I'm thinking of changing career and going back to study law / a GDL at uni, anybody ever done this?
Currently I'm the one who sits and monitors legislation going through Parliament and elsewhere for my company. I negotiate laws with MPs and am for all intents and purposes a despicable lobbyist cunt. The pay's alright and the work isn't awful but I am not feeling challenged at work at all and am now aware that this isn't what I want to do.
I know for non-law graduates you need to complete a Graduate Diploma in Law and then the Legal Practice Course before you can get a training contract and become a solicitor at the end of a very long and drawn out process. My research suggests that if you can look enthusiastic enough then you can get a lot of law firms to offer you a TC in advance and pay for both your GDL and LPC. I'm also reliably told by several studies and companies that it's not impossible from a non-law backgorund and that the split of solicitors is usually 50:50 law and non law degrees.
I don't mind the extensive learning, hard graft or even working for free to prove my worth at weekends when not in work. I guess I'm looking out for the hope somebody here has done something similar and can offer some guidance, particularly as to how much 'legal' experience I have to give my soul for before standing a chance.
It's nothing to do with the fact I'm a boring nob end who loves nothing more than reading the fine print and arguing the point.
>>6146 > Currently I'm the one who sits and monitors legislation going through Parliament and elsewhere for my company. I negotiate laws with MPs and am for all intents and purposes a despicable lobbyist cunt
Moderately curious, how you do that?
How do I monitor legislation or how do I meet MPs and lobby them?
The olden days used to see me keep a very close eye on the news and check legislation on the Parliament website and debates.
Then somebody decided to give me some money so I now hire a third party political communications agency who send me an alert everytime something I care about is mentioned (in parliament, speeches, the news, reports, committees) and I then read into it in greater detail and see if my company cares and if I should.
If we do care and what an outcome, I'll write a briefing, send it to MPs who won't meet me, or go meet with MPs to advise them and discuss it with them.
It's a lot more dull, complex, and drawn out with that but I hope that goes some way into answering what you wanted?
>>6146 > I negotiate laws with MPs and am for all intents and purposes a despicable lobbyist cunt.
Was being a lobbyist not enough cuntiness for you? Is this why you want to switch to lawyer?
What sort of field is your company in, if you don't mind telling us? Do you ever find yourself in a position where your company's interests conflict with those of the wider public?
Can you fucking cunts from /sfw/ not turn a thread that is specifically about learning and development advice into another political cunt podium again please?
I do mind sharing that, but it's nothing insidious. We provide stuff everybody needs.
Yes, sometimes we conflict with the interest of the wider public, usually because the wider public only thinks short term, and whilst what grabs the newspaper headlines and gives MP a cause to rally behind can help paint us as the bad guys, we often think long term.
Anybody wondering how lobbying can be good, let me give you this example.
Houses. Look at houses. 'The government must build more! There's a housing crisis!' people shout. What does the government do because it wants to win votes? It pledges to build houses.
The quicker you build houses, the better your stats look year on year on year on year. 'We built 300000 houses this year! That's 56% increase on any Labour government's best year!' and so the story goes.
Except building houses is a lot more than putting up four walls a roof. It requires infrastructure and lots of it in lots of ways that go beyond explaining here, but there's a lot to it.
Imagine the government wants to keep their house building figures high, so what do they do, they might relax regulation or not have stringent standards. Maybe they'll choose to relax the law on what materials need to be used even though it's widely accepted in the building community these materials are more likely to crumble than their more expensive and time consuming counterparts. Maybe the government chooses to make green belt land more available, even though building on this will create a negative effect on the local eco system or something but is easier to procure than land that is more expensive. The list goes on.
What we'd do is send them a briefing on why it's not wrong, attend committees, hearings, contribute to reports (all the boring stuff people who shout about politics and think they know all about conveniently forget, coincidentally where all the real work is done.) and meet them to discuss and explain our position and tell them why we think it's best our way. Obviously though, this is done over a long and drawn out process that doesn't look like we're telling them what to do at all.
Similarly, when MPs who support what we like say something in Parliament or right something, we're already in contact before the week is out thanking them for their good work and offering to support them with research or advice or positive PR opportunities etc (Want to open that new hospital, lad? Please come cut the ribbon).
That way we might stop these shit materials being used, which benefits our company, perhaps because we sell the better material, perhaps because we're a charity that believes in sustainable housing, perhaps because we're a wildlife charity wanting to save the land to protect local birds, perhaps because we're a well being charity that want people to still have access to green spaces.
It isn't always necessarily negative or insidious.
What I've talked about is entirely fictitious, I don't work anywhere close to that sector, and may seem hugely patronising, but you'd be surprised how many people fail to look at it that way and see lobbying as this inherently evil exercise. I had to make something up because lads on here like to argue about stuff they know nothing about, so if I used a proper example they'd argue about something I do for a living and that would piss me off. They can't argue about something I've made up.
Most of my job is just providing facts, figures and specialist advice about bizarrely specific issues that MPs would have no way of knowing.
I wasn't asking out of any backhanded political agenda by the way, I just find it interesting to hear from people with jobs like this that you don't really ever have an insight into as an average prole.
