WHY ENTRY-LEVEL ROLES MUST EVOLVE

If an entry-level role requires three years of experience, is it really entry-level?

The current job market has demonstrated that entry-level roles are not the same as we once knew them. For students and recent law graduates, this poses the frustration of needing industry experience to get a foot in the door of a law firm or legal organisation. Applicants are also battling with large applicant pools of highly qualified individuals, which makes for a harshly competitive environment. Without experience, securing employment feels harder than it should be.

The Mislabelling of Entry-Level

The term entry-level may be a deceiving term for a fresh graduate when some roles require 3–5 years of prior experience. Traditionally, entry-level roles welcomed those entering the workforce for the first time, regardless of industry experience. The accepted definition of entry-level is a role that requires minimal experience, training, and education. Some of these positions require higher academic qualifications, whilst others may require specialised skills, knowledge, and techniques. In some circumstances, entry-level roles require employees to participate in on-the-job training to gain valuable industry knowledge and experience.

The Experience Paradox

The issue that arises is that the traditional meaning of entry-level, a role that does not require extensive experience or education, has now been confused by employers through their placing of stringent requirements on junior positions. Entry-level legal positions are now being viewed as ‘mid-level positions under the guise of entry-level positions.’ Some paralegal roles now require experience in a particular area of law; some employers mandate that this experience should be in excess of two to three years prior to applying for a role. Candidates are expected to have the job done before they have even begun.

This approach shuts out emerging talent, including aspiring legal professionals that have the drive and the skills to perform their duties but have not had the opportunity to prove themselves. Some of this talent includes international students, individuals who are the first generation in their family to enter the profession, or those who do not come from privileged backgrounds. The current model of entry-level may be disproportionately excluding candidates who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and is counterproductive to the social mobility targets set by organisations in their DEI initiatives.

According to an article by Intersect titled ‘Why call jobs entry-level if they aren’t actually entry level?’, the apprehension may arise on the side of employers, who seem to no longer trust graduates with no experience for entry-level positions. Responsibilities that were once assigned to entry-level jobs are now being assigned to interns. Internships have now seemed to replace entry-level positions. The problem remains that some of these internship opportunities are unpaid, time-consuming, and in cities that some students and graduates do not have access to. For students from low-income backgrounds, unpaid internships in large cities are simply not an option, further widening the opportunity gap. This disproportionately disadvantages those who are not able to complete internships, making access to entry-level roles challenging, as more is being asked of candidates to evidence experience over potential.

What Entry-Level Should Look Like

 It is clear that more realistic expectations need to be set for entry-level positions so that more candidates are given the potential to thrive in a job market that is currently favouring employers' needs over potential career aspirations. However, in order for law firms and other legal organisations to survive in an industry that is facing retention issues, attention must be given to how talent can be brought into firms, trained up, and retained. By focusing on onboarding, firms should create strong training programmes where there are clear growth pathways to success, including structured mentorship. Universities must also play a role in creating a ready workforce of skilled graduates who are prepared to practise because they have already gained exposure to the application of law, including experiential learning through real-life client interactions before they graduate. This will enable students and graduates to interact with complex workloads and be given feedback from practitioners who hire and supervise junior talent.

Conclusion

The legal sector risks remaining inaccessible and non-diverse if entry-level roles do not evolve. This would be counterproductive to many firms' stated DEI goals. It is clear that evolving entry-level positions is a business necessity. It’s time for the legal industry to cease gatekeeping its future. In an industry that is facing retention issues, public trust problems, and a generational talent gap, law firms and other legal organisations need to think strategically about how they can bring in and train the next generation of lawyers, future-proofing their legal operations for the talent that remains at stake. Entry-level legal roles must evolve again to mean accessible to graduates who require training, not polished perfection.