Paying for a Traineeship

solarplexus

Hi All,

I am hearing more and more about people who are now having to pay Solicitors for as traineeship.

Who out there has had to do this and how much is the average?

Procrastastudy

I suppose this was inevitable with people doing them unpaid but I was under the, likely mistaken impression, the trainee had to be paid?

nuac

Apprentices, or rather their parents had to pay for apprenticeships in th'old days. The amounts were substantial - e.g. £500 or more in the fifties. Of course, no pay.

NoQuarter

Madness.

Procrastastudy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Madness.

Says the man whose just paid 13K for a years study and now is working for two years unpaid.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Says the man whose just paid 13K for a years study and now is working for two years unpaid.

I'm mad tough!

Blackrockcomet

What incentive is there for an employer to keep on a trainee who is paying them? It's hard enough as a trainee earning good money (outside the big 5) to persuade your firm to keep you on after you've qualified as they'll have to pay you more, there are increased insurance costs and there's the issue of office space etc.
Much better to do an internship in a firm. if you do that for six months, you'll be worth something to a law firm and will at least get an unpaid traineeship(which I wouldn't recommend either). If you just want the prestige of a legal qualification, it is far easier/cheaper to qualify as a barrister.

NoQuarter

I dont think its cheaper. PPC and the KI are almost the same price. If you manage to secure a traineeship that pays even minimum wage (or any wage) you are doing better than those on the Barrister route financially.

Easier? Just in the fact that you dont need to be taken on anywhere. But much like a solicitor who is newly qualified and out on their arse, Barristers begin their career on their arse too. A solicitors first 2 years *should* be earning a wage. A Barristers devilling years pays no wage.

I'm not saying the Barrister route is tougher, I'm just saying that the Solicitor route is not clearly tougher, imo.

Blackrockcomet

NoQuarter wrote: »

I dont think its cheaper. PPC and the KI are almost the same price. If you manage to secure a traineeship that pays even minimum wage (or any wage) you are doing better than those on the Barrister route financially.

Easier? Just in the fact that you dont need to be taken on anywhere. But much like a solicitor who is newly qualified and out on their arse, Barristers begin their career on their arse too. A solicitors first 2 years *should* be earning a wage. A Barristers devilling years pays no wage.

I'm not saying the Barrister route is tougher, I'm just saying that the Solicitor route is not clearly tougher, imo.

To become successful as a barrister is much much tougher. I really respect those who are still grafting away 8-10 years after they qualify as barristers. However there are increasing numbers of people who just qualify as barristers but don't go on to devil. Some use this to get in house positions (with chartered accountancy exams for example), some just for prestige.
This is much easier than FE-1s, searching for a traineeship, 2-3 years training with blackhall exams and much more cost effective than training for free or paying for a traineeship plus blackhall costs(and FE-1 costs)

My point is that if you qualify in a place that doesn't respect you enough to pay and where there isn't the same pressure to impress in order to be retained or trust in your ability to handle jobs, you are at a significant disadvantage to those already struggling in the market, who've had good hard traineeships and you will probably have to work unpaid after qualifying in order to make up ground. So, there is no point paying for a traineeship unless it is for just for the title of solicitor and I think barrister is easier to attain and carries the same gravitas

johnnyskeleton

Is it just my imagination or would it be easier to explain to someone that you are paying for a traineeship rather than saying you are not being paid?

As in, people would struggle to understand how it works to be an unpaid trainee (or devil for that matter) because they instinctively feel that unpaid work is exploitation. But if you are paying someone, it's like a form of vocational training.

Maybe it would give the trainee better bargaining power too, as in if I am paying a fee to a solicitor to teach me, I expect them to take the time to explain things to me rather than simply be a free source of work (as some trainees occasionally end up). Anyone who then uses a trainee/devil just to do photocopying or other menial tasks could be in breach of contract.

