This is pretty standard. Odd that there aren’t any stories about the many many firms who make women repay enhanced maternity pay if they don’t stay for a year after returning / returning. 

Brond is back - that little-known 1987 TV film with Jon Hannah

BROND: You shouldn’t upset him like that. He’s a good man. 

ROBERT: A good soldier. He told me before. 

BROND: Oh yes. Kilts and trumpets at dawn. Loyal and brave. A Scottish Soldier. 

ROBERT: How can he be so stupid? Doesn’t he know how much you despise him? 

How is this newsworthy given the article admits this is pretty standard?

8:53am, The article doesn't admit this is pretty standard - Burness Paull claims it is!

Close reading not your thing, or are you a BP PR?!

Only working in a law firm because you can't afford to leave is an phenomena that continues long past 2PQE... (And - yes - I have got my Euromillions ticket for tonight).) 

As someone who didn't get any funding from training their firm other than the Law Society minimum recommended wage - this doesn't seem unreasonable!

It's also usually standard for this sort of thing where someone has training costs paid for them by their firm (of dual qualification for example). 

It's not that unreasonable to be fair. If they offer you the seat you want but don't take it, you pay them back their investment. Not so bad.

shitty but standard.

BP employee here and this practice is totally justified in my opinion. Maybe these people should ask their new City employers to cough up the £10k as a signing on bonus - they seem to be very happy throwing crazy money around to poach stuff.

I was certainly subject to such a clause and thought they were fairly standard (albeit most firms have the decency not to enforce their right to claw back those costs)?

Ugh, I was really hoping for something deliciously awful, but alas I can confirm that this (rergrettably) is not an uncommon condition of training contracts in Scotland.

Most firms won't contribute at all to the cost of the diploma, and of those that do I'm not sure any don't have some kind of claw-back provision (it would be very helpful, I think, for those looking fir training contracts if someone could correct me on that front if I'm mistaken). Burness Paull pay pretty well (for a regional market where pay is scandalously lower than the equivalent in other parts of the country), so it seems unfortunately to single them out in this instance.

Having said that, I don't agree with these sorts of conditions at all. Maybe entice your troops not to leave by fostering an excellent working environment which helps them to excel?

Do you remember the old thing (by which I mean cant guff) law firms used to spout about it costing them £200k to train a City drone? And now it's just another form of leveraging the returns. Makes you think about how people and investment are seen now. Still, larks on bikes all day in summer. No one knew where you were unless late for teatime. Jumpers for goalposts hmmm, isn't it?

Law firms coercing employees into staying by threats of clawing back qualifying fees? What capitalist hellscape is this? If I were in that position, I’d stick around at the firm, but only to show them precisely how bare ‘the bare minimum’ can be… And I’d collect my pay slip every month with a big smile. 

Am Scottish qualified and can say that it is not standard that Scottish firms pay Diploma fees. Scottish firms on the whole are pretty tight with money, confirming the national stereotype. Salaries are generally crappy and "perks" at work don't usually exist. Scotland's legal profession can rely on a captive audience - there are always enough Scottish qualified lawyers who don't want to leave Scotland, so they put up with the conditions.

However, the firms that do pay all of some of the Diploma costs generally claw it back if NQs leave within Year 1. However, you can always negotiate with your new employer to buy you out and cover this fee for you.

In the Channel Islands this also common - firms will demand the costs for qualifying in the jurisdictions back if the employee leaves within a year or two after qualifying, but your new employer typically covers the claw-back.

Seems fair but possibly not such a wise move if the relevant NQ leaves to become an investment banker, in-house lawyer or to a major City firm (or indeed anywhere other than a direct competitor) and, in short order, has sway over distribution of mandates. When I left the Scottish firm I trained at to join a major US firm upon qualification, I couldn't have been treated better by the Scottish firm. Over the subsequent years they have recouped the cost of my diploma many many times over - had they made me cough up for the diploma on departure they wouldn't have seen a penny of it. There is a lot to be said for firms swallowing their pride (and minor costs) when losing people and instead investing in them as a potentially valuable new members of their alumni network. 

wonder what it is about BP that is causing their solicitors to leave so quickly?

Trying to take money off an NQ. This is the most Scottish thing I have seen today.

"possibly not such a wise move if the relevant NQ leaves to become an investment banker, in-house lawyer or to a major City firm"

Be serious. 

These people are training at Burness Paull.

This happened to me -  I have many reasons to complain about my old firm, but this wasn't one of them. Irritating, certainly, but not unjustified. 

