Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
You his friend?
Anyway if you read closely, aside from the coaching aspect, he was also selling the idea that with the mentors' positions as senior associates and junior partners, they could place their mentees in internship and traineeship positions in their respective firms . Regardless of whether they could really do that or not, that was probably the part that sounded massive alarm bells for law society. The mere suggestion of that seems to allude to what we see in corruption cases.
The second part is the predatory pitching and fear mongering which is slightly more of a grey area. But the law deans have adequately explained why this is distasteful.
By the way, it was Milbank's decision to fire him, and not lawsoc's doing. Since law firms, being client facing, are very sensitive to reputational issues, no surprises there that they dropped him like a hot potato. Moral of the story is if it sounds like a bad idea, it probably is.
|
All very valid points. Nah I’m not his friend, just a keyboard warrior but one that got quite shocked when I read the news. I do part time university admission counselling so it seemed analogous to that.
Your point about the implied circumvention of the democratic application process is true; but we all know people who have entered the industry using connections privately, at least this opens it up to everyone ? Plus there was an option to defer payment if they can’t afford. But ultimately you’re right it’s never a right thing to publicly insinuate corruption-like services.
Yes It was Milbank’s decision not the law soc, but that was a very predictable outcome from the law Soc’s POV when they used words like fox in sheep’s clothing - pre-charge accusations and libel ?
Yes moral of the story is if sounds bad it probably is - thanks for clarifying ! Stay safe !