In reality though, it's probably a sign of a highly exploitative training solicitor and unles you are headstrong enough to demand the level of assistance required it is likely that a traineeship that you have to pay for involves more menial work and less educational value.

Blackrockcomet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is it just my imagination or would it be easier to explain to someone that you are paying for a traineeship rather than saying you are not being paid?

As in, people would struggle to understand how it works to be an unpaid trainee (or devil for that matter) because they instinctively feel that unpaid work is exploitation. But if you are paying someone, it's like a form of vocational training.

Maybe it would give the trainee better bargaining power too, as in if I am paying a fee to a solicitor to teach me, I expect them to take the time to explain things to me rather than simply be a free source of work (as some trainees occasionally end up). Anyone who then uses a trainee/devil just to do photocopying or other menial tasks could be in breach of contract.

In reality though, it's probably a sign of a highly exploitative training solicitor and unles you are headstrong enough to demand the level of assistance required it is likely that a traineeship that you have to pay for involves more menial work and less educational value.

This is it. I think a lot of people would pay to train in a highly reputable firm (big 5 or with a very well regarded solicitor) but I think that only a chancer would charge to train an apprentice these days. Whatever a proposed trainee could pay would not be worth the hassle of training a person if your heart isn't in it and the legal ramifications if something went wrong to all but the biggest chancers or those who's firms are going under at a rate(and therefore aren't a good place to train)

Grolschevik

I don't think this can be happening in reality. It would have to be against the rules:

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/education/Trainees/mintraineesalaries.pdf

In Office Period
Training Solicitors are obliged to pay trainees at least the minimum wage provided for in the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (NMWA 2000). From 1st of July 2011 the national minimum wage of €8.65 per hour for an experienced adult employee came into effect (increased from €7.65).

Professional Practice Course I
While attending this course, there is no obligation to pay a trainee who has not worked in the office prior to commencing this Course. For those trainees who have worked in the office the National Minimum Wage Act provides that they must be paid while attending this Course.

johnnyskeleton

Grolschevik wrote: »

I don't think this can be happening in reality. It would have to be against the rules:

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/education/Trainees/mintraineesalaries.pdf

In Office Period
Training Solicitors are obliged to pay trainees at least the minimum wage provided for in the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (NMWA 2000). From 1st of July 2011 the national minimum wage of €8.65 per hour for an experienced adult employee came into effect (increased from €7.65).

Professional Practice Course I
While attending this course, there is no obligation to pay a trainee who has not worked in the office prior to commencing this Course. For those trainees who have worked in the office the National Minimum Wage Act provides that they must be paid while attending this Course.

So how are there so many unpaid traineeships?

shaneybaby

Grolschevik wrote: »

I don't think this can be happening in reality. It would have to be against the rules:

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/education/Trainees/mintraineesalaries.pdf

In Office Period
Training Solicitors are obliged to pay trainees at least the minimum wage provided for in the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 (NMWA 2000). From 1st of July 2011 the national minimum wage of €8.65 per hour for an experienced adult employee came into effect (increased from €7.65).

Professional Practice Course I
While attending this course, there is no obligation to pay a trainee who has not worked in the office prior to commencing this Course. For those trainees who have worked in the office the National Minimum Wage Act provides that they must be paid while attending this Course.

I know two trainees who paid for their traineeship and another one (a very good friend of mine) who was earning €50 a week expenses (and nothing else) at a pretty decent firm. All have either finished or are about to finish their indentures, some have been kept on.

Without going on a anti- Law soc rant, they don't give a damn about what the trainees get paid once the fees come in to fill the classes. In a way what do they care.

Grolschevik

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So how are there so many unpaid traineeships?

Hmmm... "internships"?

shaneybaby wrote: »

I know two trainees who paid for their traineeship and another one (a very good friend of mine) who was earning €50 a week expenses (and nothing else) at a pretty decent firm. All have either finished or are about to finish their indentures, some have been kept on.