Shameless money grab, but that’s just the Scotts. One would expect a trainee to be beasted so hard during their training contract that ten grand would be earned back within a couple of weeks. 

In England & Wales, these policies are becoming more common because of the SQE, where trainees can now move firms during their training contract or where they could be doing their SQE assessments closer to the time of qualifying rather than before they have started.

Standard practice across the board, not just Scotland. 

I jumped ship at NQ level, asked the new shop to provide me the money on the basis old shop could claim it from me. Luckily the old shop didn't actually pursue me for the fees so I ended up double bubble!

Anonymous 12 January 24 10:55 - obviously never worked at, or know anyone at, Burness Paull then. Used to work there. The poaching by city firms and US firms, particularly in respect of funds and investment lawyers, was absolutely rampant.  Typical shade throwing from your wee corner of a rural and regional practice no doubt, conviction from the sidelines. 

@12:14 - a Burness Paul graduate? How embarrassing to be publicly outed as such a thing. You might as well ask me if I want fries with that. 

Though in your case it's probably chips...

Standard policy and has been for well over a decade.

Back when I was a fresh face trainee in Scotland over a decade ago, it was rare for firms to provide any financial support towards completing your diploma and the few that do always had clawbacks in place. I can't imagine things will have changed significantly since then (it's the Scottish legal market, nothing changes fast).

If you can leave without applying for no "penalty" then its hard to see how there can be a "penalty" for leaving if you do apply.  What loss has the firm suffered that they woudl not have suffered had you not been hired as an NQ because you didnt apply?   I guess as fine socttish lawyers, they know best, but it dosnt make a lot of sense to me. 

Very common practice, though I have never met anyone who has actually had to pay. 

I trained at a competitor of BP where we had the same arrangement in place. Left as an NQ on qualification and the issue was never raised. It did help when negotiating offer with the new firm though, as I mentioned to the recruiter that if old firm did enforce it, there was no way I would be able to leave. 

@Parsnip - It's common for NQs at BP (and presumably other top Scottish firms) to qualify into a team and leave shortly thereafter - most commonly to move to London. I suspect the firm is trying to deter / filter out those people before they take NQ jobs that would otherwise go to other trainees.

It's common, it can be justified, but it always makes me think "they must really need the money", which very much is not the vibe a firm wants to give off.

Anonymous 12 January 24 12:44  - you've spelt Burness Paull wrong. Grammar missing in your earlier message. Zero thumbs on your comment. Top stuff. I'd stick to the conveyancing in Stoke on Trent if I were you. 

I really don't see the problem. The Scottish Diploma costs about ten grand (which is the bigger scandal I think!) and students are welcome to pay for it themselves if they want to. The article even says the only scenario this is relevant is if someone accepts an NQ position, then bails within a year. How often does that even happen? I worked at BP for about 6 years previously, and I don't think I ever heard of an NQ leaving mid-year. Maybe if a client took them on secondment, and then kept them. That happens - but I can't imagine the NQ in that scenario getting punished when they're now effectively a client. 

These clauses are very common nowadays, but in practice, incredibly difficult to enforce in the courts. Penalty clauses have to be watertight, and very few firms are prepared to risk the bad publicity that would come with dragging a trainee through a court. 

Moreover, the court and external counsel fees alone would likely exceed that of any training costs, and not to mention the effort required internally. From a purely commercial point of view, the incentive to pursue a trainee is minimal. 

Will you get the occasional firm hell bent on taking a trainee to court out of principal? Possibly. Is it likely? I doubt it. 

No doubt if a firm is scummy enough to pursue you in court, I’d hedge my bets that they  are a firm with a horrendous culture, and it would not be too difficult to argue you felt you had no choice to leave the firm for x, y and z reasons.

So in summary, lots of chest puffing, but I’d call their bluff. 

Don’t see any issue with this at all…

It's common as many qualify in Scotland before moving to London or Channel Islands on qualification.

Muh

Muuuh

Muuuuuuuuuuh Biden!!!

I think this is outrageous. It sounds like a diploma is already a 3 year commitment (1 year training, 2 year clerkship).

Requiring people to stay for another 2 years - making it a 5 year commitment in total - is ridiculous and outrageous. Especially if it forces people to qualify into an area they are not really interested in, or they aren't offered their first choice job.

Time for the SRA to step in and crack down on this sort of behaviour.

As bad as it seems, it's not an unusual practice, there's always a handful of examples every NQ season. We always end up forking out the money to pay the other firm's clawback (usually LPC fees etc.). Not sure what a trainee who isn't moving to another firm does though...