Clifford Chance TC

[Shane]

Hi everybody,

Clifford Chance have just opened their training contract applications. However they state that they are primarily targeting penultimate year law students and final year non-law. I’ve never come across this before. Does this mean that those of who us who just graduated will be disadvantaged when applying? Is this a trend that other firms will also be adopting?
Just feeling a bit anxious that the recruitment process may end up being even harder than expected, since I’m graduating in September.

“The Training Contract is targeted at penultimate year law students and final year non-law students (undergraduate degree). If you are an applicant who does not fall into these target groups, you can still apply but your application will not be priortised at this stage and, as such, you will not be sent a Watson Glaser test at the moment. If your application is going to be considered, you will find out no later than 14 th December 2020.“

 

[flyingavocado]

I have the same question. I am in my penultimate year now but by the time CC closes this application (i.e. Dec 2020) I will be in my final year. Should I tick penultimate year, or must I choose final year law student?

 

[TChopeful2021]

I just saw the same thing and was equally baffled and disappointed. On the application form, they explicitly mentions that:

"Please note, if you are planning to submit an application but do not fall into one of the above groups, we do not encourage you to apply this year"

From this, I assume we will be disadvantaged.

 

[JayB]

Two of my friends applied last year and they were in their third year of their law degree, and both are now future trainees at Clifford Chance. So is this a new requirement added this year? Quite confused as well, not really fair as third year students and graduates should also be considered.

I have dropped them an email, so I will let everyone know what they say.

 

[D]

Clifford Chance are making significant changes to the way they recruit. For example - The "Vacation Scheme" in it's traditional sense is on the way out at the firm. You can see through their various initiatives that the firm are adopting an alternative method of recruiting.

Will this be the new norm? Well, CC has operated SPARK for some time now and it still is the only scheme to offer TC's to first-year students. Other firms have not adopted this approach. From a personal point of view, it was quite tough seeing those in the first year already securing a TC, but, they do suck you in. You will not have an opportunity to apply elsewhere (you would have to renege) so you need to be absolutely sure that CC are the firm for you when you apply for SPARK.

As far as I'm aware, their VS did not allow 3rd year law/graduate non-law to apply (they advised Direct TC). This seems to be an extension of that principle.

There are lots of other firms out there. If you are in to the type of work that CC focus on, you will have many other options available. You also are saving yourself the journey into the wharf every day

 

[CarinaH]

I’m really glad I never had any intentions of applying to CC. This is just appalling to exclude every career changer or graduate. What if someone had mitigating circumstances and wasn’t able to apply before or found their passion for law later on? I feel like this is very backwards and discriminatory! So the SQE comes in to make the profession more accessible only for CC to reverse that and take it even further backwards? Would love to know their reasons, as it stands this is just disappointing to see for everyone who had their heart set on the firm and overall in making the profession more inclusive!

 

[M777]

I’m really glad I never had any intentions of applying to CC. This is just appalling to exclude every career changer or graduate. What if someone had mitigating circumstances and wasn’t able to apply before or found their passion for law later on? I feel like this is very backwards and discriminatory! So the SQE comes in to make the profession more accessible only for CC to reverse that and take it even further backwards? Would love to know their reasons, as it stands this is just disappointing to see for everyone who had their heart set on the firm and overall in making the profession more inclusive!

I'd be interested in knowing how they'd make this decision consistent with a key objective of any modern recruitment process, which is to be diverse and inclusive. Doesn't that involve recruiting candidates from a range of backgrounds and experiences?

I'm guessing they've made the process more exclusive to help reduce short-term costs following from the COVID situation, but are there indications that they're making this permanent? Especially considering they're scrapping vacation schemes?

 

[CarinaH]

I'd be interested in knowing how they'd make this decision consistent with a key objective of any modern recruitment process, which is to be diverse and inclusive. Doesn't that involve recruiting candidates from a range of backgrounds and experiences?

I'm guessing they've made the process more exclusive to help reduce short-term costs following from the COVID situation, but are there indications that they're making this permanent? Especially considering they're scrapping vacation schemes?

but if they are not even running VSs, where are they saving costs then? Having to review less applications? Since everyone applying this year will be doing the SQE it’s not like they would have to pay to put anyone through the GDL anymore.

I agree with you though, it’s extremely at odds with any D&I objective. Plus by excluding career changers, arguably this is at odds with the equality act considering age is a protected characteristic. It also goes against the Legal Service Act which states “encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession”. Both are part of the SRA’s guidance on equality, diversity and inclusion, which includes recruitment and access. I guess anyone who feels discriminated by it could take it up with the SRA if this is a permanent change. In any case it’s a very disappointing development...

 

[M777]

but if they are not even running VSs, where are they saving costs then? Having to review less applications? Since everyone applying this year will be doing the SQE it’s not like they would have to pay to put anyone through the GDL anymore.

I agree with you though, it’s extremely at odds with any D&I objective. Plus by excluding career changers, arguably this is at odds with the equality act considering age is a protected characteristic. It’s also goes against the Legal Service Act which states “encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession”. Both are part of the SRA’s guidance on equality, diversity and inclusion, which includes recruitment and access. I guess anyone who feels discriminated by it could take it up with the SRA if this is a permanent change. In any case it’s a very disappointing development...

