Source
r/uklaw•
CheesePakoda

Legal recruitment as a job while pursuing SQE

Recently Linkedin started suggesting legal recruitment roles while I had been applying for paralegal roles & I found out that legal recruiters are being paid more than paralegals & have the potential to earn as much as an NQ Solicitor.

I had not really considered legal recruitment as a career option and I am studying for the SQE. As a foreign qualified lawyer, being explicit about qualifying as a solicitor has not helped me get a job as a paralegal. I am not sure if taking up a legal recruitment role till I qualify makes sense, or would it reflect negatively on my CV as being uncertain about my career ? I also read somewhere that if I place candidates at a particular company, I would know the ins & outs of the recruitment process and it would cause a problem if I wanted to apply there myself later upon qualifying.

Any guidance or thoughts will be appreciated!

Posted May 25, 2023, 3:15 PM UTC · locked

721
shakyclaim•

I doubt it would affect your chances of a qualifying role very much but it's a very salesy job, so think about whether you are suited to that or would enjoy it

12
CheesePakodaOP•

Thank you!

2
Additional-Fudge5068Solicitor (Non-Practising)•

It's definitely something to do. You can earn a decent amount of money if you are good at it, and it can gain you more understanding of how some firms work, but it will absolutely not help you in any direct way by getting to know the lateral recruitment process as it isn't the graduate recruitment process or usually even the same team.

Can I ask you where you are qualified and in what area? I would really be careful about getting yourself admitted here if you have struggled to even get a paralegal role so far as you'll find it even harder to get a qualified role without having had any UK experience.

6
SpecificNatural5301•

Hmm how will OP getting admitted here make it harder to get a job here? especially when they already have some legal experience albeit foreign? That’s not true and I know many real life cases that makes your statement untrue.

0
Additional-Fudge5068Solicitor (Non-Practising)•

OP has been unable to get a paralegal role because no firms have been interested in their experience.

The only interest OP got in interview was where they asked specifically if OP would remain a career paralegal rather than going on to get admitted and therefore, potentially, become a more expensive employee.

I'll obviously have to take your word for it that you know "many" real life cases that make my statement untrue, but I've been working in legal recruitment for 10 years and before that as a lawyer for 10 years, so I do think I've got a fair amount of knowledge and experience in this matter. You may be suffering from confirmation bias.

Putting all that aside, try to look at this dispassionately from a firm's point of view.

You're a firm... you want to hire an NQ into your Corporate department. First, you look at your own trainees and aim to hire one of them. Usually there's a surplus of trainees applying for jobs internally because the firms bank on some trainees leaving to go elsewhere and, particularly in the current economic climate, there isn't actually that much need to hire.

Suppose that they are somehow unable to fill internally. Then they need to look externally. Given the choice between:

  1. Scores, if not hundreds of trainees at decent firms in England & Wales who are looking to move firms or who HAVE to move firms and who have one or even two seats of Corporate experience,

  2. A decent number also in Ireland and Scotland looking to move to London with good Corporate experience,

  3. some junior lawyers coming over from Australia and New Zealand with either Ancestry visas or Youth Mobility visas (AND a comparable corporate law practice/structure to E&W) and

  4. someone with no actual English law experience, not from a country that's regularly hired from by City law firms and where there is no assumption/experience of the work being of similar quality, complexity or even legislative framework to that in England & Wales AND who requires sponsorship...

what do you think the order of priority is going to be? Are you seriously trying to say that someone fitting into category 4 is going to find it easy to get any kind of traction with a firm that would be capable of sponsoring them when they've got literally hundreds if not thousands of people that fall into categories 1-3?

9
CheesePakodaOP•

Since you mentioned you’ve been in legal recruitment, I would have expected you not to assume things. It isn’t like firms aren’t interested in my experience, you do realise the work paralegals do here is not something a qualified lawyer just can’t comprehend to do. It may sound pompous but I am overqualified for that, and have been told about it over and over again, once even from a law firm partner in the UK.

Just because you have worked for “10 years” doesn’t mean there don’t exist “many” cases. There are multiple dual qualified lawyers working in MC, SC, regional law firms as well as in-house.

And the company which was interested, also gave me really good feedback and were open to a lawyer from a different jurisdiction because they were themselves from other EU countries.

It is also slightly presumptuous to think corporate law is what everyone wants. The SRA has brought the SQE route in for a reason & they want to slowly phase out the LPC route. In a regular TC, you would rotate in specified seats & in the SQE you are studying many more subjects & it’s a hard exam. Traditional employers may not understand it yet but that does not invalidate it. The meaning of NQ is someone who “newly” qualified and the SQE is meant to equip one with knowledge sufficient for that role. I don’t think even if someone has worked as a paralegal in a particular area of law, will know everything taught in the SQE.

Not every firm is focused on hiring trainee solicitors, funding their exam and then hiring them. Why would there be NQ roles advertised if there was no need to hire anyone apart from trainees?

Maybe you also need to read about the Indian jurisdiction and similarity between laws due to the history. And to add to point 4, I don’t need sponsorship.