Well, I hope they make/made a complaint to the Law Soc's Trainee Section. Maybe nothing would come of it, but they should really know it's happening, and not just rumour.

Sala

I think the Law Society would care, but who is going to report their training solicitor?? Then you would quit and still have no training contract to go into

ananas

Why on earth would you pay for someone to train you without any guarantee that you'd be kept on? That would bankrupt anyone. Paying for fe1s, blackhall fees, living in Dublin and then paying a solicitor to train you, what would you live on?

Sala

I'm interning, for free - if I ever get there I'll be an older trainee as I had to save a lot of money to be able to quit my job and get experience. when people say the law is for privileged students they are right - I don't think a woman my age with a mortgage and/or children would have a chance at a career in law without family money.

Fe1exams

Euro Millions?

johnnyskeleton

Sala wrote: »

I'm interning, for free - if I ever get there I'll be an older trainee as I had to save a lot of money to be able to quit my job and get experience. when people say the law is for privileged students they are right - I don't think a woman my age with a mortgage and/or children would have a chance at a career in law without family money.

If you wanted to become a master butcher it would require a few years of low paid or unpaid work as well. Socialist politicians have to spend a few years unpaid traipsing around hoping to get voted into the local council/national legislature. Writers, artists, musicians and professional athletes mostly work for years for nothing and then give up. There are so many people wanting to be a journalist that if you graduate a course the advice is to emigrate. If you look at the jobbridge site there are thousands of other jobs that pay nothing other than the dole.

I'm sure it's very difficult and I don't want to be blasé about it, but it's important to ignore the idea that it is an impenetrable elitest profession. It is difficult to get into the legal profession, but it can't be significantly more difficult than other jobs that lots of other people want to do. It's supply and demand.

Dandelion6

Grolschevik wrote: »

Well, I hope they make/made a complaint to the Law Soc's Trainee Section. Maybe nothing would come of it, but they should really know it's happening, and not just rumour.

They absolutely do know it's happening. They regularly meet with trainees to talk about issues like this, but nothing gets done.

ananas

Sala wrote: »

I'm interning, for free - if I ever get there I'll be an older trainee as I had to save a lot of money to be able to quit my job and get experience. when people say the law is for privileged students they are right - I don't think a woman my age with a mortgage and/or children would have a chance at a career in law without family money.

I wouldn't necessarily say that law is for privileged students. There are always going to be a percentage who have parents who are solicitors but the majority don't. I'm from a fairly modest background and I'm training at the moment. I think it's more difficult to get with a firm that will pay fees and wages during Blackhall as the competition is so fierce.

shaneybaby

Grolschevik wrote: »

Well, I hope they make/made a complaint to the Law Soc's Trainee Section. Maybe nothing would come of it, but they should really know it's happening, and not just rumour.

Absolutely, i would too but it's in no-one's interest to complain.

Do the law society really want to do something about it? They do something about the complaint, training solicitor leaves apprentice go (or others around the place don't take on such trainees), Student loses out on traineeship, then trainee numbers go down then they don't get the 12.5k for the courses per student but still have to run them anyway.

It's a lose lose on all fronts. I'm not supporting it by the way, i've no idea how people survive financially and mentally (it must be depressing as hell going in to work where you're that unappreciated) but their ultimate goal is to get qualified, maybe they don't want to stay in private practice at all and it's just a means to an end.

Grolschevik

shaneybaby wrote: »

Absolutely, i would too but it's in no-one's interest to complain.

They'd have to do it post-qualification and suffer the burnt professional bridges.

Dandelion6 wrote: »

They absolutely do know it's happening. They regularly meet with trainees to talk about issues like this, but nothing gets done.

On foot of this, I yesterday rang the Society to ask about this. The relevant person [not mentioning title, but it was the appropriate person to ask] said they'd not heard of this practice before but that rumours of all sorts of stuff abound among trainees every year. They couldn't offhand think of the regulation that such a practice might contravene, but said that it would be "wrong" for a solicitor not to pay a trainee and so "doubly wrong" to have the trainee paying to be trained.

