BARBRI business development director Emma Cavendish discusses qualifying in-house, developing commercial awareness and her advice for aspiring in-house lawyers
Emma Cavendish has spent much of her career working at the intersection of legal technology, knowledge management, and client relationships. Having held roles at Practical Law, Thomson Reuters, and most recently at Flex Legal, she has worked closely with law firms and in-house corporate teams to improve efficiency and adapt to new technology. Now, as business development director at BARBRI, her focus has shifted towards legal education, working with in-house legal teams to help them train and qualify trainee and junior lawyers.
Her role is about encouraging in-house teams to think strategically about how they develop legal talent. “It’s about working with companies, charities, or public sector bodies, to support their junior talent,” Cavendish explains. “That means helping people already within organisations to qualify and encouraging employers to consider new approaches to talent development.”
For decades, qualifying as a solicitor meant securing a training contract at a law firm, qualifying, and then — maybe — moving in-house later in one’s career. “Before the SQE opened the doors for aspiring lawyers to qualify in-house, law firms had the monopoly on manufacturing the next generation of legal talent,” Cavendish says. “You assumed you had to spend time in private practice before your career could really begin.”
The introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has significantly disrupted this traditional route. The requirement for two years of qualifying work experience (QWE) allows candidates to train in-house from the outset rather than first qualifying in private practice. “No longer do you have to go through the traditional pathway — that’s not the only rite of passage anymore,” Cavendish points out. “If you have a broader world view, a commercial mindset, and you’re motivated by working towards a specific organisational goal, whether that’s making a bank more profitable, increasing retail sales, or supporting a charity’s mission, then working in-house is a fantastic option.”
Yet despite this shift, many in-house legal teams have not fully adapted to the opportunity. “It’s new for everybody,” she acknowledges. “Legal teams have been around for years within organisations, but they’ve grown organically. Now, as they face cost pressures, they need to think about how they upskill the people they already have.” She notes that while in-house teams are used to hiring experienced lawyers, they often haven’t considered bringing in and training junior legal staff in the same structured way that law firms have traditionally done.
For businesses, training lawyers in-house can have significant advantages, particularly in terms of commercial awareness. Junior lawyers who train in-house from the start gain a deep understanding of how the business operates, its risk appetite, and its long-term strategic goals. They are embedded in the organisation from day one, rather than coming in later with only private practice experience. “It’s not just about giving legal advice,” Cavendish says. “It’s about being part of the fabric of the business and understanding what it’s trying to achieve.”
However, she acknowledges that some aspiring lawyers still see private practice as the default qualification route, while in-house training is sometimes viewed as a secondary option. Cavendish argues that this perception is outdated. “There’s still this idea that if you go in-house, it’s because you weren’t quite good enough to get a training contract at a big firm,” she says. “That’s just not true. The reality is that the skills required to be a good in-house lawyer are different from those needed in private practice. The two routes aren’t necessarily comparable in that way.”
She highlights that in-house lawyers need to be able to work across multiple areas of law and collaborate with a range of teams outside the legal function. “One day, you might be working on contracts with the sales team, the next providing risk advice with the CEO, and the day after that on an employment issue with HR,” she explains. “You need to be comfortable with that variety and be able to make decisions quickly.” Unlike in private practice, where lawyers are surrounded by legal colleagues, in-house lawyers work closely with non-lawyers daily. “You’re dealing with a variety of stakeholders of all levels,” she says. “You need to understand their priorities and be able to align your legal advice with the organisation’s wider goals.”
If in-house teams are going to take legal training seriously, they need structured support for junior lawyers. This is where BARBRI plays a role. “We offer multiple course durations suited to different working environments,” Cavendish says. “For those in-house, we have a longer 40-week course designed for candidates balancing full-time work with study.”
BARBRI also provides guidance on how in-house legal teams can structure QWE. “Some in-house lawyers who are supervising trainees may not be as familiar with the qualification process,” she says. “We help them understand what competencies need to be met, how to structure work experience, and how to ensure junior lawyers are getting exposure to a broad enough range of legal work.”
Beyond the technicalities, Cavendish emphasises that in-house teams need to see legal training as part of their long-term talent strategy. “I think part of what BARBRI is doing is not necessarily creating the need, but exposing it,” she says. “Some in-house teams may not have thought critically about this before, but when you ask the right questions, they realise it’s an option.”
For aspiring lawyers considering an in-house route, Cavendish stresses that choosing an in-house route should be an active decision, not something seen as a fallback:-
“Get out of your mind that it’s in some way a lesser pathway,” she says. “Really commit to it and embrace it. Recognise that the pathway you’ve chosen is as valid as anybody going through the same experience in a law firm.”
Cavendish also acknowledges that some students still worry about how an in-house qualification will be perceived compared to a traditional training contract at a law firm. But she argues that the legal industry is shifting, and more businesses now recognise the value of training lawyers in-house. “The people who will be supporting you and sponsoring you do not think of in-house as second best,” she says. “In-house lawyers are really proud of the fact that they’re in-house and clear about the value they bring.”
For those choosing this path, she advises thinking strategically about how to develop the right skills. “The base skills for being a lawyer are still the same — you need a critical eye, an ability to interpret facts, and the skills to provide legal advice,” she says. “But the working environment is different.” She emphasises that in-house lawyers need to be adaptable and commercially aware. “You need to think beyond just the legal problem in front of you. It’s about understanding what the solution means for the wider organisation,” she explains.
The in-house route is becoming an increasingly viable alternative to the traditional training contract, but Cavendish recognises that it will take time for attitudes to fully shift. “It’s a work in progress,” she says. “A lot of in-house teams haven’t fully considered the opportunity yet, but as more businesses see the advantages of growing their own talent, that mindset will start to change.”
And if more in-house teams take qualification as seriously as law firms have traditionally done? “Then we’ll really be onto something,” she says.
Join us on Thursday 27 February for our virtual student event ‘Beyond the law firm: Why qualifying as an in-house lawyer might be right for you’. APPLY NOW.
View this post on Instagram
