Kennedys SQE Recruitment

[aspiringsolicitor42]

I feel obligated to warn future applicants about my experience with Kennedys’ SQE Graduate Apprenticeship recruitment process for the London PEC programme — an experience which has been, frankly, appalling from start to finish.

The process dragged on for nearly six months, involving an application form, online assessments, a video interview, an assessment centre, a senior associate interview, and finally a partner interview. Each stage demanded substantial preparation, commitment, and emotional investment. Candidates were repeatedly reassured that timelines would be communicated clearly and outcomes provided promptly.

The reality could not have been further from the truth.

Following the final partner interview, which was presented as the “final stage” after being told I had “excelled in all aspects” of the process up to that point, communications completely collapsed. Weeks passed without any updates, despite repeated assurances that “decisions would be made soon.”

Candidates were kept in the dark for over two months, with constantly shifting goalposts (“end of this week,” then “end of next week,” then “end of next week” again — repeated endlessly). No transparency. No accountability. No respect for the time and careers of the individuals who had invested so much in the process.

When an outcome finally came, it was a cold, generic rejection email offering no meaningful feedback whatsoever. No acknowledgment of the ridiculous delays. No apology for the emotional strain caused. No demonstration of the “values” Kennedys claims to promote.

After six months of effort, candidates — many of whom had adjusted their lives around the possibility of this opportunity — were discarded like afterthoughts.

This entire process reflects an astonishing level of incompetence, disorganisation, and disdain for candidates. It raises serious questions about how Kennedys values its people — if this is how they treat future lawyers, how can current employees and clients expect to be treated?

Given the experience, it is clear that Kennedys’ polished marketing is nothing more than a facade. Behind the branding lies a firm that does not respect time, commitment, or basic professional standards. Candidates deserve far better.

If you are considering applying to Kennedys, think twice. There are plenty of firms that not only offer excellent training but also treat candidates — and people generally — with basic human decency.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I can understand the frustrations that come with a prolonged recruitment process and one where you are particularly emotionally invested in the firm/employer.

However, as a recruiter, a lot of what you have said about this process to me feels like things that just can happen, unfortunately. For instance, many firms these days have more than four stages, especially for a training contract. The number of stages and the types of assessments you have listed are quite common for many firms. I think the final round senior associate and partner interviews are also more likely to happen where this is a very specific programme being recruited for. Unlike a more generalist training contract where you can be assessed by a range of associates/partners across the firm, this specific programme is going to need more individual input from the lawyers in that specific practice area/department.

We also find that recruitment processes can easily take six months. I don't think Kennedys are unique in taking this long and we hear of many candidates who have had similar periods of time completing assessments or waiting back to hear from them. With six stages, even if there was only two weeks to complete each stage, that would be 12 weeks or 3 months. So it is quite easy to rack up more time than this, especially if they need to be more flexible and provide more time for candidates to complete each stage.

I can't say this is what has happened for sure with Kennedys, but I would also expect that recent economic turmoil could have delayed recruitment decisions. This year, recruitment has been quite late across a number of firms for both vacation schemes and training contracts - the whole of the TCLA team have noted this and found it quite surprising. My theory is the economic disruption since the new year has contributed to this and that many firms have been a little more cautious in progressing candidates and making offers. I think about previous recruitment cycles that I have been involved in where there was similar general economic concerns in the UK and global economy, and in those years we pushed recruitment back by weeks or months because it made sense for us to make a more informed decision when we had a better idea what was going on with the economy.

Waiting two months post final stage could be down to a whole range of factors, including other candidates. Recruiters don't want to turn down candidates in situations where the candidates have done well in the assessments but other candidates are preferred. I have been in situations, especially for specific programmes where I was recruiting for 1-2 roles, where I have been waiting for the first offered candidates to accept and sign contracts etc before turning down other candidates.

