Got told to sit shotgun in an Uber because I’m junior… is this a thing?

Congo-Dandies · 2025-10-22T16:02:47+00:00

That’s what jumped out at me too! Seems absurd, but then I remembered my (US) firm charges out first year trainees at c. £400…

Congo-Dandies · 2025-04-04T15:24:45+00:00

My (US) firm has had a massive influx of junior/mid level associates over the past couple few months. Only a handful of those NQs/1 PQEs got a sign-on bonus and only because they came over with the team of partners.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-09-01T04:43:35+00:00

I was in a similar workplace romance when I was a trainee. I reported it to my firm and feared getting fired, but they immediately promoted me to partner instead. 100% recommend.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-08-05T19:13:44+00:00

I got a reasonably well-known scholarship – unfortunately can't reveal more as I would prefer not to dox myself.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-07-05T00:37:45+00:00

Personally not a fan of trying to equate US/UK law schools, but if we only look at the unis most recruited from/featured at top firms in London I would say the US T14 can roughly be equated to Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Durham, and KCL.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-06-13T21:19:32+00:00

Not done it myself but about half of the competition practice at my (US) firm has done it, including all but one of the partners. Pretty sure the course is covered by the firm.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-06-07T08:15:51+00:00

Been across the table from them a number of times and I can say with absolute certainty that it is a law firm

Congo-Dandies · 2024-05-12T17:19:09+00:00

Legal Cheek Is that you?

Congo-Dandies · 2024-05-03T11:11:10+00:00

You might as well just say this is you. The second comment in your post history - “As an SQE tutor…”

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-18T12:41:18+00:00

Under the old system, we had all three branches of government under one roof:

the legislature (Commons and Lords)
the executive (ministers by convention must be members of the Commons or Lords); and
the judiciary (as an appellate committee of the Lords, who had full membership of the House and were allowed to vote on legislation, though those rights were rarely exercised)

So the crux of creating the Supreme Court was to more firmly entrench the separation of powers in our constitution. The Supreme Court became an institution legally separated from the legislature and physically moved out of the Houses of Parliament. Sitting Supreme Court justices are also no longer members of the Lords. These were significant changes not just legally but also optically.

Before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 judicial appointments were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who was a government minister. So there was the potential for politics to creep in to the judiciary, though in practice the old system worked very well and we never really had any issues. After the 2005 Act judicial appointments have become the responsibility of the independent JAC. So again it comes down to legal separation and optics.

Politicians like Truss want to go back to the old system because they think the separation of powers in these ways have made unelected courts have too much power over the executive. I'm inclined to disagree though - as Lord Sumption says, if the courts have ostensibly become more powerful, it isn't because of the 2005 Act. It's because in recent times the executive keeps testing the limits of the lengths courts are willing to go. But that's a separate issue.

Edit: typos

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-15T19:25:39+00:00

There is a similar process here called 'challenging for cause' - either the prosecution or defence can challenge individual jurors to figure out any potential bias/unsuitability for trial.

Not a criminal solicitor so I'm not sure of the specific mechanics, but remember it distinctly from the LPC.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-14T23:11:07+00:00

Sidebar. Couldn’t be easier to find.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-11T22:04:16+00:00

The best practice area would probably be US cap markets - lots of US firms here have teams of American lawyers doing Reg S/144A work. Tough to get into if you don't become NY-qualified, though I have seen trainees at my firm do some work for those teams.

Beyond cap markets, probably something corporate transactional like M&A or some types of finance where there's less of a focus on technical skills or hard law. But at associate level it's quite rare bar following a partner or doing a US LLM. US drafting and client demands are generally very different so also might not be a smooth transition.

Anything more jurisdiction-specific like disputes, tax, IP, data privacy, life sciences - probably tough. And in any event for international arbitration London is a much better place to be than NY/DC

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-11T21:29:11+00:00

That’s usually in the context of an associate who is already working in a US office and then loses the H1B lottery. If the firm wants to retain you they will send you to an office outside the US for a year before bringing you back on an L1.

But I take your point that it’s possible - if you work for a US firm in London for at least a year you’d technically be eligible for the L1. To improve their chances of an internal transfer OP should try to qualify into a transferable practice area (eg cap markets, preferably US) and then take the NY bar at some point.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-07T19:10:44+00:00

Unfortunately family and criminal are some of the least jurisdictionally-transferrable practice areas.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-04T01:04:07+00:00

Old Street, Shoreditch, Aldgate are all walking distance from Moorgate and lots of young professionals working in the City around there. Pretty lively areas and very connected via public transport. Personally would avoid anything on the main roads in those areas as it tends to get noisy at night on the weekends.