And about your previous comment on the course provider wanting to make money. It did make me think but then the course provider has joint webinars with the SRA at times. They’re not responsible for advising on the job market and I don’t think they are out there to make money because WAY TOO MANY people are choosing the SQE route to qualify and work in the UK.

Your view may not be incorrect but it’s an isolated view.

-1
Additional-Fudge5068Solicitor (Non-Practising)•

You obviously feel strongly about this which is understandable.

Do bear in mind that it's often an easy way to give people a gentle rejection to tell people that they're overqualified or that there were other candidates with more experience etc. It is rare to get actual meaningful or truthful feedback from interview processes.

I also gave Corporate as an example because it's one of a few areas where there can be international mobility. You're not going to be able to transfer Family law experience for example.

I am aware that there are always exceptions to the rule, but I am just being realistic, having seen how exceptionally rare it is.

The SRA introduced the SQE ostensibly as a means of improving the diversity and inclusivity of the English legal system as the pass rate for BAME candidates on the LPC was considered to be unacceptably low. They now seem to have messed that up because it's actually lower with the SQE than it was with the LPC. The general consensus (albeit it's still early) seems to be that the SQE has been a massive cock-up in the way it has been implemented and introduced.

If you think that more than a handful of the top 200 UK firms are going to alter their training programme in any way then you're severely mistaken. Firms will continue to do seat rotations in the traditional way because it's one that works for the firms - they want candidates to work in different departments so they get well-rounded experience, but also so that they're essentially interviewing them for qualification positions in different areas.

No matter what the intent of the SQE route was, that will not change firms' opinions that they want people with actual traditional training contract experience. Literally no firm of any merit is going to hire someone straight out of the SQE with no English experience over someone who's done the SQE and a traditional style seat-rotation training contract. It would be fanciful to think otherwise. Academic theory will never be as attractive as practical exposure.

NQ roles are advertised because firms are busy and need additional NQs. They poach them from other firms who have paid to train them. They are genuinely not looking for someone who's done the SQE and has no actual experience.

I am aware of the Indian jurisdiction. I am also aware that as an Indian national, you can't hold a second passport so in order to avoid needing to be sponsored you'd need to have renounced your Indian nationality for a second country's citizenship. Something which is a fairly big step and a lot of people are loathe to do.

There are a number of Indian qualified lawyers working at good firms in London, but they have gone a different route: Linklaters, Allen & Overy and Herbert Smith Freehills open applications for their vacation schemes specifically for 4th year Indian law students. If you can get in through that route and obtain a TC, this is your most likely option to succeed. (This info was thanks to an Indian law student with first-hand experience who messaged me).

I assure you, mine is not an isolated view - it's the realistic view based on all of the evidence I have seen. I'm not saying it's the right way - far from it... just that currently, this is the way.

7
CheesePakodaOP•

Thank you for that insight.

I am an Indian qualified lawyer with 2 years PQE & an LLM in TMT from UK. I believe the SQE route would provide a chance to get an NQ role ? There are many international students and qualified lawyers from countries like Hong Kong, Vietnam who are doing the same.

Is there any reason why you feel it will be harder to get an NQ role (which is meant to bring people on an equal footing)?

I had an interview for a paralegal role at a company and they asked me quite a lot about SQE & then asked if I’d continue working as a paralegal after giving the exam, which was quite bizarre. I gave them a diplomatic & polite answer but it’s obvious I wouldn’t continue in a paralegal role if I’ve qualified. So I feel this could also be one of the reasons for not getting a paralegal role.

-2
Additional-Fudge5068Solicitor (Non-Practising)•

The course providers are there to make money and they don't ever give their paying students a realistic view of the actual chances of employment afterwards. Unless your Indian experience is of the highest quality (top 5 firm type of thing) and you have a huge amount of luck you will not get an NQ role in the UK. You will be a qualified lawyer in England & Wales but you will have no English experience of any equivalency to those who have done a Training Contract. If you also need sponsorship then the only firms that are likely to be big enough or international enough to sponsor are not going to be interested. The ones small enough to maybe be interested won't sponsor.

8
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
sphexish1•

I would strongly advise against it.

Most lawyers really quite dislike recruiters so it’s going to make lawyers think less of you. It’s a position which nowadays is associated with dishonest behaviour and misrepresentations, not unlike estate agents.

It’s more common for people to be lawyers first and then recruiters. They learn about the legal industry and that makes them better recruiters who can earn more. I would hire somebody as a lawyer if they’d started as a lawyer, become a recruiter, and then wanted to get back into law, but I don’t think I’d hire somebody as a lawyer who had only recruited. It would really put me off them, as I’d assume they’d had to apply all the tricks needed to succeed in the industry for those who have no legal background or contacts.

1
CheesePakodaOP•

Thank you! I really appreciate the straightforward response. I agree, I don’t think I’ll be going for the legal recruitment job since I am very sure now that I don’t want to switch from my legal career so early on.

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1