Jarrod Coburn
A recent article by Michael Andrew Junior lawyers struggling as entry-level jobs dry up claims there is an “entry-level jobs crisis” affecting junior lawyers.
The article’s argument that New Zealand’s legal profession is developing a structural bottleneck at entry level is cogent, but I would reframe the issue away from a purely economic analysis.
In my experience, a core issue is trust – or, more specifically, the lack of it. It has become increasingly difficult to trust a law graduate when they tell you they are ‘passionate’ about the law. It is hard to believe any aspiring young lawyer when they say they are ‘very loyal’ and will stick with you for a number of years.
A cruel reality is that there are always law firms out there who don’t care about training new lawyers – they just cherry-pick them at the two-year mark.
It’s a perfect business-oriented solution: no up-front training costs; no salary while the lawyer is unproductive. My reality is constantly seeing individualistic behaviour both from firms and junior lawyers undermining the greater good.
The firm I work for, Portia, has generously contributed to the family law bar in Canterbury over the past 13 years. We had the benefit of starting in 2012 from scratch, developing our operation to meet the demands of the Ministry of Justice, our main customer. We’ve been one of the biggest legal aid providers in the country, operating across New Zealand, relying heavily on efficiency, training and technology.
Ensuring a continuity of lawyers willing to practise family law (particularly legal aid work) was a core foundation this firm was built upon. Access to justice is not just a value of the firm – it’s our vision, so while we operate differently from most law firms, we are firmly embedded in one of the best traditions of the profession.
It’s been argued many times that law is not a business, but a calling. Law firms need to be profitable but can’t always act the way an ordinary business does. The stakes are too high, the compliance regime is too tough, the ethics are deeply embedded.
Deeper issues
On the surface, the lack of jobs for junior lawyers might be a result of market pressures and business rationale, but there is a deeper issue, and the solution falls to the profession. It is not defined by market logic alone.
It costs Portia upward of $100,000 for the first year of a junior lawyer’s tenure with us, which comprises their remuneration, practising certificate, lost income and the salary cost of the senior staff doing the training. Even though the junior will be billing within six months, it can take more than two years to claw back the overall investment. All of this while 90% of our client base is funded through legal aid.
Let that sink in.
Not all our trainees jump ship to other firms, though. There is a cohort who simply are unprepared for the rigour of Family Court litigation. Despite their passion and their ‘deep’ understanding of the law (academic success rarely prepares for the realities of legal work), many young lawyers struggle dealing with the constant diet of family violence, sexual abuse, poverty, misery, addiction, social immobility and neglect.
Despite being able to win a moot, they can easily falter at the high demands of the court registry, timetabling directions, abusive clients and some fearsome senior counsel. It takes a special type of person to work in our profession and tertiary study is not adequately preparing them for this.
Family law is not unique – similar could be said for our commercial colleagues (doom-scrolling through reams of contracts and discovery does not align with contemporary Netflix-fuelled expectations), as well as the criminal law cohort.
High attrition rate
Do some leave because we do so much legal aid so, therefore, we treat them poorly? I’d be surprised, considering the majority of our staff work from home whenever they choose (and have been able to do so for more than a decade); we try to pay at least the market rate; we’re committed to gender equity in the workplace; we encourage all staff not to work beyond 37.5 hours per week; and we give time off in lieu after long-cause hearings.
The fact is, fewer than one in five new lawyers we train are with us after two years, which represents a huge cost to the firm. Yet it falls to law firms like ours to employ, train, sustain and give succor to junior lawyers. We take on the responsibility and cost, despite the risk that some other law firm down the track will gain the benefit, or that we’ll end up losing a staff member to a completely different sector.
Unique issue
So, what is my conclusion, in light of Michael Andrew’s article? It’s that this is not only a general business issue, but one unique to the law profession, requiring an ethical solution.
If the profession wants to ensure continuity and sustainability, then each individual lawyer must see the value of employing a junior as an investment in the profession, not merely in their own personal wealth.
There is also a role for academia to play. I value higher education and understand how provocative this statement is, but it must be said: the key word in the term “law degree” is the word degree.
I propose that our firm could take a person with any undergraduate degree and train them to be a lawyer in the same time it takes us to train someone with an LLB. I’m not even sure professional studies is worth the time and cost: and this isn’t my opinion – this comment is often made by graduates we hire after they’ve gone through the first three months of training with us.
Universities could start by providing their students with a clearer understanding of the realities of legal practice. Perhaps this is also a responsibility shared with the NZ Council of Legal Education. Either way, graduates would benefit from learning about the pressures, emotional demands and professional obligations that accompany practice.
If firms are increasingly reluctant to invest in graduate training, then part of the solution must involve better coordination between universities, graduates and the profession itself.
There is a cycle that sustains the future of the profession: graduates are unsuited for the profession, some firms bear the training costs, juniors leave, others in the profession free-ride, a select number of firms continue to train anyway.
We cannot afford this delicate ecosystem to cease through neglect and business-centric decision-making. Good lawyers are definitely a commodity in an economic sense, but they are also an investment for justice and society.
The problem exists; the solution can come only from within the profession.
Jarrod Coburn is CEO of Portia, a Christchurch law firm specialising in family law, civil and employment litigation. This article represents his opinion and not necessarily that of the firm.
I think you’ve mostly hit the mark Jarrod and after 37 years in the profession I’ve experienced many of the things you mention. I have two comments. One, a law degree teaches students the law, not how to be lawyers. Only a minority of law graduates end up practicing law. Two, the entry into the profession with any degree and a period of training used to apply in this and other countries up to about 100 years ago. This is how Nelson Mandela became a lawyer. he had a BA and took articles with a firm. He didn’t get his law degree until 1989, the same year as me.