Firms back grad recruitment code as SRA withdrawal prompts fears of TC offers for younger students
Eversheds and DAC Beachcroft commit to leaving their graduate recruitment policies unchanged
March 12, 2015 at 05:21 AM
4 minute read
Some of the UK's largest law firms are reviewing their graduate recruitment practices in the wake of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) last week confirming that it would be withdrawing its support for the graduate recruitment code at the end of this month.
Linklaters is one of five UK top 20 firms looking at the issue following the SRA's decision to abandon the voluntary code, which advises that training contracts should not be offered to students before 1 September in their final year of undergraduate study.
Eversheds and DAC Beachcroft have committed to leaving their graduate recruitment policies unchanged, rather than bringing recruitment forward to hire potential trainees at an earlier stage, as would be possible outside the code.
Linklaters has come out in support of the code and is currently investigating how it can stay in line with the agreement without the SRA's involvement. Herbert Smith Freehills, Addleshaw Goddard, Ashurst and DWF have all confirmed that they are considering their policies in light of the SRA's move. Pinsent Masons said it did not expect its recruitment practices would be impacted.
A spokesperson for Hogan Lovells said it was "early days", but that it plans to contribute to the ongoing debate through two of the other three signatories to the code alongside the SRA – the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS) and the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR).
The regulator's withdrawal has prompted concerns that firms could start recruiting trainees from a younger pool of talent. It had previously not been expected to impact on this year's recruitment cycle, which ends on 1 September; however, the SRA confirmed last week that it would withdraw from the code from the end of March.
The AGCAS and the final signatory to the code, the Junior Lawyers Division, had previously urged the SRA to reconsider its decision over concerns that it would trigger a rush of inexperienced recruits.
The SRA explained its withdrawal in a statement, saying: "It is not its regulatory role to be involved in deciding the dates and processes by which individual employers and employees make recruitment choices."
Linklaters graduate recruitment partner Simon Branigan said: "Linklaters has always welcomed and adhered to the SRA's voluntary code of good practice in the recruitment of trainees as we feel it is in the best interest of students to be able to evaluate all of their training contract offers at the same time to make fully informed decisions about their career options."
Branigan added that Linklaters is in discussion with other firms, the AGR and the Law Society to determine whether there is "an appetite to continue the code even without the SRA's involvement". A meeting between firms and the AGR is expected to take place in April.
Eversheds said it would continue to recruit in line with the principles of the code. "Eversheds is committed to graduate recruitment that is fair, accessible and enables those seeking a career in the legal profession to make their career choices at an appropriate stage in their academic studies," said Margot King, the firm's head of recruitment and HR projects.
She added that Eversheds would continue operating its graduate recruitment programme "in line with our peers" in a way that does not put "undue pressure" on students to make career decisions too early on.
Meanwhile, a DAC Beachcroft spokesperson said the firm will continue to recruit candidates who are in the final year of their law degree or are completing their Graduate Diploma of Law, adding: "As we currently use a wide net of schools and universities to recruit for both trainee solicitors and legal apprentices, we will not be changing any recruitment practices at this stage."
Half of the UK top 20 declined to comment: Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, DLA Piper, Slaughter and May, Clyde & Co, Simmons & Simmons, Bird & Bird, Berwin Leighton Paisner and Irwin Mitchell. Norton Rose Fulbright was unreachable for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
- 1Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 2Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 3Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
- 4People in the News—Dec. 2, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Pollock Begg
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Prioritize What Is Important to You, Do What Energizes You,' Says Sarah Wellings of Sullivan & Worcester
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250