A government report has accused top law firms of requiring potential trainees to pass a "poshness" test and says firms  should stop using exam results to filter candidates.

The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission says that despite efforts by firms to improve social inclusion, trainee intakes continue to be "heavily dominated" by the privileged. It found that at some firms trainees are more than five times more likely to have attended a fee-paying school than the population as a whole. Of the five firms in the top 15 by turnover whose data the researchers could obtain, Clifford Chance had the highest percentage of trainees who had been to private school, 39.8%, followed by Slaughter and May with 39% and Herbert Smith Freehills with 37.5%.

By recruiting from good universities, particularly the Russell Group, the study says that elite firms are more likely to attract students who have attended selective or fee-paying schools. And students from working-class backgrounds who have managed to battle into Russell Group unis may self-exclude, says the study, because "some of the activities conducted during campus visits may reinforce elite firms’ image of exclusivity", leading the students to feel that they will not fit in.

    A grad rec team spots a candidate with belt loops AND a shirt pocket

The mad bold solution offered by the report is for firms to think up a new definition of talent. At the moment, says the study, firms look for candidates with good exam results and qualities such as "drive, resilience, strong communication skills and above all confidence and ‘polish’", which, it says, favours middle-class girls and boys. The study leaves its egalitarian definition of talent tantalisingly unconfirmed, recommending instead that firms invent "methods with each other to identify potential which do not rely on past perfomance".

Herbert Smith Freehills London head of Corporate Scott Cochrane, who attended state school, told RollOnFriday, "Clearly my firm has not systematically discriminated against me", and pointed out that, "we tend to look to the Russell Group as a starting point because they have a high proportion of the smartest students".  Raising Herbie's involvement in the PRIME intitiative to provide fair access to work experience, he said "The problem at my school was a lack of information and belief that "kids like us" could aspire to work in big law firms", suggesting, "what we need to do more is find ways of engaging with school children at an earlier stage, before they get or don’t get to Russell Group universities".
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 19 June 15 10:54

Scott Cochrane is so wrong. Just because he slipped through the net doesn't mean there's a level playing field. These "initiatives" are all about making a lot of noise but doing nothing real. All firms should be CV-blind - no reference to the University or School in the selection process and the recrtuiment panel should only know the University when an offer has been made and the degree verified. Talent will shine through - then let's see if the private school / Russell Group gang still get a third of City jobs (but I suspect they wouldn't).

Anonymous 19 June 15 11:09

People in government are clearly well intentioned but a little less than intelligent. Obviously firms want the best talent and the only reason people spend the money to send their kids to private school is because they get the best out of those kids and the reason why there are a higher proportion of privately educated people at the top firms. The government is abrogating their responsibility to improve the education of the masses so that poorer but talented kids can reach their potential. The only thing that could be done by firms is to agree not allow the school a candidate attended to show on their cv, so all the firms get to see are the university that the candidate went to and what results they received. That way the old school network is removed from the decision making process, but to ask firms not to take the candidates with the best results is ridiculous.

Anonymous 19 June 15 11:22

The issue isn't the law firms. I am a senior solicitor in a top 50 firm who went to state school and the first member of my family to go to university. The issue is the culture of expectation of failure in state schools, particularly in urban sink areas. My sister works in child mental health services in London and is constantly shocked by teachers attitudes of these children will never succeed because they come from poor backgrounds. I don't think Michelle Obama would agree with that attitude. Ambition should be encouraged here.This is a social failure, not graduate recruitment. also, the Law Society shot itself in the foot when it abolished 5 year articles. Many many solicitors of a certain generation from modest families could afford to become solicitors then, rather than now when it is so expensive. Just shows politicians are out of touch and stupid.

Anonymous 19 June 15 11:43

You'd think the London head of Corporate of any big law firm would know the difference between systemic and systematic. In any case, it's damaging "I made it so there's no problem" attitudes like Scott Cochrane's that make this issue more difficult to address, although he's not wrong that we need to encourage all school kids to put their faith in education and the social mobility it can lead to.

Anonymous 19 June 15 12:48

What utter rot. I grew up in a slum in inner city Birmingham and was the first child from my school to go to university (Cambridge) and have worked at CC, Slaughters and White & Case.

Perhaps if trendy lefty teachers taught children proper diction, English, grammar and how to behave the talents of the less fortunate could shine through. I say this time and again when I give careers talks. Why is it that what is good enough for the children of lefty teachers is elitist rubbish for the poor children they oppress with their soft bigotry of low expectations and low standards?

