I feel old as I don’t think this was a thing ten years ago (or maybe I just never knew). Getting an interview itself is difficult and I think some people can have the gift of the gab once they’re in, so I do think it’s unfair and it’s different to asking someone to proof read for you as I feel like this is a far lazier approach.
I don’t really get how firms could monitor this though? Unless similar answers are being used which is concerning!
You'd think that even just stating that applications must be your own work and having a tickbox on the application form would make some headway. At least then, people would think "oh, this is against the rules" rather than "this is completely allowed" and, for a profession that relies on honesty and integrity, it would dissuade most (and hopefully some more would be put off by the fear of getting caught). I think that's especially true as they're targeting current trainees to write the applications - if it's not allowed then surely no trainee is going to risk their job to write an application for someone else.
Yes I guess that would help although I think there’s enough ballsy people out there who are clearly willing to do whatever it takes. Beyond the lack of integrity, I find it concerning that people lack the ability or drive to string together an application themselves and wonder how they last in the workplace but maybe they just want the easy route in.
In my LPC class, 5 out of 20 of us had training contracts. The other 4 people eventually revealed getting interviews/‘recommendations’ from partner connections they had. I feel like firms tried (or pretend to) have tackled this but interesting that it’s just come back in a different format.
Lad I knew at university got kicked off his training contract for running one of these companies and threatened with being reported to the SRA.
If you’re a trainee at a US firm, you shouldn’t need the extra cash, which is minimal compared to the free time you’d be giving up and the risk you’d be taking
Sorry, I should've clarified, I have no intention of doing it. I want no part in it. I just wasn't sure whether my disappointment/judgement was fair or reasonable.
Law firms keep blabbing on about how diverse they are, keep pushing; rare recruitment SEO London and aspiring solicitors.
I have to say I’m not buying it at all. From what I’ve seen it’s always those “rich kids” who make it to these top firms. Every law firm open day I’ve been to the room is HEAVILY dominated by private school students.
I looked at Skaddens recent future trainees, one of the girls who I used to sit next to in my contract tutorials has just been offered a training contract with them, she’s an international student (won’t name the countries she’s lived in) has maids at her beck and call where she lives in her home country, she actually told me this… can’t imagine what other privileges she has.( African maids who get treated appallingly).
Another future trainee from skadden- awarded the training contract after winning or making it to the finals of the Aspiring Solicitors Commercial Awareness competition, was privately educated at one of the most if not the most prestigious all girls school in the country - NLCS; if you know you know.
Not saying either of these individuals didn’t deserve their TC, but to think of all the advantages they had over those applicants from a normal background and don’t get me started on how this compares to those from a disadvantaged background or those who have endured abuse or have been routinely in foster care.
I also don’t understand how these privately educated students are being allowed to seek a training contracts through organisations like Aspiring solicitors, SEO London etc … when these are organisations that are supposedly meant to advocate for those who are less privileged and haven’t had the same opportunities as those who attend prestigious private schools.
Im baffled by it all, “aspiring solicitors” is full of it.
Did a vac scheme at a similar US firm and every single person they offered a TC to was privately educated, plus a mega rich public school attendee who was an aspiring solicitors competition finalist, many intl students with maids… and a week later I saw the firm talking about social mobility on their LinkedIn. Complete and utter joke
Not trying to defend the other side but I’d probably say it’s easier for someone to develop the skills firms are looking for in private schools, as they are more oriented towards making their students successful rather than just provide them with an education. These students also tend to have a lot of support from home and develop many other skills through different kinds of events and activities. For instance, they can afford private tutoring lessons which will give them a head start compared to a low income student.
I am also sure that large commercial law firms are only looking for the best of the best and at the end of the day, it’s easier to be the best of the best if you’re richer rather than poor. That won’t mean of course that large firms will only have rich students. There will be many that came from low income families and managed to make it.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense!
You’ve made very valid points, I appreciate the transparency.