So maybe they genuinely aren't aware?

Sala

Grolschevik wrote: »

On foot of this, I yesterday rang the Society to ask about this. The relevant person [not mentioning title, but it was the appropriate person to ask] said they'd not heard of this practice before but that rumours of all sorts of stuff abound among trainees every year. They couldn't offhand think of the regulation that such a practice might contravene, but said that it would be "wrong" for a solicitor not to pay a trainee and so "doubly wrong" to have the trainee paying to be trained.

So maybe they genuinely aren't aware?

I would say that they are aware but can't do anything about it.. If they wanted to do something about it they couldn't work on rumours. I heard from a tutor in Blackhall they are aware that many trainees are unpaid. Howver I presume they don't do anything as a), they don't know who exactly is unpaid (and now perhaps paying) b) the trainees are hapy enough to do it c) they would loose a hell of a lot of fees if they started refusing entry to people

McCrack

At the end of the day this is an employment law/rights issue and there are appropriate fora for any employee of a law firm to take their case. The law society cannot act.

shaneybaby

Grolschevik wrote: »

They'd have to do it post-qualification and suffer the burnt professional bridges.

On foot of this, I yesterday rang the Society to ask about this. The relevant person [not mentioning title, but it was the appropriate person to ask] said they'd not heard of this practice before but that rumours of all sorts of stuff abound among trainees every year. They couldn't offhand think of the regulation that such a practice might contravene, but said that it would be "wrong" for a solicitor not to pay a trainee and so "doubly wrong" to have the trainee paying to be trained.

So maybe they genuinely aren't aware?

Fair play to ye for ringing but yeah it'd have to be post-qual. No it does exist alright, not sure on if anyone has actually brought it up mind. As McCrack notes above it would be an EAT matter really. Whatever way you look at it such a practice certainly won't endear the profession to a trainee.

Dandelion6

Grolschevik wrote: »

I yesterday rang the Society to ask about this. The relevant person [not mentioning title, but it was the appropriate person to ask] said they'd not heard of this practice before

They're hardly going to admit over the phone to allowing it to go on unchecked. They know.

Grolschevik

Dandelion6 wrote: »

They're hardly going to admit over the phone to allowing it to go on unchecked. They know.

Have to disagree with you there, I'm afraid. I trust the person I talked to and the two others I subsequently emailed.

Pat Mustard

Dandelion6 wrote: »

They're hardly going to admit over the phone to allowing it to go on unchecked. They know.

The Law Society has been told of trainees going unpaid. There have always been at least some trainees who have not been paid.

I had not heard of the practise of solicitors charging trainees previously, outside of one isolated incident and stories from another era.

It is bad enough for trainees to work for nothing, but perhaps it's justifiable on the grounds of an exchange of work for knowledge and experience. This should also be a temporary experience, since more experienced trainees can carry out more valuable work, and decent employers will recognise that work and pay for it. That said, I understand that there are some solicitors who don't give good training, and who don't ever pay their trainees.

People have said that law is not just for the privileged. Strictly true, but many solicitors initially became trainees on the basis of 'pull'. That doesn't exclusively apply to the legal profession. It is common practise in Ireland.

Not paying trainees is one thing. However, the practise of charging for traineeships goes beyond stinginess. It is exploitation, and it should be stamped out.

The EAT can deal with many issues, but I don't think that it can deal with the real problem here. If a person takes action against their training solicitor, the working relationship between the two will end, effectively. If a trainee solicitor loses his job, he cannot qualify as a solicitor unless he finds another solicitor to take over his training. That's a very tall order in the current economic circumstances, and a grave situation overall.

The EAT is not likely to order reinstatement/reengagement where the working relationship between the parties has broken down. Therefore, it will not stop certain solicitors from exploiting trainees.

