Should we provide training contracts in-house?
Produced in partnership with Paul Gilbert of LBC Wise Counsel
Should we provide training contracts in-house?

The following In-House Advisor guidance note Produced in partnership with Paul Gilbert of LBC Wise Counsel provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Should we provide training contracts in-house?
  • Advantages
  • Disadvantages
  • Summary

It seems a bit of a paradox that the transition made by a lawyer from a law firm to an in-house position is often challenging and yet there would seem to be limited enthusiasm for training lawyers in-house and potentially avoiding or at least reducing these challenges.

Training in-house can offer the training organisation some benefits compared with acquiring talent trained by law firms and the number of training contracts carried out in-house does seem to be growing. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of providing training in-house? And how does an in-house team go about providing training?

Advantages

A lawyer trained in-house is already accustomed to thinking and acting in the ways that the lawyer will use once qualified and working in-house. Growing up as a lawyer in a non-legal environment—whether business, charity or public sector—shapes the way in which the lawyer looks at situations, and allows them to shape their advice to have the greatest impact. It also means that the organisation acquires a lawyer who is already accustomed to working in that organisation’s culture.

The colleagues with whom an in-house team works seldom distinguish between qualified and trainee lawyers—it’s all 'legal' to them. This means that an in-house team can more often get a trainee lawyer involved in an issue with limited supervision if the situation merits it,