The Law of Fashion

Today I have decided to write about two things I love; fashion and IP law. The law of fashion is peculiar in that there isn't exactly a lot of "law" in fashion at all... I'm not talking fashion police here for those style faux pas, I'm talking legal protection through Intellectual Property rights over style and designs of "vogue" product. A great argument for Intellectual Property rights is that it encourages innovation. When we grant an exclusive right for a person to manufacture and sell his invention of x for 20 years there is primarily a two fold benefit; firstly, the invention is disclosed, allowing others to improve and develop on it and secondly; IP protection is beneficial as it is incentivising the inventor to also innovate, so once the 20 years have passed, a protection of some sorts may still exist on a newer invention. This is a typical scenario in "hard IP", but when we think about fashion, there is little IP protection. The paradox here is that if there is apparently no incentive through protecting innovation in fashion, why is fashion so innovative?

Johanna Blakley on her recent ted talk suggested innovation in the fashion industry is driven by copying. The big trend setting fashion houses release their collections in London, Paris and New York and the "high street" retailers make affordable copies for you and me. The old saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery is very much the words of the day in fashion and Johanna Blakley argues that if other industries were more like fashion and waived their IP rights, they would find healthier return within their industries (heavily IP protected industries having lower gross profits in America than industries where IP protection is low.) This was an interesting take on an old paradox in IP law, but one thing, which wasn't considered so much here is the creature that is the "brand."

Take that all known and loved iconic Luis Vuitton bag, need I say more? Even if you've never ventured from living in a cave you would know the one I mean. Can this bag be copied by the high street retailers? No, because they've essentially slapped their trademark all over it, any copying here would be trademark infringement as well as potentially passing off. Luis Vuitton is the one, which springs to mind, but there are plenty of other high end fashion houses, which slap their trademark on products, think Chanel, Savatore Ferragamo, Mulberry, there's a big old list! The brand here (protected by trademark) is something, which is used to protect copying in fashion.

I don't believe it stops there. The beauty of fashion and the reason why it doesn't attract IP status as other industries is because it's a utility, it's something we use every day, it is not distinctive enough alone to give rise to exclusive Intellectual Property rights. The creation of a "brand" however is incredibly distinctive and if created well, can create a concept so powerful it can extend endlessly throughout our society. Fashion in the world of the brand is about the concept as much as it is about the clothes.

Take our staple fashion pieces; a pair of jeans, leggings, a t-shirt, a jumper; the choice to buy these wardrobe essentials comes from us buying into an idea as much it does the design of the product. I was considering the growing emergence of the "concept" store such as hollister this morning, where the lighting is dim, the perfume is potent and the music is loud. Why is it like this? Call me "old" but I actually find it quite annoying, I think many others do. I asked my boyfriend, who is a fashion retail guru why Hollister have chosen to do this. He replied that it was an extension of the brand, they want to take their customers away from a shopping mall in Shepherd's Bush and into a Californian surf shack. This image is as much what we "buy" into as it is the actual clothes and let's not forget the seagull placed carefully on every top pocket. Innovation is the "statement" of the fashion world, not the staple, it is the retreat of the fashion forward and although I see this "copying" hierarchy emerge,  there is more to the story in that the retailers have created stories in order to claim their stamp on the products, they have created the brand.

The incentive to innovate here I think has something to do with attaching it to a brand's identity, this can be quirky colours; a particular cut of dress; which is released seasons after season in different colours or even a pattern embossed on a button. The realm of the brand is however we like to think of it something which attracts some kind of ownership, which we recognise to give rise to IP rights. This makes me question how IP free fashion actually is and in turn question how much innovation has to do with pure creativity rather than furthering brand identity.

Should I Become an Accutrainee?

 The flashy web page has a night time photo of the dynamic City of London skyline and the promise to "redefine trainee resource management." The Accutrinee mantra is bold; "efficiency and flexibility redefined." The rebranded business model has hit the ground running offering relief to all sides of graduate legal recruitment: A law firm can draft in trainees according to the needs of the business and trainees struggling to get their foot into the door of the legal profession can begin the final stages of legal training and becoming a fully qualified solicitor. Where vacancies are at a premium and young graduates, with good degrees are struggling to secure "full term" Training Contracts, Accutrainee seems to be the answer. The prospects are glossy and appealing, I am one of many LPC students, investing a lot of money and hopes to a future in the legal profession and keeping my eyes peeled for that elusive Training Contract. Flora Duguid on the "Legal Cheek" http://www.legalcheek.com/2011/12/early-shine-wears-off-accutrainee/, earlier this week pondered the Accutrainee model and despite the negatives, I was left pondering; should I apply to become an Accutrainee?