As far as I can see, the Law Society is the only organisation that could really do anything about solicitors exploiting trainees. It hasn't done much about unpaid trainees in the past, so I won't hold my breath.

Milk & Honey

Training contracts are scarce. Demand is greater than supply. Like any commodity demand drives the price. Add this to the fact that many solicitors practises are not generating a living income for the principals. For may the only way to keep the show on the road is to charge for training. It is all very well to talk about exploitation but the money has to come in before it can be paid out.

chops018

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Training contracts are scarce. Demand is greater than supply. Like any commodity demand drives the price. Add this to the fact that many solicitors practises are not generating a living income for the principals. For may the only way to keep the show on the road is to charge for training. It is all very well to talk about exploitation but the money has to come in before it can be paid out.

It is expensive enough to pay for Blackhall. But paying to work, now that is a new one, Slaves didn't even pay to work. It is training but you are also contributing and working for (or under) the firm. Imagine an electrician or a carpenter doing physical labour and paying someone to do that work while whoever was 'training' you kept all the profits.

Absolute madness, and if it has come to this then the profession will surely die apart from nepotism and the very wealthy, which is a very sad thing because there could be some right good solicitors out there that come from a lower-middle class background.

As for the demand being greater, I see that as competition, not an excuse to make people pay you for training them.

I also think this is hugely got to do with the Law Society, stuff like this should be regulated much more closely, indeed it should be complained of more instead of people just giving out, but it is a pity that it seems the Law Soc don't seem to want to know.

Also I'm think the law soc should restrict those allowed take the exams to have done an approved degree just like KI's or else those with a degree in law some sort of allowance to be made or some sort of alleviation.

If I wasn't so deep in and have spent years in college I'd say feck it, I'm getting a loan and going to do the part time dip in Primary teaching in Hibernian. Good secure qualification at the end. Come to think of it, if in two or three years I'm still getting no where then that might be the very option - one advantage to being still very young.

Blackrockcomet

chops018 wrote: »

It is expensive enough to pay for Blackhall. But paying to work, now that is a new one, Slaves didn't even pay to work. It is training but you are also contributing and working for (or under) the firm. Imagine an electrician or a carpenter doing physical labour and paying someone to do that work while whoever was 'training' you kept all the profits.

Absolute madness, and if it has come to this then the profession will surely die apart from nepotism and the very wealthy, which is a very sad thing because there could be some right good solicitors out there that come from a lower-middle class background.

As for the demand being greater, I see that as competition, not an excuse to make people pay you for training them.

I also think this is hugely got to do with the Law Society, stuff like this should be regulated much more closely, indeed it should be complained of more instead of people just giving out, but it is a pity that it seems the Law Soc don't seem to want to know.

Also I'm think the law soc should restrict those allowed take the exams to have done an approved degree just like KI's or else those with a degree in law some sort of allowance to be made or some sort of alleviation.

If I wasn't so deep in and have spent years in college I'd say feck it, I'm getting a loan and going to do the part time dip in Primary teaching in Hibernian. Good secure qualification at the end. Come to think of it, if in two or three years I'm still getting no where then that might be the very option - one advantage to being still very young.

There are a lot of different legal options than pursuing the solicitor route. Legal executive/paralegal jobs in companies can be fairly well paid and can pay more than newly qualified solicitor positions especially outside Dublin.
Company secretary is an underrated position, you can learn a huge amount about funds or other areas and earn decent responsibility (and money looking at job vacancies) down the line.
People need to realise that even if they can't get a training contract, there are other options. The vast majority of them beat training for free and definitely beat paying. The hours are often more reasonable as well

Milk & Honey

chops018 wrote: »

It is expensive enough to pay for Blackhall. But paying to work, now that is a new one, Slaves didn't even pay to work. It is training but you are also contributing and working for (or under) the firm. Imagine an electrician or a carpenter doing physical labour and paying someone to do that work while whoever was 'training' you kept all the profits.