>I guess I'm looking out for the hope somebody here has done something similar and can offer some guidance, particularly as to how much 'legal' experience I have to give my soul for before standing a chance.
None unless you want to get in somewhere decent in which case proportionally more. You work in lobbying so the sun already shines out of your trousers.
Usually you do a politics degree and then sell your soul to an MP for a bit after uni (good luck getting one of these jobs by the way, about 200-300 people apply for each job, most of them won't hire you without at least three months interning experience which is obviously impossible to get unless you can somehow afford to live in London for that time for free or living wage and limited hours), then apply for jobs on w4mp or the public affairs network website. Most jobs have titles like Parliamentary officer, corporate affairs (officer/manager/assistant) or public affairs or policy advisor. Everything but lobbyist basically, because those names sound much nicer.
Then you have to decide which way you want to do it. I work in house - this means that I work for a company and only that company. Everything I do is for the company, I'm part of the team like anybody else and sit in one of their offices only ever working for them. These jobs are rare and hard to come by, most people getting these are promoted internally or come from some sort of grad scheme.
The most common lobbyist way is working for an agency, who then obtains contracts with companies who outsource it and pay you to manage the accounts. Most of these jobs are shit and so are the companies, bar the exception of Hanover (hope you're Oxbridge educated and can sense a political opening three months before you're meant to ) and Michael Page, maybe a few others.
I fucking wouldn't though, I get paid little more than most assistants/secretaries, I have to often report to, brief, prepare and look after our chief Exec and board (who all get paid in excess of £4m a year) with important people despite having no money to match the responsibility, I have to sometimes deal with people that are super important myself, again for none of the salary and make sure that it never goes wrong so I don't get bollocked.
Most of my time is spent dealing with cunty Parliamentary Assistants who are the gatekeeper to the MPs we want to see, so I have to juggle diaries and chase everything up with people who get precious of their MP and won't fit you in because they want them to attend the church bake sale for the sixth week running.
Oh and if that wasn't enough, my job title includes corporate affairs, my old one was something like Parliamentary Officer, others might include public affairs as mentioned. What does this mean? Nobody appreciates the dedication, work and level of political know how you need. Whenever I tell people my job title they either think it's a fancy name for working as a customer service person or at best some sort of public relations marketer. I am none of those things and neither is the job. Nobody, except those who work in the area, will never understand the job title and assume you do something like go to public meetings and deal with the public.
Did I mention the pay is shit? Oh yes, I did. Your only hope is to become a SPAD where you can earn anything from£60k-120k. Granted you do get to fly around the world and travel in the ministerial car, but these jobs are extremely limited and are all well and good, except for the fact you only last as long as your boss, which is until the next reshuffle.
Finally, if you can live with all of that and have some luck, then you might get somebody who appreciates what you do and understands your job title. This means they hate lobbying because they don't understand it and will then precede to attack your life and everything you work for because they've watched House of Cards and believe you're a 'despicable lobbying cunt' who wants to the government to legalise throwing cute children off cliffs.
Law might be boring, shit, hard work and more of a vocation than a job, but so is this, and I'd rather take the extra money. Hence why I want to swap.
It's been rewarding, it is interesting and if you are in the 0.01% who get lucky with it you might become super important orearn loads of money, but for the most part it's a highly skilled job (if I may say so) that combines high intensity pressure, excellent communication skills, excellent people skills and lots and lots and lots of reading and trying to get nowhere, with the possibility that if you upset somebody or get one thing wrong, you might have fucked it.
No problem, but I wouldn't think of lobbyists as anything better than your average prole working in an admin job. We still get shit pay, still drive shit cars and still have nobody respect us anymore than your average shop worker. It sounds magical, until your best result of the quarter is getting an MP to tweet something nice about your organisation and sign up to agree with something you say.
>>6161 I'm a bit tired and grumpy, but I can't tell if you're taking the piss? Will my background actually help? Nobody seems to give a shit when I've asked around about what I do now.
Preferably I'd like to get somebody to pay for my GDL so it would have to be one of the better firms, but I'm guessing they want at least a few weeks experience somewhere?
>>6163 >Law might be boring, shit, hard work and more of a vocation than a job, but so is this, and I'd rather take the extra money. Hence why I want to swap.
I would avoid anything related to in-house or criminal law then. I cannot stress enough that you should avoid in-house especially now that accountancy firms are starting to move into the territory. I spent a summer working for a major financial institution in London and it was cubicle hell.
Criminal law comes with the proviso that you can make decent pay but your first few years will be hand to mouth even as a Barrister. I've been told by non-criminal law types that this could be bullshit though.
>I'm a bit tired and grumpy, but I can't tell if you're taking the piss? Will my background actually help? Nobody seems to give a shit when I've asked around about what I do now.
I'm being flippant but yes you shine with the public law experience you have. I suspect you might need to present it better but you have relevant and certainly interesting experience to offer.
If you have any holiday time I recommend emailing your local chambers and of course law firms about any shadowing opportunities they have (for chambers its called a mini-pupilage and usually lasts ~3 days). Following a Barrister around may not sound like something you are chasing right now but I assure you they are wizards when it comes to knowing who to ask and you might end up fancying it in which case joining an Inn is complicated but they take care of you.