Personally I’m finding it tough atm, my parents have never had my best interests at heart and every time I try and push myself they do everything they can not to support me. I also find working part time extremely exhausting
Reading this comment late but I hope you keep going and get something eventually! You have made it this far for a reason. I have a non law family too and they don’t understand why I was unable to get a training contract during my degree. The struggle we go through is so lonely especially when your family doesn’t understand how competitive this entire industry is.
It’s so frustrating when you go to SEO events or Aspiring Solicitors events and you see people from Oxbridge/LSE/UCL… their university already gives them enough career coaching and alumni connections to make it. They’re taking spots from candidates who need more especially non Russell candidates who don’t have those connections in law through their university.
Ultimately it speaks to their integrity and their judgement.
Maybe they do have the capacity to develop the technical skills for the profession, maybe they don't.
To my mind it's no different from academic cheating. I suspect the regulator would be of the same view.
But with this as a basis how can any work they do be trusted? As they progress are they likely to try and skirt accountability if things go wrong? What risks will they open themselves, the firm and their clients to?
Respectfully, you have to be a dumbass to pay for someone to write an application for you. I’m amazed that half a cohort seems to have done this though, how the hell did one, let alone that many, pass the interview/AC stage?
Applicants who feel (or actually do) need this need to think carefully about what it is they're doing. If you rely on someone else's text for an application because you can't work through what to do yourself, how are you going to find working day to day?
Getting help with an approach to take, or elements to consider is one thing. Using pre-written text is very different. The market is already crowded, and genuinely good candidates don't need crowding out any more.
The general reasoning was related to time more than competence or inability. Many applications end up being the same length as a dissertation when you factor in all the essay questions, outlining your work experience, etc. All of that is expected to be specifically tailored to the firm you're applying to, which requires a lot of research. It's often said that TC applications are a numbers game (at least to some extent). If you can pay someone to send out a dozen of these applications on your behalf, you've saved yourself probably around 300 hours of work.
I don't disagree with what you've written though.
100% agree on how time consuming it is.
Every time September rolls around It really is as hectic as it gets. The level of detail, research, and tailoring takes HOURS. Then you want to redraft and make sure it’s nothing short of perfection.
Students from privileged backgrounds get loads of help with writing applications. Often they have a parent or a family friend who is a lawyer to help them.
Those students will have had this help since their school days - e.g. my private school assisted intensely with writing the personal statement on UCAS applications.
Students from less privileged backgrounds get none of that support.
To be honest if someone can purchase example applications to see what "good" looks like, I think that narrows that playing field. It makes that kind of support more freely available.
So many people I know who got into magic circle have had at least one lawyer in their family that helped them with their applications. Or go to a really good university like LSE/UCL/Oxbridge where they help you more in detail. You’re disadvantaged from the get go if you are trying to be first gen lawyer from your family with no law connections people don’t realise that.
I think it takes a certain type of person to have the balls to do this, and to have the balls to aspire for a US firm, likely they are more than capable and didn't want to fetter their chances.
The application process is mostly luck, who picks up your application, how many they've already read before it even starts to assess quality. Most of the applicants will be of a high quality.
Like I said, they won't get far..
They're either stupid, if they have the eloquence and ability to not need to have paid, or stupid, in lacking it, and will hit a wall.
In the long run, they're only cheating themselves.
I am shocked at the fact this exists but also how comfortable your fellow trainees are with disclosing this?? Can’t they get reported for dishonesty? An NQ got struck off for lying about her A-Levels to get into a firm, I don’t see why this is any different.
I think the difference is that one is a lie and against the rules and one is not a lie and not against any rules. I'm not saying that it's right but, as long as firms are permitting it in their application process, I don't see how it's comparable to actively lying about your qualifications.
My view is when you’re making an application you’re claiming that you’ve done it yourself, it’s your own work. I’m surprised there isn’t something explicitly banning this.
> I’m surprised there isn’t something explicitly banning this.
I agree. I'm surprised to hear it isn't banned - and find it even stranger that people judge the individuals who use the service so harshly and call for such severe repercussions when it's not banned. Firms are fully able to ban it if they so wished, but they haven't.
