Skip to main content

Are you [in-] house trained?



Part I: Pros and cons from the pros


When sourcing conveyancing training, the traditional training option used to be external courses. More recently, e-learning (such as webinars) has become popular, but what about training’s rising star: in-house training?

The Lexsure Academy is seeing increasing numbers of law firms considering in-house training courses but is this the perfect solution? Does it suit all types of firms? Is it better for firms of one size or another? What other factors should be taken into account?

In this post, we give you the benefit of our experience of training hundreds of conveyancers a year. We’ll lay out the advantages, disadvantages and other considerations you might like to have in mind when considering in-house training, so you know if it’s the right path for you and your firm and we’ll give you some useful hints and tips along the way.

The advantages of in-house

E-learning’s drawbacks – For some needs, e-learning can be a good option but its drawbacks are fairly obvious and none apply to in-house. It’s pretty easy for lawyers to be distracted by calls and emails etc without a ‘real person’ in front of them. It’s an impersonal setting that doesn’t lend itself to a quality return on your training budget.

Training costs – In-house usually carries a lower cost per delegate than external scheduled courses due to the fact the training company only has to send a trainer to you rather than pay for a suitable professional environment themselves. Of course, this only works if there are enough attendees. We generally find that 4 lawyers is the break-even point - and if you have more attendees, the savings can be significant. As can be seen towards the end of this blog some service providers are offering free in-house training.

Travel cost savings – You don’t have to pay travel costs to get your lawyers from home / the office to the training centre. Depending on circumstances (how far, whether taxis are required, how many delegates) this could also save you a meaningful sum.

Travel time – Feedback to Lexsure suggests that in larger firms, travel cost savings are not particularly valued, but by contrast, firms of all sizes appreciate fee-earners’ time and bringing the trainer to your office is a huge time-saver, which, of course, makes a big impact on bottom line.

Personalised approach – In-house training is, by definition, just for your firm, unlike external or e-learning, where your team may be in a room (or virtual room) with delegates from any number of firms. So instead of a generic approach, when the in-house trainer is skilled and from a reputable company, you can expect them to focus the training on the specific topics that are pertinent to your firm or the ones your attendees are most interested in delving into.

Real world examples – Training in-house means the courses can be prepared to fix issues your firm has actually faced, using real life cases without fear of breaching confidentiality or commercial sensitivities. This can be very powerful. Lexsure has found that lawyers are keen to discuss examples of problematic current or historic cases and review them in an open and non-judgemental forum. This is much more valuable than talking about generic, fictional examples, which can fall into the opposing camps of being either too mundane or too ‘wacky’ for the attendees to feel they are truly benefiting.

Convenience – Organising training for a group of conveyancers all with their own deadlines and pressures can be a very difficult task. However, having in-house training courses in your own building can make working around lawyers’ schedules a lot easier as you are cutting out logistical issues (no travel time, no contingencies for delays on transport etc) as well as the fact that replacement delegates can be easily accessed in case something arises that needs to be addressed quickly, or perhaps to provide an additional perspective on a topic that arises.

Team building – Having a room full of conveyancers, especially from different offices or floors, can encourage teamwork. This is a fantastic result as it is often in this social learning that the best learning is done, when ideas are bounced off each other. This will also likely lead to increased awareness and understanding of each other’s roles as well as staff morale. A friendly workplace is always a good thing!

Lawyer retention – Conveyancing firms struggle with keeping their best people and staffing merry-go-rounds are disruptive and expensive. Bringing in trainers is a statement by a law firm that they believe in investing in lawyers and your fee-earners will feel that you care about their career development, not just box-ticking for ‘points’. An edge in this arena is valuable as this is a very real business concern for most firms.


The disadvantages

Extra administration – Although you save money by lessening the organisation needed by the training company, you do take on this burden yourself. Someone needs to find a suitable room and whatever refreshments you think suitable. It’s not onerous, but it does need to be done.

Delegates stay on site – As much as this is a benefit, it is also a disadvantage to in-house training. It’s easier to withdraw the attendees from the training if they’re not 45 minutes away, which makes it tempting when there’s an urgent exchange or completion. Interruptions disturb everyone in the room, so your firm needs to be very disciplined about this. Helpfully, the time commitment is shorter because of the lack of travel time, which does make it easier.

Networking – Your staff will not meet anyone from other companies if the training course is done in-house. They miss out on networking and learning from the different ethos and style of another company.

Searches UK and free in-house training

The Lexsure Academy offers a range of one hour in-house training sessions, which cost £750+VAT. CQS firms will refer to in-house training in their CQS (CPMS) Learning And Development Policy



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Argie Bargie over Home Information Packs

In response to a question from Conservative MP David Amess on what methodology would be used to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Information Pack programme, Communities and Local Government Minister Ian Austin was involved in heated argument. The wording of the debate ( reported in Hansard ) makes interesting reading, so I thought I would share it with you : Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local...

Paperwork is not a shield: Why your SRA aml audit demands more than just a dusty manual

The Solicitors Regulation Authority continues its aggressive crackdown on financial crime with a recent fine issued against Whiteheads Solicitors (Staffordshire) Ltd . This decision serves as a stark reminder that the regulator is looking far beyond simple paperwork during an SRA aml audit . The firm was fined 2,584 GBP plus 600 GBP in costs following an investigation into its compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. While the firm had a firm-wide risk assessment and general policies in place, the SRA identified critical failures at the matter level. Key compliance failures included: Failure to conduct adequate client and matter risk assessments . The SRA found a consistent pattern where the firm failed to sufficiently assess client matter risk levels as required by Regulation 28. Inadequate scrutiny of source of funds . In one specific property transaction, the firm failed to properly investigate the origin of funds provided by ...

The High Street Practitioner’s Guide to Surviving the FCA

For a sole practitioner or the MLRO in a small high-street firm, "AML compliance" often feels like just another mountain of paperwork standing between you and your actual work. When you are juggling a heavy conveyancing caseload, a sensitive probate matter, and the day-to-day survival of your practice, the last thing you need is a new regulator with a reputation for being data-heavy and "zero-tolerance." But the ground is shifting. As the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) takes over AML supervision from the SRA, the "high-street way" of doing things—relying on long-standing local reputations and gut instinct—is being replaced by a requirement for hard, documented proof. The end of "I’ve known them for years" In a small town, you often act for the same families for generations. You know their business, their parents, and their reputation. Under the old mindset, that felt like enough. Under the FCA, it isn’t. T...