For those, who haven't heard of Accutrainee until now, I will briefly explain the model and how it is different to the “Traditional” model... Accutrainee seconds out trainees to firms on SRA approved Training Contracts as and when they are needed on essentially temporary contracts. Under the “Traditional model”, a Training Contract is undertaken over a two year period and a Trainee will generally complete this by working with one single firm throughout that time. The Accutrainee concept is different as a trainee is more likely to complete training with a number of different firms over a two year period; also, the recruitment period is more flexible (many firms currently managing training programmes, where applications are two years in advance of the trainee starting.)

I put the question of whether we all should become Accutrainees to my fellow LPC owls and was somewhat surprised by the response of "Where do I sign?" I am a rather open minded bunny, but love more than anything to play the devil's advocate and inquired further as to their motivations to become the next Accutrainee candidates. My line of questioning read something like the FAQs of your Accutrainee sceptic: Aren't you concerned about the quality of training? Do you think a firm will have a genuine interest in investing in your future, when you're only on a temporary contract? Wouldn't it just be better to apply to become a paralegal in view of securing a Training Contract? I'm not sure if I am missing the trainee boat on this one, but I seemed to be far more concerned than the legal owls I had spoken to, who were still asking me how they could jump on board. For those of you, who cannot resist, here is the information you need to become a fully fledged Accutrainee candidate: http://www.accutrainee.com/trainee-solicitor-training-contract/solicitorapplications.

Personally, my concerns on the quality of training links in with my concerns on firms investing in future lawyers. I don't only want to qualify as a solicitor, I want to qualify as a good solicitor, who engages with the ethos of the firm and some day hopefully progresses to become a partner, or even have my own law firm. I will not dwell on my stint in the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal, but I know only too well the consequences of "poor" training; seeing first hand many junior solicitors putting misconduct down to inappropriate training. I'm not saying that the Accutrainee model will provide substandard training, but when some firms, who take "full term" trainees do not adequately train, it may be less likely that a firm, who takes a trainee on a temporary basis will be as interested in training to as high a standard. The vested interest on quality training on the firm's part not only relates to belief of the integrity of the profession, but the investment on that person's future. We have to remember that a law firm is a business, who wants to surround itself with the best and brightest in order to achieve goals in future success. 

Under the Accutrainee model, we have to remember that the trainee is needed "as and when" dictated by business needs. I can see this working positively, such as when a firm, with a tight budget is unsure of whether to invest that Law Society minimum salary on a graduate, who may be better than perfect on paper, walk the walk, talk the talk, but when he arrives on the first day, is a complete liability. Accutrinee enables a firm to "cushion" its risks by vetted trainees, who have gone through further training and have to "prove" themselves. Many trainees may in fact find that jumping those extra hoops may pay off and be offered a more permanent position. A firm then would have made a more secure investment on a trainees' future as well as the trainee progressing one step further, rather than waiting in the wings as a paralegal for a number of years before being "snapped up". On the other hand; how open is this model to abuse from firms wanting to take advantage of eager beaver trainees for a limited time to do the jobs that nobody wants to do during the "busy periods"? Also, securing unpaid work experience in law firms is increasingly challenging even for graduates; with a wide-spread Accutrainee model, surely firms will no longer require students for work experience. We all know that slogan being blasted in law schools' career services up and down the country: Experience, experience, experience.

It is a well known saying that life is not about the destination, but the journey itself. This can be said for life as it can career; a middle-aged partner with a sharp suit and gnashers a-glaze on the "about us" part of a law firm's web site says nothing about the back story; that investment someone made a couple of decades ago, when he was offered then the position of "Articled Clark". Like all new ideas, it cannot always be predicted whether they are good ideas. We cannot currently look on a law firm's website and see a partner in an equally sharp suit with a caption below saying; “this person started as an Accutrainee”. Will we in the future see this image? Only time will tell. Will I become an Accutrainee? Perhaps not just yet.