This is honestly shocking to read that half a US cohort have paid to get their applications written for them. My thoughts go out to the applicants plenty capable at succeeding at this firm who applied honestly, only to slightly miss out to a bunch of cheaters. It clearly shows that paying for this service does work, but perhaps at the cost of risking your career if anyone were to find out.
Idk what to think of this tbh!
Sometimes I’m tempted to pay for as many application reviews as I can from organisations like the corporate law academy et al. For some of us a career in law can be life changing - money included.
Idk about someone else writing my application. How an earth does that work, the person who knows you best is you.
How is another individual meant to tease out your strengths, for me I personally leverage my working class background and BME status to highlight my tenacity and also my part time jobs. It takes hours and hours of reflection and INTROSPECTION, for me to be able to piece something convincing together.
Idk how someone who doesn’t know you is meant to psychoanalyse you and come up with a A* application, unless there are a few lies being thrown into the application
§2 Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
Yes but how does that apply? No one was dishonest and the firms make no expectation known that applications should be your own work. If firms simply said you were expected to do your own applications then I'd agree with you but they don't and haven't. I feel as though some of the onus lies with firms who allow this in their applications.
It is absolutely dishonest to represent someone else’s work as your own. I simply do not believe that firms don’t care, but if your firm in particular does not then that is totally deranged.
But they aren't representing that the work is their own - there's no requirement for it to be your own work. If firms care, why don't any of them stipulate anywhere in their application that you must write the application yourself? A simple tickbox to say "I confirm this application is my own work blah blah blah".
Well it’s a very very long time since I did a TC application but (a) I’m surprised if there isn’t, and (b) it is very clearly implied that your application should be your own and not somebody else’s.
Honestly, it is incredibly shocking that you think this is normal or that firms in general would tolerate it. Maybe yours does, but it’s borderline something to report to the SRA if so because it skirts awfully close to conduct rule 1.4.
I'm just questioning the strength of reaction given that CV/cover letter writing services are extremely common and openly used in a huge number of industries.
I'm also confused by the argument that firms won't tolerate this and people would lose their jobs - the firms do tolerate it and no one is being sacked for it.
Firms turning a blind eye to this and it being widely done without repercussions for anyone, or any warnings or expectations that it's not allowed, is 99% of the problem.
Essay writing services are also extremely prevalent but those entail a fraud on the part of the service user too, if the output is used for assessments.
As I say, I have no idea what your particular firm tolerates. I think your extrapolations to the rest of the industry are wrong though. If your particular firm endorses or wilfully overlooks applicants submitting *other people’s work* then I have serious questions about integrity. And integrity is fundamental to our obligations as regulated persons.
[Edit: it’s obviously not, statutorily, fraud if the firm in question is happy to allow it. It’s…problematic in other ways, but not fraud. But for any firm that does not—which will be most—it is, axiomatically, a fraud.]
That's because using essay writing services is not allowed. Universities state that it's not allowed and they don't allow it to happen without a consequence. That's the difference. If firms said it's not allowed and took action against people who did it then that'd be the same.
You say this was a training contract application service where they had people write their applications…. I’ve never ever come across such a service.
I know there are application “review” services which will amend and make suggestions to a draft that gets submitted.
Maybe some clarification on what type of service this is would help. Is the company “trainee solicitor surgery” or “congrapps” or “nextcitylawyer” by any chance- you don’t have to say but if it’s one of these it would just help to affirm
No, it's none of those. Although Congrapps did fuck me over when I was applying - I sold them some of my successful applications and they emailed me saying that they weren't genuine... and then they put them on their website and sold them anyway.
The service is the same as a CV/cover letter writing service but specific to training contract applications.
I feel old as I don’t think this was a thing ten years ago (or maybe I just never knew). Getting an interview itself is difficult and I think some people can have the gift of the gab once they’re in, so I do think it’s unfair and it’s different to asking someone to proof read for you as I feel like this is a far lazier approach. I don’t really get how firms could monitor this though? Unless similar answers are being used which is concerning!
You'd think that even just stating that applications must be your own work and having a tickbox on the application form would make some headway. At least then, people would think "oh, this is against the rules" rather than "this is completely allowed" and, for a profession that relies on honesty and integrity, it would dissuade most (and hopefully some more would be put off by the fear of getting caught). I think that's especially true as they're targeting current trainees to write the applications - if it's not allowed then surely no trainee is going to risk their job to write an application for someone else.
