Simmons & Simmons has refused to disclose how many of its qualifying trainees are joining the firm on fixed term contracts, citing unspecified "privacy reasons".

This week the firm announced a decent 80% trainee retention rate. It said 12 out of the 15 trainees in its spring-qualifying cohort accepted offers from the firm and were "staying on as NQs". Graduate recruitment partner Devarshi Saksena said, “We are pleased with the March 2017 results and I’d like to congratulate everyone on their qualification. Trainee development is an important part of the strategy of the firm and we’re receiving great feedback on our new Skills Academy”.

It follows a string of poor trainee retention results which identified Simmons & Simmons as an unattractive destination for students seeking a post-qualification career. A dozen of last autumn's qualifiers, half the intake, were not retained. In spring 2016, six left out of 13, and it was only marginally better in autumn 2015, when 18 stayed but 10 were not retained. However, a source told RollOnFriday that the 80% retention rate announced this spring was a sham. Several of qualifying trainees were, they said, only joining the firm on six month fixed term contracts. "Sly" Simmons made the offers "just to boost their retention rate".  

A spokeswoman refused to disclose to RollOnFriday how many, if any, of its qualifying trainees were being employed on fixed term contracts. She said that the firm could not provide an answer "due to employee privacy reasons", but would not state what the reasons were. Simmons has form when it comes to massaging woeful trainee retention figures. In spring 2016 RollOnFriday revealed that the firm had misled the market by claiming a 77% trainee retention rate, when in fact it was 54%. Simmons had secretly discounted from its figures four trainees who had decided to leave the firm.

    Not again, Simmochio! 

FTCs can function as an entirely benign instrument for firms to continue to employ good trainees when their departments of choice are under-worked, often in the mutual hope that demand will increase sufficiently to require their long-term services in a few months. However, when their use is not disclosed, it can appear as if the firm is seeking to paint a healthier picture of post-qualification career prospects than the reality. As in 2015, anyone taking Simmons at its word today is potentially basing one of the most important career decisions of their life on a load of cobblers. 
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 10 March 17 03:03

Firms across the market are doing this and no one is batting an eyelid.

It would also be unfair to the NQs (particularly given the small intake size) to reveal to the world (including clients) that some of them are on fixed term contracts.

Agree that graduates need transparency on rates, and that Simmons were wrong to skew them in spring '16, but other firms who have recently posted retention rates have not faced the same scrutiny of their contractual relationships with their NQs.

Anonymous 11 March 17 15:02

I suggest that ROF reports retention rates as a % retained together with the % confirmed to be permanent rather than fixed term.

Simmons would be reported as 80% retention (none confirmed permanent).

Any firm that didn't want a similar report, would have to confirm how many were fixed term contracts.

Many firms would I'm sure be happy to report that all of their retained NQs were permanent.

Roll On Friday 15 March 17 10:51

"Firms across the market are doing this and no one is batting an eyelid"

So you as a Simmons bod are saying that Simmons is in fact doing this? Not unfair to reveal that all of them are on permanent contracts if they are. And it is not a standard practice at decent firms to put a significant percentage of trainees on fixed term contracts. And, yes, Simmons receives more scrutiny because of its historically abysmal retention rates which have suddenly "perked up".

Anonymous 17 March 17 10:12

Why is anyone ever surprised by this! I am pretty sure there is a story about S&S doing this every 6 months.