- Feb 17, 2018
- 4,719
- 8,627
Had a couple of people reach out after being upset by this. Just a few thoughts:
1. If you weren't one of the people who were offered a training contract, that's going to feel really tough (particularly because I believe some learned that it was a 'majority' through Legal Cheek). It's completely fair to be upset by this, I would be too.
2. Just because you weren't offered a TC doesn't mean you're a weak candidate, even though it may feel that way. The standards for assessing VS v TC are quite different and it's likely the case that the firm just needs more time to see you in action before it can offer you a TC.
3. It's far from ideal, but you still have the winter vac scheme! That's now on your CV, plus you've still got the opportunity to convert that into your TC offer.
Please take this advice to heart.
I wouldn’t necessarily believe crude language like “majority” from a site like Legal Cheek. There is no confirmation of this from the firm and there is no substance on how they have been informed it is a majority. I suspect this is journalistic BS!
Given some people would have already been offered from their 2019 winter vacation scheme, I doubt it is a majority.
Just to add to this, Hogan Lovells recently confirmed to a candidate that it wasn't a 'majority' that were offered TCs. I just want to highlight the importance of questioning whether the information you read on these sites is all true, especially where it's user-reported or supposedly 'coming from an insider'. That doesn't just apply to sites like Legal Cheek either but here too!