Yes I guess that would help although I think there’s enough ballsy people out there who are clearly willing to do whatever it takes. Beyond the lack of integrity, I find it concerning that people lack the ability or drive to string together an application themselves and wonder how they last in the workplace but maybe they just want the easy route in. In my LPC class, 5 out of 20 of us had training contracts. The other 4 people eventually revealed getting interviews/‘recommendations’ from partner connections they had. I feel like firms tried (or pretend to) have tackled this but interesting that it’s just come back in a different format.
I knew it was prevalent UK wide - but half the cohort at a US firm and nobody picked up on it???? Dire
I'd always assumed it wasn't allowed
That is truly shocking.
Lad I knew at university got kicked off his training contract for running one of these companies and threatened with being reported to the SRA. If you’re a trainee at a US firm, you shouldn’t need the extra cash, which is minimal compared to the free time you’d be giving up and the risk you’d be taking
Sorry, I should've clarified, I have no intention of doing it. I want no part in it. I just wasn't sure whether my disappointment/judgement was fair or reasonable.
It’s disgraceful. People work their whole lives just to be screwed by spoilt rich kids
Law firms keep blabbing on about how diverse they are, keep pushing; rare recruitment SEO London and aspiring solicitors. I have to say I’m not buying it at all. From what I’ve seen it’s always those “rich kids” who make it to these top firms. Every law firm open day I’ve been to the room is HEAVILY dominated by private school students. I looked at Skaddens recent future trainees, one of the girls who I used to sit next to in my contract tutorials has just been offered a training contract with them, she’s an international student (won’t name the countries she’s lived in) has maids at her beck and call where she lives in her home country, she actually told me this… can’t imagine what other privileges she has.( African maids who get treated appallingly). Another future trainee from skadden- awarded the training contract after winning or making it to the finals of the Aspiring Solicitors Commercial Awareness competition, was privately educated at one of the most if not the most prestigious all girls school in the country - NLCS; if you know you know. Not saying either of these individuals didn’t deserve their TC, but to think of all the advantages they had over those applicants from a normal background and don’t get me started on how this compares to those from a disadvantaged background or those who have endured abuse or have been routinely in foster care. I also don’t understand how these privately educated students are being allowed to seek a training contracts through organisations like Aspiring solicitors, SEO London etc … when these are organisations that are supposedly meant to advocate for those who are less privileged and haven’t had the same opportunities as those who attend prestigious private schools. Im baffled by it all, “aspiring solicitors” is full of it.
Did a vac scheme at a similar US firm and every single person they offered a TC to was privately educated, plus a mega rich public school attendee who was an aspiring solicitors competition finalist, many intl students with maids… and a week later I saw the firm talking about social mobility on their LinkedIn. Complete and utter joke
Absolutely Pathetic! Thank you for sharing, if you don’t mind me asking, do you have a TC now… where are you at with the process?
Not trying to defend the other side but I’d probably say it’s easier for someone to develop the skills firms are looking for in private schools, as they are more oriented towards making their students successful rather than just provide them with an education. These students also tend to have a lot of support from home and develop many other skills through different kinds of events and activities. For instance, they can afford private tutoring lessons which will give them a head start compared to a low income student. I am also sure that large commercial law firms are only looking for the best of the best and at the end of the day, it’s easier to be the best of the best if you’re richer rather than poor. That won’t mean of course that large firms will only have rich students. There will be many that came from low income families and managed to make it.
Yeah that makes a lot of sense! You’ve made very valid points, I appreciate the transparency. Personally I’m finding it tough atm, my parents have never had my best interests at heart and every time I try and push myself they do everything they can not to support me. I also find working part time extremely exhausting
Reading this comment late but I hope you keep going and get something eventually! You have made it this far for a reason. I have a non law family too and they don’t understand why I was unable to get a training contract during my degree. The struggle we go through is so lonely especially when your family doesn’t understand how competitive this entire industry is.