Anonymous 19 June 15 12:58

I would say that it is not even the university that is an issue. There are plenty of non-posh kids who end up at Oxbridge. However, being an ex-Magic Circle associate, I definitely noticed a significant "posh" factor at my Magic Circle firm. This was the case whether you were from Oxbridge, Russell Group, or indeed anywhere else for that matter.

Anonymous 19 June 15 13:03

The Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission does some great work and has some good ideas, many of which the big law firms could adopt. And social diversity remains one of the big challenges for the solicitors' profession, for firms of all sizes.
But it's unfair to suggest that the big firms are not already trying hard to address the issues. We have PRIME (started by A&O and subscribed to by almost all the other big firms) to get proper work experience for those from less-privileged backgrounds. The City of London Law Society has a Social Mobility Forum (energetically headed by Dick Tyler, ex senior partner of CMS Cameron McKenna). Over a dozen City firms work with The Brokerage Citylink, an excellent charity which works to raise aspirations among students in underprivileged areas of London, especially on the "City fringe". Most firms could give other examples of significant efforts they are making (often behind the scenes) to help people of all backgrounds become commercial lawyers. We want to hire the best talent to be our firms' futures, we genuinely don't care about their accents or background.
But as a society, we also need to look at the root causes of lack of diversity, and Scott Cochrane's comments are spot on. To achieve social diversity in the professions, we need to begin with schools and universities. When an 18-year-old has to face a likely debt of £50k to go to university, is it any wonder this puts off those from less well-off backgrounds? Law firms are recruiting from a pool of talent which is itself lacking in diversity, and that's something we can't fix on our own.
HSF's head of corporate went to a state school; I'm a partner in a magic circle firm who grew up on a council estate in a single-parent family. And there are trainees joining my firm now (and I'm sure joining HSF, and others) who come from similar backgrounds and who deservedly have a bright future ahead of them, not out of charity but because they're brilliant, motivated and hardworking. There aren't enough of them, and we definitely need more social diversity, but credit should be given to the efforts which firms are already making to achieve this.

Roll On Friday 19 June 15 14:13

Law being one of the few areas which pays for interns (vacation placements) and pays law school fees is one of the better sectors for achieving equality. however we must not seem to recruit less bright candidates as therein lies ruin for the profession.
State schools could spend more time teaching children public speaking, received pronunciation and forcing the children out on runs and the like - none of that costs a penny.

Anonymous 19 June 15 16:40

Sad to see the "state schools are shit" brigade on here again. A non-selective state school has a fixed budget to educate everyone - including those with emotional, social, mental and physical difficulties. Of course schools which can toss out the poor and the difficult to manage (and - which they are more reluctant to publicise - weed out the underachievers every year) are going to get better academic results and better jobs. But you're not comparing like with like and I for one am embarrassed by my colleagues' attitude to the system which educates 93% of its children.

Anonymous 19 June 15 16:55

Have a look at this table:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10728091/The-universities-with-the-most-and-least-state-school-students.html

Of the bottom 28 universities (excluding single subject Music, Drama and Agricultural colleges which are not relevant to law) for awarding places to state school pupils, 20 of them are Russell Group. And there are only 24 Russell Group Universities altogether - which rather suggests a cartel to exclude state-educated children.

Anonymous 19 June 15 17:03

I must say, the point about university recruitment events is true. I'm a MC trainee but I never once attended a recruitment event at university (Durham) because most of those who did were braying public school types, and the socials were more posh than anything I was used to. I don't think there is active discrimination, but the profession is also partially self-selecting due to this sort of thing.

Anonymous 20 June 15 11:06

I'm astonished that the figure are sub 40% for privately educated trainees at these firms. I'd have thought it'd be well in excess of 70%.

Anonymous 20 June 15 16:37

The problem could also be rooted in the 'tick box' system many of the big law firms have adopted. If you were raised in the UK, the chances are you would attend a UK university and if you were lucky enough to attend a UK uni frequented by law firm representatives, you might even get on their radar early on. But if for some reason you are not one of those traditional candidates and you've missed the opportunity to attend open days and vac schemes (most of which are only open to students by the way, not graduates), the chances are you would be considered too odd to progress further, and would then have a lot of explaining and justifying to do, assuming you are even invited to an interview in the first place. Vac schemes are put on too much weight, even though they barely give candidates any real work experience, and people who haven't had the chance to get on a vac scheme are very often rejected and their chances drop. So it's not just the poshness test candidates need to pass, it's the tick-box exercise they need to learn how to play. Once you've ticked the boxes, you would then have to persuade the actual partners you would fit in the firm's culture and this is intrinsically subjective, I am afraid very little can be done about it.

