Rejection is better than no response at all

I wanted to join Michelmores as a trainee from the point
I undertook work experience with the firm at the age of
17, and while I did make applications for training contracts to other local firms, this was only ever with the objective of providing a ‘safety net’, should my aspiration not be realised.

I was never in the position where I had a multitude of firms vying for my attention, so I cannot claim that the perceived problems the SRA’s voluntary code to good practice in the recruitment of trainee solicitors aims to resolve, has ever directly affected me.

However, what I did experience when applying for training contracts was that the majority of law firms did not even bother to reply to reject me. Had I not been promptly informed by my firm regarding the selection process and my position in it, I may well have found myself in a position of limbo, waiting on other offers that never materialised.

The code should provide reciprocal duties in this respect, in that if they require prospective trainees to respond swiftly to offers, and also advise that they should not hold more than two offers at once, firms should be under a corresponding obligation to let applicants know equally as quickly whether their application is being considered or not, and in any event, should always send a rejection letter rather than no response at all.

Currently, to my knowledge,
it is only when an applicant has attended an interview and/or gone through a selection process that the firm in question has an obligation to let them know within two weeks whether or not they have been successful.

The overarching question here is whether the voluntary nature of the code means that it lacks teeth, and whether it would serve its purpose better as a mandatory code. There seems
to be a slight mismatch in calling the code ‘guidance’ and yet at
the same time providing set deadlines for submissions and offers, which inherently gives a more compulsory impression. Perhaps the SRA has been overly optimistic in their expectations of firms’ voluntary compliance, and instead of asking politely that law firms play nicely when recruiting trainees, they should be telling them that they will, or else. One possible way of remedying this issue could be for the SRA to make adherence to the dates and deadlines set out in the code compulsory, leaving the remaining provisions as guidelines only.

The code is perhaps slightly over-optimistic in its intentions, given the difficulties that students face in the current climate when trying to secure
a training contract. In a previous blog, ‘Are trainees truly wannabe solicitors or just bona fide dogsbodies for firms?’ I cautioned against students accepting any training contract they were offered out of desperation, without first considering its calibre.

However, it is also important to keep sight of the fact that trainee recruitment is a commercial playing field and needs to be allowed to operate freely as such. While I agree that an imbalance in negotiating power means that trainees need some level of protection in this regard, equally they do not require patronising.
I am sure that there are ample numbers of commercially savvy and highly desirable prospective trainees that are able to play the recruitment arena to their own benefit. SJ

Copyright & permissions