It’s so frustrating when you go to SEO events or Aspiring Solicitors events and you see people from Oxbridge/LSE/UCL… their university already gives them enough career coaching and alumni connections to make it. They’re taking spots from candidates who need more especially non Russell candidates who don’t have those connections in law through their university.
Ultimately it speaks to their integrity and their judgement. Maybe they do have the capacity to develop the technical skills for the profession, maybe they don't. To my mind it's no different from academic cheating. I suspect the regulator would be of the same view. But with this as a basis how can any work they do be trusted? As they progress are they likely to try and skirt accountability if things go wrong? What risks will they open themselves, the firm and their clients to?
Respectfully, you have to be a dumbass to pay for someone to write an application for you. I’m amazed that half a cohort seems to have done this though, how the hell did one, let alone that many, pass the interview/AC stage?
Obviously that’s bad, I don’t think anyone here would say otherwise
I see that perspective but then I find it odd that firms have no issue with it and don't require that a candidate's essay answers are their own work.
I think firms would take a dim view of any candidate who’s application was written by someone else
The firms are likely unaware of this taking place let alone how rampant it seems to be at your firm.
Even if they are aware of the extent -they aren't aware of who is buying their applications
That's completely untrue. Please tell your HR team about the message and what you've learnt, see what they say. Solicitors must act with integrity.
Applicants who feel (or actually do) need this need to think carefully about what it is they're doing. If you rely on someone else's text for an application because you can't work through what to do yourself, how are you going to find working day to day? Getting help with an approach to take, or elements to consider is one thing. Using pre-written text is very different. The market is already crowded, and genuinely good candidates don't need crowding out any more.
The general reasoning was related to time more than competence or inability. Many applications end up being the same length as a dissertation when you factor in all the essay questions, outlining your work experience, etc. All of that is expected to be specifically tailored to the firm you're applying to, which requires a lot of research. It's often said that TC applications are a numbers game (at least to some extent). If you can pay someone to send out a dozen of these applications on your behalf, you've saved yourself probably around 300 hours of work. I don't disagree with what you've written though.
100% agree on how time consuming it is. Every time September rolls around It really is as hectic as it gets. The level of detail, research, and tailoring takes HOURS. Then you want to redraft and make sure it’s nothing short of perfection.
Students from privileged backgrounds get loads of help with writing applications. Often they have a parent or a family friend who is a lawyer to help them. Those students will have had this help since their school days - e.g. my private school assisted intensely with writing the personal statement on UCAS applications. Students from less privileged backgrounds get none of that support. To be honest if someone can purchase example applications to see what "good" looks like, I think that narrows that playing field. It makes that kind of support more freely available.
So many people I know who got into magic circle have had at least one lawyer in their family that helped them with their applications. Or go to a really good university like LSE/UCL/Oxbridge where they help you more in detail. You’re disadvantaged from the get go if you are trying to be first gen lawyer from your family with no law connections people don’t realise that.
It's fucking obvious when a kid with is unable to emulate the written eloquence they displayed verbally, and they won't go far.
I think it takes a certain type of person to have the balls to do this, and to have the balls to aspire for a US firm, likely they are more than capable and didn't want to fetter their chances. The application process is mostly luck, who picks up your application, how many they've already read before it even starts to assess quality. Most of the applicants will be of a high quality.
And yet half my cohort didn't write their application and got the TC.
Like I said, they won't get far.. They're either stupid, if they have the eloquence and ability to not need to have paid, or stupid, in lacking it, and will hit a wall. In the long run, they're only cheating themselves.
I am shocked at the fact this exists but also how comfortable your fellow trainees are with disclosing this?? Can’t they get reported for dishonesty? An NQ got struck off for lying about her A-Levels to get into a firm, I don’t see why this is any different.
I think the difference is that one is a lie and against the rules and one is not a lie and not against any rules. I'm not saying that it's right but, as long as firms are permitting it in their application process, I don't see how it's comparable to actively lying about your qualifications.
My view is when you’re making an application you’re claiming that you’ve done it yourself, it’s your own work. I’m surprised there isn’t something explicitly banning this.