.

That used to happen quite a lot many years ago. People paid to be trained to work in shops. Devils paid their masters in the law library. There is a Supreme Court Judge now sitting who charged a devil £1k less that 30 years ago. That is equivalent to about €5k in todays money.
Trainee hotel managers had to pay a bond which would be forfeit if they left within the training contract.
Getting paid while training is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Grolschevik

Nothing can be done unless someone is willing to come forward and make a formal complaint. Nothing can be done on the basis of anecdote and rumour. That's the problem.

As it stands, taking money from a trainee probably amounts to misconduct, as it would breach the terms of the articles of indenture that were signed.

Also: what account is this payment going into? The office account? How is it accounted for? Would it show up to an investigating accountant? Breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations?

Or a personal account or cash? Is it being declared to the Revenue?

But again, nothing can be done unless one or a few make a formal stand. After qualification, maybe...

McCrack

Again these are not matters for the law society. A training Indenture is silent on remuneration. Employment legislation is the stick and its fora the remedies.

The Law Society cannot and will not act.

Pat Mustard

McCrack wrote: »

The Law Society cannot and will not act.

I think that the key is the refusal to act.

If extracting money from trainees amounts to conduct unbecoming a member of the profession, then the Law Society could act.

If it is not, and if the Law Society cannot act, it has made no move to lobby for legislation to rectify the matter. The Law Society has not been shy in asking to consult with Alan Shatter concerning the Legal Services Regulation Bill. When it suits the Law Society to act, it will act.

The Law Society doesn't care enough about the issue to take any serious steps to rectify the situation. I think it's as simple as that.

McCrack

Workers are very well protected against these practices vis a vis employment legislation. There is nobody holding a gun to anybodys head telling them they must work for nothing nor pay a training solicitor to sign Indentures.

Not paying a trainee is in breach of the NWWA and the right people to go to are not the Law Society as they are not empowered to act but the Rights Commissioner/EAT.

Pat Mustard

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Training contracts are scarce. Demand is greater than supply. Like any commodity demand drives the price. Add this to the fact that many solicitors practises are not generating a living income for the principals. For may the only way to keep the show on the road is to charge for training. It is all very well to talk about exploitation but the money has to come in before it can be paid out.

You are talking about not paying trainees on the one hand, and you talk about charging trainees on the other hand. They are different issues, in my view.

If a principal can hardly pay himself, commercial realities may dictate that he cannot pay a trainee. Therefore a trainee may work for free, in return for training. Trainees may be willing to put with that to secure their qualifications. It's far from ideal, but it may be justifiable, depending on the circumstances.

However, even if a principal cannot pay himself, there is no real additional cost to him in having a trainee. It's completely unfair to charge for traineeships. It is exploitation and it is not right.

Pat Mustard

McCrack wrote: »

Workers are very well protected against these practices vis a vis employment legislation. There is nobody holding a gun to anybodys head telling them they must work for nothing nor pay a training solicitor to sign Indentures.

Not paying a trainee is in breach of the NWWA and the right people to go to are not the Law Society as they are not empowered to act but the Rights Commissioner/EAT.

Working unpaid may be justifiable. Charging for training is not, imo.

It may be correct to argue that workers are very well protected, generally.

I don't agree that this is true in relation to the trainees. Trainees are in a very vulnerable position. Trainees who take action against their employers run the risk of not being able to finish their training.

McCrack

Working unpaid is not justifiable, its in breach of the NMWA.

Trainees who work for nothing desperate to get qualified make that choice, of course there is nothing stopping that trainee biding their time until they are qualified and then suing their ex employer for unpaid wages and I know of one instance where that did happen and rightfully so.

Pat Mustard

McCrack wrote: »

Working unpaid is not justifiable, its in breach of the NMWA.

