to meet unreasonable external demands then those demands will evaporate. Those demands are only being made because those making them are all too often seeing them met but at an unreasonable psychological and sometimes physical cost to those charged with meeting them.

Solicitors at all levels should reclaim their lives and that is something that can only be done by each individual.

Posted by Stephen Wilde | 10/03/2007

I think that there is a structural problem in the recruitment market for City trainees which means neither 'WD' nor 'wife of a partner' is right. In my experience (as a magic circle trainee) that market does not function as well as it should. It certainly does not function as well as WoaP thinks it does! The wrong people often get recruited, and consequently the potential for future stress is built into a substantial number of careers from day one.

Some of the blame for this lies with firms believing too much preprepared interview propaganda from unsuitable candidates. Much of it, however, lies squarely at the door of future trainees. In my experience, people rarely went the distance in their careers research before signing up. Salary was implicitly (but never explicitly) the most important thing in career choice; more important to most people than whether they thought they might like/thought they were suited to/even knew anything about legal practice. Tuition fees and student loans didn't help, as everyone was poor by that stage, but it didn't end there. For many people, the desire to get a well paid job quickly was leveraged not just by the need to repay student debt, but also by the further (unhealthy) desire to get into any sort of arrangement which would fund (unnecessary) consumer electronics purchases, a round-the-world airfare, and further borrowing. A blind eye was often turned to the obvious vested interests in the law recruitment milk round. People wanted to buy into HR spin. No-one wanted to be the one left without a job. Keeping, Up & Joneses LLP had it made.

London firms - especially magic circle firms - recruit aggressively. In my opinion, they should. Tough competition between firms is the only thing that will force partners to improve the packages they offer trainees. No-one should, however, be in the slightest doubt that all those big-budget vac. placement drinks at funky venues, the go-karting and party cruises down the Thames, and all the happy-go-lightly vac schemer tasks, are worlds away from the cut and thrust of real City practice. Whatever you are told about getting a "realistic view", you must see through the commercial interests at work. The cutting edge, rocket science deals and interesting cases have to be sifted from the long hours, yelling bankers and idiot opponents with their reams of late, stupid comments on scruffy contracts. You need to know that temperamentally you can deal with this (lots of it) as the quid pro quo for the good stuff before you sign up, or else you will get stressed. Certainly don't choose City law because you can't think of anything else to do, or because you don't want to disappoint Daddy (both real reasons people whom I know had for signing up). However much your trust fund is worth, don't get into a position where you are about to leave university but you've never had a job before. Experience, however basic, counts. A training contract is a 3 year commitment, so you need to take your time and force yourself to bring a healthy dose of scepticism to bear on your decision making. There's no shame in being savvy but milkless in the milk round. If you like the idea of a fast pace of life, conceptual challenges, teamwork, and have a thick skin plus a longish concentration span on dull material, City law may be for you. But if not, forget it.

The view I express above is not intended to take anything away from the event that reignited this debate, and on which I express no comment other than this: I was in the same year and studied on the same course at Oxford as Matt Courtney. I remember him as an absolutely first rate lawyer, with the type of intellect that put just about everyone else's (and certainly mine) into the shade. For whatever reason this has happened, to anyone who wants to see English law practised to the highest standard, his untimely death is a terrible loss.

Posted by DizzyTrainee | 17/02/2007

We have to be really careful to jump to any conclusions before there has been a full investigation.

However, on the issue of stress more generally, perhaps this is something which both solicitors and barristers need to start taking as seriously as any other issues at work. Maybe performance reviews could examine this more specifically.

Posted by BabyBarista | 17/02/2007

It is always difficult to know why someone did what they did, and there are indications that this may have been a tragic accident. Many young people don't realise all the consequences of working hard, particularly when they are listening to a firm's sales pitch. But the issue with anyone who is depressed is that they become unable to make reasoned choices. By the time they realise - or ought to realise - that they have a problem it is often too late. That is why there is a duty on employers to take care of their employees.
I have worked at a number of large firms - and i was a salaried partner at a national firm. My experience is that many employers ignore their duties. My present employers are not like this, but I have seen systemic bullying, deliberate overworking and disciplining for showing the effects of stress. Any evidence of stress goes unnoticed or is ignored, but then leads all too often to one reaction, which is to "get rid of him" or her. That is a quote from one particular "office psychopath". It is not so much the long hours culture, but the often callous reaction that greets any resulting stress issue. There are too many type A personalities in a law firm whose only reaction to such situations is to swarm around the injured party and make the position much, much worse. I am just glad I got out of a situation which I found personally repulsive. I remember only too well the gentle man who did not do so, and who is sadly no longer with us. Very few non partners in the department, and they didn't know the half of it, were in any doubt as to whether or not the firm's behaviour was a contributing factor, particularly given the amount of stress related sickness that occurred in others at the time.

Posted by RegionalFirmLawyer | 16/02/2007

Many people in the law firms do change careers - indeed one of the most important advantages of training as a lawyer is it opens so many doors for you to go to once you are tired of long hours. Almost everyone out there would like to hire a lawyer for their skills. Many jobs less stressful than the law firm career are available for the taking, really. Maybe LawCare must continue its work and make every lawyer aware of the alternative jobs. Otherwise those who want ridiculous money should be able to work ridiculous hours.

Posted by moon | 16/02/2007

While not wanting to diminish the tragedy of a young man's death (and I note that the assertion that working hours caused his death is a matter of supposition) - I find it a bit much to talk about "struggling City lawyers". Volenti non fit injuria.

Posted by City Associate | 16/02/2007

I think it is too simple to say that "choosing to work at a firm such as Freshfields is just that; an informed choice of money, stimulation and prestige obtained at the cost of long hours, personal costs and fierce competition”. For many embarking on their training contracts, it is their first job so they have no point of comparison and working such incredibly long hours seems 'normal'. And once in that vicious cycle, in such a pressured and competitive environment, with many partners rather than thanking you for staying late til 1am, criticising you for not staying until 2am, I can see how it can all become too much for some and why the number of calls to LawCare is increasing year on year. They don't splash this side of things on recruitment brochures etc., so, as I said above, I think such comments as those from the 'wife of a partner', no doubt relaxing in her Oxfordshire mansion, are trite, uninformed, and, frankly, quite insulting.

Posted by WD, Trainee, City Firm | 16/02/2007