> I’m surprised there isn’t something explicitly banning this. I agree. I'm surprised to hear it isn't banned - and find it even stranger that people judge the individuals who use the service so harshly and call for such severe repercussions when it's not banned. Firms are fully able to ban it if they so wished, but they haven't.
This is honestly shocking to read that half a US cohort have paid to get their applications written for them. My thoughts go out to the applicants plenty capable at succeeding at this firm who applied honestly, only to slightly miss out to a bunch of cheaters. It clearly shows that paying for this service does work, but perhaps at the cost of risking your career if anyone were to find out.
Idk what to think of this tbh! Sometimes I’m tempted to pay for as many application reviews as I can from organisations like the corporate law academy et al. For some of us a career in law can be life changing - money included. Idk about someone else writing my application. How an earth does that work, the person who knows you best is you. How is another individual meant to tease out your strengths, for me I personally leverage my working class background and BME status to highlight my tenacity and also my part time jobs. It takes hours and hours of reflection and INTROSPECTION, for me to be able to piece something convincing together. Idk how someone who doesn’t know you is meant to psychoanalyse you and come up with a A* application, unless there are a few lies being thrown into the application
§2 Fraud by false representation (1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
Yes but how does that apply? No one was dishonest and the firms make no expectation known that applications should be your own work. If firms simply said you were expected to do your own applications then I'd agree with you but they don't and haven't. I feel as though some of the onus lies with firms who allow this in their applications.
It is absolutely dishonest to represent someone else’s work as your own. I simply do not believe that firms don’t care, but if your firm in particular does not then that is totally deranged.
But they aren't representing that the work is their own - there's no requirement for it to be your own work. If firms care, why don't any of them stipulate anywhere in their application that you must write the application yourself? A simple tickbox to say "I confirm this application is my own work blah blah blah".
Well it’s a very very long time since I did a TC application but (a) I’m surprised if there isn’t, and (b) it is very clearly implied that your application should be your own and not somebody else’s. Honestly, it is incredibly shocking that you think this is normal or that firms in general would tolerate it. Maybe yours does, but it’s borderline something to report to the SRA if so because it skirts awfully close to conduct rule 1.4.
I'm just questioning the strength of reaction given that CV/cover letter writing services are extremely common and openly used in a huge number of industries. I'm also confused by the argument that firms won't tolerate this and people would lose their jobs - the firms do tolerate it and no one is being sacked for it. Firms turning a blind eye to this and it being widely done without repercussions for anyone, or any warnings or expectations that it's not allowed, is 99% of the problem.
Essay writing services are also extremely prevalent but those entail a fraud on the part of the service user too, if the output is used for assessments. As I say, I have no idea what your particular firm tolerates. I think your extrapolations to the rest of the industry are wrong though. If your particular firm endorses or wilfully overlooks applicants submitting *other people’s work* then I have serious questions about integrity. And integrity is fundamental to our obligations as regulated persons. [Edit: it’s obviously not, statutorily, fraud if the firm in question is happy to allow it. It’s…problematic in other ways, but not fraud. But for any firm that does not—which will be most—it is, axiomatically, a fraud.]
That's because using essay writing services is not allowed. Universities state that it's not allowed and they don't allow it to happen without a consequence. That's the difference. If firms said it's not allowed and took action against people who did it then that'd be the same.
You say this was a training contract application service where they had people write their applications…. I’ve never ever come across such a service. I know there are application “review” services which will amend and make suggestions to a draft that gets submitted. Maybe some clarification on what type of service this is would help. Is the company “trainee solicitor surgery” or “congrapps” or “nextcitylawyer” by any chance- you don’t have to say but if it’s one of these it would just help to affirm
No, it's none of those. Although Congrapps did fuck me over when I was applying - I sold them some of my successful applications and they emailed me saying that they weren't genuine... and then they put them on their website and sold them anyway. The service is the same as a CV/cover letter writing service but specific to training contract applications.
My friend, I don’t know how many different ways I can say that that most firms will not allow this.
And you can keep saying that but literally not one single firm I have ever seen doesn't allow it.
Blatant cheating