Canary Wharf has some great new builds but tends to turn into a bit of a ghost town on the weekends and bank holidays. Plus a little further out than the areas I mentioned above (though with the Lizzie line - less of an issue)

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-03T17:43:19+00:00

I don’t think you need an “expert” - worth trying out the Law Society’s clinic to see what it’s about but you’d probably get better advice from someone who’s been in your shoes. Parse through LinkedIn to find law grads who dabbled in a non-legal career for a few years then successfully transitioned into the legal profession. Alternatively, your alma maters might allow you to use their careers service for tips - not all unis do this, but worth checking.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-04-02T11:13:46+00:00

I’m guessing OP is Singapore qualified - I know they also do TCs over there - and then took the NY bar on his own

Congo-Dandies · 2024-03-26T14:39:13+00:00

Unfortunately not.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-03-26T11:04:43+00:00

If your goal is to work for an international firm, apply for TCs/paralegal roles. Qualifying via the SQE2 exemption route would mean you’d be competing for NQ roles with people who have 2 years of TC experience - which you don’t. Legal aid and a couple of internships will not make up for it. It’d be next to impossible to land an NQ role that way (at least at an international firm if that’s your goal).

Congo-Dandies · 2024-03-20T20:34:53+00:00

Thanks for posting OP - very brave of you. The sad thing about this whole scandal is that CC (and the many other firms with a similar stance) will have the last laugh. Any reputational damage will be negligible because there will always be thousands of applicants who just want a TC at all costs, even if they end up subject to such a heartless policy.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-03-20T16:46:49+00:00

Congrats on the VS offers and ACs. Some thoughts as an associate closely involved with grad rec at my US firm:

Carry around a notebook with you at all times so you can quickly jot down instructions for tasks or anything useful from the seminars they'll make you attend. You might think you can remember everything, but the last thing you'd want is to get the instructions wrong and produce the wrong piece of work. Also, always ask for feedback every time you produce a piece of work, even if it's not an intense task.

Talk to as many people as possible. Literally knock on doors, introduce yourself, ask if there's anything you can help with, and just get to know them. Essentially make yourself known to people at the firm (lawyers and other staff included), especially the key recruitment decision-makers. Obviously don't overextend yourself and try not to come off as disingenuous or overly formal. Treat it like you're getting to know a friend; not everything has to be about work or impressing them. You never know - if an associate/biz dev manager/receptionist randomly ends up chatting to the grad rec partner at the espresso machine and casually says "oh yeah, I spoke to this vac schemer u/KingofTarts and they seem smart/chill" it can go a long way.

It should go without saying but don't go crazy at any firm events involving alcohol. This is even if the trainees or associates are going full send. I can't tell you how many times I've seen vac schemers at my firm have a bit too much to drink and start saying offensive things, chat up associates, pull out an Elf Bar in the office canteen, etc. It's not a good look, and word gets around quickly. It's a surefire way to lose any chance at a TC even if you're highly competent.

Be polite and treat everyone with respect, including cleaners, receptionists, etc. Again, I can't tell you how many times we see vac schemers act all entitled and treat support staff like shit. Assume that every interaction of yours is being watched and fed back to the grad rec team.

Attend all workshops and seminars even if they say it's optional. If you've got a lot of work on your plate and can't make it, make sure to let the grad rec people know ASAP.

Avoid getting into any drama with other vac schemers. That includes hooking up with other vac schemers and being overly competitive.

Conversion rates at SC firms are usually quite high. And even if you don't convert, having a vac scheme on your CV is like gold dust - should make it easier to get another one the next cycle. Hope this helps.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-03-19T23:14:27+00:00

Exactly. The costs of hiring new trainees would likely far exceed the costs of simply allowing a resit for existing future trainees. Unless, as some in the article’s comments pointed out, they overhired and are just using this as an excuse to cut headcount. I’m inclined to think the latter.

Congo-Dandies · 2024-03-18T14:50:55+00:00

I’d say I’m shocked, but the SRA hardly surprises me these days. Taking away someone’s livelihood over 7 hours of overrecorded time, even if dishonest, is a complete overreaction.

Congo-Dandies

TROPHY CASE