Roll on Friday
Linklaters‘ commitment to recruiting talent wherever it’s found has resulted in the child of one of its senior management team receiving a training contract, unbeknownst to the firm.
Many law firms prohibit the offspring of partners from being awarded training contracts. A ban on partners’ kids means firms avoid accusations of bias and supervising staff are spared the potentially awkward task of assessing someone whose mum or dad may have influence over their own careers.
It also prevents the trainee in question from being dogged by suspicions they weren’t selected or retained on the basis of their abilities.
Along with a handful of other firms, Linklaters takes a different approach. It has decided not to deny itself access to talent wherever it originates. A spokesperson for the firm told RollOnFriday, “We don’t exclude candidates because of who they’re related to. We aim to recruit and develop the best people, and that only works if our recruitment process is open to everyone.”
This case is particularly unusual, however, as the firm was unaware it was dealing with a relative of one of its leaders.
‘Trainee A’, whom ROF is not identifying, has a different surname to their parent in the firm and ROF understands that staff involved in their vacation scheme, interviews and training contract offer were ignorant of the fact that the individual was the child of a senior member of Linklaters’ management team.
“No one involved in assessing the candidate knew of the connection”, said Linklaters’ spokesperson.
“They applied through our standard graduate recruitment track and were assessed against the same criteria by the same panel as every other candidate in their intake. They were offered a training contract on merit.”
Bolstering the impression that Trainee A fully deserved their place, even ROF’s source conceded that they had “perform[ed] exceptionally well” in the assessments, as well as “largely anonymously” (though not entirely anonymously given insiders knew to tip off ROF). Linklaters declined to confirm whether Trainee A had received offers from other firms.
It’s not the first time the firm has kept it in the family, though when it awarded a training contract to its Senior Partner’s son in 2011, everyone was aware who he was. He was retained and is now a well-established partner at the firm.
The perception of bias among trainees can arise without relatives being involved: Freshfields was accused of lavishing preferential treatment on twin trainees when it granted them plum secondments in New York together, allegedly because of their family friendship with an influential partner.