Roll On Friday 22 June 15 11:32

I'm not doubting that there is some inequality between the numbers of privately educated and state educated students at law firms. But where did these figures come from? And how accurate are they?

I don't remember anyone ever asking me where I went to school (at least not in a way that could be disclosed as part of a survey). And if I were ever to be asked, I would almost certainly tick the "Prefer not to say" box... as I imagine most people other people would too.

Anonymous 22 June 15 13:29

Allow me to say few words: I did not attend school in the UK, and I moved here to do postgraduate work at Oxford thanks to scholarships.

In my five years there I was bombarded with social mobility issues, how Oxford (or Cambridge/UCL/Russell Group in general) should be more accessible (whatever this means), the disproportionate amount of public school kids compared to the state school ones etc... Few questions came naturally: is Oxford wrong in having high standard? Are state schools doing enough for their pupils? Would it be fair to lower standards for state school applicant? To me, the clear answer was a big NO for all three questions.

As someone said in previous comments, state schools are not exactly pushing students to their best. Are teachers lazy? Maybe some, like in every profession. However, it seems to me the issue does not relate to lefty teachers. More directly it is linked to inadequate budgets. I had an excellent state school education which was paid for general taxation. I did pay roughly 1000 euros per year for a fantastic university education and I have 0 debt. Why so many people, including those in government, keep missing the point? It is a shame it comes from people who should know (more, hopefully) about these issues.

The same exact reasoning applies to law firms. Are law firms big bad corporations who do not care about anybody but those who went to fee-paying school, or, perhaps, is the problem lying somewhere else?

Anonymous 22 June 15 22:39

these comments miss the point. yes, actually slaughters et al. are actually dominated by state schoolers (at the junior end) nowadays. in fact private schoolers see sense that there isn't much money to be made in law anymore, becoming a lawyer is more a predilection of the aspirational classes.

the real problem is law firms deal with this "diversity" problem in a general way and preference people of colour over whites. a white male has his cards marked. there is also an active discrimination in favour of taking more women. women don't dominate the partnerships because city law is not a family friendly profession. poor mothers try to come back to work sometimes on a part-time arrangement and find out they're really squeezing a full time job into 3/4 days and are on call answering emails on their "off days". it can be done, but it's hard. asians don't dominate the partnerships because they are second generation immigrants and are also minorities - and as a minority should not necessarily have a statistically significant makeup on the board.

your gender and the colour of your skin should have absolutely nothing to do with an application process. nor should where you went to school. i went to a private school on a full scholarship. please do tell me the hardship i suffered educationally as a result of my poor parents who had trouble paying the bills.

Anonymous 22 June 15 23:50

oh and as for this bung blaming state schools, just no. it's the failure of the individual student. schools are merely glorified day care centres whilst adults go out to work. parents put pressure on their children to succeed academically, that is what works. well-behaved, eager to learn children therefore attend private schools. the best teachers are attracted to teach well-behavioured bright young bucks in a nice old building with better pay. you have children in state schools who refuse to work. the classes make a teacher more like a nanny than a teacher. i didn't succeed because i had good teachers, all of my learning and work had to be put in by myself. not naturally very bright, i studied at break times in the library whilst other kids were playing football. i ended up doing very well.

Roll On Friday 25 June 15 19:08

A few obvious points are being missed in these comments:

1) Your A-level results and consequently which university you get into have a lot to do with whether you have the good luck to be born into privilege.

2) The idea that the best people can be found in private schools and the top Unis isn't necessarily true at all. There was a very interesting article in The Times a few years ago where the journo sat down with Oxbridge interviewers following the interviews. Again and again the interviewers would say, "this student is clearly bright and hard-working. Unfortunately she's been so badly let down by her school that she would struggle to keep up". They even acknowledged that students like these would have had to work a lot harder than some private school kid to gain their average grades. The idea that these state school students simply lack ambition and a work ethic is suspect. But now despite all her hard work, this student can't get into Oxbridge or other top Unis, immediately putting her at a disadvantage when applying for law.

3) That seems unfair when you consider that aspiring lawyers can have studied anything literally anything under the sun and still get into a top firm. So why should the firms care about A-levels? Surely it would be better to establish a level playing field when reviewing candidates that places less emphasis on results in exams taken by students who started at a significant disadvantage. It's not like this is a radical suggestion given that GLS already take the approach of using tests and interviews to select candidates rather than looking closely at grades.

4) I would bet that the candidates who have had to get jobs to support themselves while studying and who haven't been able to swan off to the south of France during summer or take gap years could run rings around the private-school kids.