Not only does Allens Arthus Robinson stubbornly refuse to offer graduates a decent rotation system, but it seems that the graduates’ original decision to work with the firm may have been influenced by empty rhetoric that work would involve international travel.
In response to tax laws proposed by the government in the federal budget, AAR corporate affairs director Chris Fogarty today snivelled that as a result of the changes:
the law firm would find it more difficult to send lawyers to its Asian offices to work on short-term projects and to give younger lawyers overseas experience.
However, appearing on the AAR website are the following grand statements:
We have a ‘best friends’ relationship with Slaughter and May [in] London. One way in which we maintain … this relationship is to second and exchange people between the two firms. An exciting aspect of working at Allens is the global scope of the work we do for our clients. This means that you could have the opportunity to do client work that requires you to spend some time in another office in… Asia… It could see you living and working in another city or country for an extended period. Working in another office is a valuable opportunity to add to your professional development by meeting new people and developing your networks, building your profile among colleagues and clients, and learning new skills. Of course, there is also the exciting experience of living in another city or country!
So come to Allens, kids! You’ll get to travel the world and get paid for it!* (*If the Federal Government passes proposed tax laws you will remain in Australia)
Is it right for law firms to exaggerate on their careers web-pages to entice graduates? Should law firms simply ‘fess up that being a lawyer means four walls and not much fun from now unto forever?
Send the Firm Spy your news and views today!
Loading...
Some years ago when I was applying to seasonal clerkships I came across a statement on a big firm website saying that there was an opportunity to send 1 clerk to spend 2 weeks in the London office of their ‘best friend’ (but it wasn’t AAR and S+M). I was curious as to why they didn’t give the name of the ‘best friend’ straight up. I wrote to the HR who gave me a name of another Magic Circle firm. Un/fortunately I wasn’t offered a position at that big firm, so I never worked out whether the mysterious ‘clerkship secondment’ was a lie or not. I double-checked that big firm’s website tonight and the reference to the ‘secondment’ no longer exists. Hmmm… GFC’ed?