I believe they've taken an assortment of other cost-cutting measures such as slashing NQ salaries (although I'm not sure if this is temporary), and as you point out, they've scrapped the vacation schemes. I'd be interested to know if the decision has any rationales beyond cost-cutting. It might involve the SQE (I don't know enough about the SQE to comment), but wasn't the SQE designed to make legal recruitment more streamlined and inclusive?

As you rightly point out, it seems inconsistent on its face both with D&I objectives and the regulatory aims you've highlighted above. I believe Ms. Booker and a few other people from the forum have contacted them to find out why they've changed the process this year, so I'm keen to find out more!

 

[Mia97]

Hey @Jessica Booker

Do you know why a firm would want to take this approach?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Clifford Chance are making significant changes to the way they recruit. For example - The "Vacation Scheme" in it's traditional sense is on the way out at the firm. You can see through their various initiatives that the firm are adopting an alternative method of recruiting.

Will this be the new norm? Well, CC has operated SPARK for some time now and it still is the only scheme to offer TC's to first-year students. Other firms have not adopted this approach. From a personal point of view, it was quite tough seeing those in the first year already securing a TC, but, they do suck you in. You will not have an opportunity to apply elsewhere (you would have to renege) so you need to be absolutely sure that CC are the firm for you when you apply for SPARK.

As far as I'm aware, their VS did not allow 3rd year law/graduate non-law to apply (they advised Direct TC). This seems to be an extension of that principle.

There are lots of other firms out there. If you are in to the type of work that CC focus on, you will have many other options available. You also are saving yourself the journey into the wharf every day

First years are given until mid September as they go into their final year to accept.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I have responded to this in the “Ask a graduate recruiter” thread

A few things to mention based on what has been said...

1) This isn’t new - it’s been CC approach for some time and they are just being more transparent about it

2) final year law and graduates are not excluded from applying and they can still secure TCs

3) although the GDL is going, firms are still putting their non law grads through an equivalent course as they know they won’t be ready for the SQE in the same way as a law grad. So there will still be additional costs, including fees and maintenance grants. The SQE could also be a cycle later than planned given the SRA have postponed the deadline for the GDL until December 2021 now.

4) Applying a year of graduation is not age discrimination as anyone can start a degree at any age. There’s employment tribunal claims that tried this in the past.

5) I don’t think this is a cost cutting exercise. I suspect this is a weighing up how to make their processes as efficient as possible. For instance, there’s evidence to say the longer you take to get back to candidates the more likely you are to lose both low income, BAME and female talent from your talent pool.

I don’t agree with CC’s policy on this. I would hope that they had some form of alternative route for those not eligible for their feeder programmes. However, if this has been CC’s approach for sometime and they have one of the most diverse trainee populations when compared to similar firms, they must be getting something right, even if on the face of it their policy suggests the opposite.

They have invested heavily into research to ensure their process is accessible - maybe that research has said this is the most effective approach. It could easily be the case that with the technology they have in place, like contextualised recruitment, they can use their systems to recruit the best for the firm.

 

[D]

First years are given until mid September as they go into their final year to accept.

This must be a change of policy - All of my friends who were on SPARK in Year 1 interviewed in the Summer and had until December that year to accept. If they have changed, that is no doubt welcomed as it put a lot of pressure on them to accept.

 

[Jessica Booker]

This must be a change of policy - All of my friends who were on SPARK in Year 1 interviewed in the Summer and had until December that year to accept. If they have changed, that is no doubt welcomed as it put a lot of pressure on them to accept.

then they have the complete ability to renege those offers later on. If CC don’t abide by the recruitment code, their candidates don’t have to either

 

[WannabeSolicitor24]

I agree with all that has been said above. On another note, when looking through the application form there doesn't seem to be anywhere to talk about 'Why CC?'. Am I just missing something, or do they only ask those sort of questions at interview? Thanks

 

[champ591]

I agree with all that has been said above. On another note, when looking through the application form there doesn't seem to be anywhere to talk about 'Why CC?'. Am I just missing something, or do they only ask those sort of questions at interview? Thanks

I attended their open day in 2018 and they mentioned not to focus too much on why CC - your app should be more focussed on why you instead. They specifically mentioned that it won't help to mention information about their firm that they already know, so that could be why. Hope this helps

 

[D]

I agree with all that has been said above. On another note, when looking through the application form there doesn't seem to be anywhere to talk about 'Why CC?'. Am I just missing something, or do they only ask those sort of questions at interview? Thanks

I relayed a few of my points loosely to CC initiatives. One thing to also note - They specifically request you list the CC open day as separate in the work exp section and talk about your experience there.

 

[SLKEJRWOI97]

Anyone not in CC's targeted groups thinking of still applying? I'm not too sure whether to give it a go or not :/

 

[M777]

Anyone not in CC's targeted groups thinking of still applying? I'm not too sure whether to give it a go or not :/

Nothing to lose!

 

[JayB]

Anyone not in CC's targeted groups thinking of still applying? I'm not too sure whether to give it a go or not :/

You might as well, they never explicitly said graduates or third year students are excluded. You will regret it if you didn’t apply.