Trainees who work for nothing desperate to get qualified make that choice, of course there is nothing stopping that trainee biding their time until they are qualified and then suing their ex employer for unpaid wages and I know of one instance where that did happen and rightfully so.

That's an interesting solution.

johnnyskeleton

The Mustard wrote: »

However, even if a principal cannot pay himself, there is no real additional cost to him in having a trainee. It's completely unfair to charge for traineeships. It is exploitation and it is not right.

I don't disagree that it is a terrible position to be in for the trainee as compared with being paid or even unpaid, and anyone asking for money for a trainee is greedy to say the least.

But is it actually wrong and explotitative to do so? Why is it different to, say, a university that you pay fees to and which gives you a kind of vocational training?

Or if I wanted to be an artist to pay a more established artist to let me watch them work?

Pat Mustard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But is it actually wrong and explotitative to do so? Why is it different to, say, a university that you pay fees to and which gives you a kind of vocational training?

#
In my view, it's wrong.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or if I wanted to be an artist to pay a more established artist to let me watch them work?

Yeah, okay. But trainees don't just watch. When they learn skills, they do all sorts of work which is useful to their training solicitor. A trainee contributes his work to the practice.

A guy who is looking over the shoulder of some established artist is not contributing his labours.

I see your point, but I just don't think that it's fair to charge trainees.

frustratedTC

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't disagree that it is a terrible position to be in for the trainee as compared with being paid or even unpaid, and anyone asking for money for a trainee is greedy to say the least.

But is it actually wrong and explotitative to do so? Why is it different to, say, a university that you pay fees to and which gives you a kind of vocational training?

Or if I wanted to be an artist to pay a more established artist to let me watch them work?

Why is it greedy to want to be paid for the work you do? Trainee accountants are paid for the work they do, why should a trainee solicitor accept anything less. TBH I think solicitors are just exploiting our generation, there are other legal jobs out there which pay well like company secretary, and if we soon go for jobs like that, the demand will be down and solicitors will need to pay us again. At the moment, they are in the stronger bargaining position because we are desperate, and hence acting like idiots to an extent, or at least acting like we have nothing to give the firm, and therefore we pay them, when in reality we do a lot of the grind work, which is of value nonetheless. I think the Law Society should be looking into this more, because the profession is in a lot of trouble and we are putting ourselves up for exploitation, sure slaves got bed and board, an unpaid trainee doesn't even get that!

Pat Mustard

frustratedTC wrote: »

Why is it greedy to want to be paid for the work you do? Trainee accountants are paid for the work they do, why should a trainee solicitor accept anything less. TBH I think solicitors are just exploiting our generation, there are other legal jobs out there which pay well like company secretary, and if we soon go for jobs like that, the demand will be down and solicitors will need to pay us again. At the moment, they are in the stronger bargaining position because we are desperate, and hence acting like idiots to an extent, or at least acting like we have nothing to give the firm, and therefore we pay them, when in reality we do a lot of the grind work, which is of value nonetheless. I think the Law Society should be looking into this more, because the profession is in a lot of trouble and we are putting ourselves up for exploitation, sure slaves got bed and board, an unpaid trainee doesn't even get that!

He meant that it is greedy of some solicitors to charge trainees for their training.

frustratedTC

apologies

Sala

Grolschevik wrote: »

Also: what account is this payment going into? The office account? How is it accounted for? Would it show up to an investigating accountant? Breach of the Solicitors Accounts Regulations?

Or a personal account or cash? Is it being declared to the Revenue?

But again, nothing can be done unless one or a few make a formal stand. After qualification, maybe...

That's an interesting point. How would one pay, in cash under the table most likely I can't see a solicitor putting it through the accounts.

solarplexus

I spoke with my Principle Solicitor about this. He said in his day it was like that.... brown envelopes and the like... I suppose things go full circle!

The Law Society don't care. Its a disgrace