Recruiters/HR know that these aspects of having a drawn out recruitment process are not ideal. They know they risk losing candidates if too much time is taken. However, there will be certain things outside of their control and also things that will change that mean their original/expected deadlines cannot be met. I have been in these "shifting goalposts" situations time and time again but it would have been harsh to have been labelled with some of the characteristics you have mentioned above.

 

[sibs23]

I feel obligated to warn future applicants about my experience with Kennedys’ SQE Graduate Apprenticeship recruitment process for the London PEC programme — an experience which has been, frankly, appalling from start to finish.

The process dragged on for nearly six months, involving an application form, online assessments, a video interview, an assessment centre, a senior associate interview, and finally a partner interview. Each stage demanded substantial preparation, commitment, and emotional investment. Candidates were repeatedly reassured that timelines would be communicated clearly and outcomes provided promptly.

The reality could not have been further from the truth.

Following the final partner interview, which was presented as the “final stage” after being told I had “excelled in all aspects” of the process up to that point, communications completely collapsed. Weeks passed without any updates, despite repeated assurances that “decisions would be made soon.”

Candidates were kept in the dark for over two months, with constantly shifting goalposts (“end of this week,” then “end of next week,” then “end of next week” again — repeated endlessly). No transparency. No accountability. No respect for the time and careers of the individuals who had invested so much in the process.

When an outcome finally came, it was a cold, generic rejection email offering no meaningful feedback whatsoever. No acknowledgment of the ridiculous delays. No apology for the emotional strain caused. No demonstration of the “values” Kennedys claims to promote.

After six months of effort, candidates — many of whom had adjusted their lives around the possibility of this opportunity — were discarded like afterthoughts.

This entire process reflects an astonishing level of incompetence, disorganisation, and disdain for candidates. It raises serious questions about how Kennedys values its people — if this is how they treat future lawyers, how can current employees and clients expect to be treated?

Given the experience, it is clear that Kennedys’ polished marketing is nothing more than a facade. Behind the branding lies a firm that does not respect time, commitment, or basic professional standards. Candidates deserve far better.

If you are considering applying to Kennedys, think twice. There are plenty of firms that not only offer excellent training but also treat candidates — and people generally — with basic human decency.

I am glad I am not the only one who felt this way. I thought their AC was very impersonal and "tick boxy" compared to other firms. Speaks volumes about the firm IMO. The lack of transparency about the number of spaces actually available and the surprise additional final interview stage was pretty rubbish, and then to top it off with 0 feedback was cherry on the cake.

 

[aspiringsolicitor42]

I am glad I am not the only one who felt this way. I thought their AC was very impersonal and "tick boxy" compared to other firms. Speaks volumes about the firm IMO. The lack of transparency about the number of spaces actually available and the surprise additional final interview stage was pretty rubbish, and then to top it off with 0 feedback was cherry on the cake.

Hiya - thanks for sharing your experience. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought the firm treated candidates in a very impersonal way. I would recommend asking for feedback however (even if you just want to forget about it at this point!). But yes, I agree - to not even offer feedback in the rejection email and to not even apologise for the delays is ridiculous. I wish you all the best with your future applications and your career however - I’m sure an offer will arrive soon!

 

[aspiringsolicitor42]

I can understand the frustrations that come with a prolonged recruitment process and one where you are particularly emotionally invested in the firm/employer.

However, as a recruiter, a lot of what you have said about this process to me feels like things that just can happen, unfortunately. For instance, many firms these days have more than four stages, especially for a training contract. The number of stages and the types of assessments you have listed are quite common for many firms. I think the final round senior associate and partner interviews are also more likely to happen where this is a very specific programme being recruited for. Unlike a more generalist training contract where you can be assessed by a range of associates/partners across the firm, this specific programme is going to need more individual input from the lawyers in that specific practice area/department.

We also find that recruitment processes can easily take six months. I don't think Kennedys are unique in taking this long and we hear of many candidates who have had similar periods of time completing assessments or waiting back to hear from them. With six stages, even if there was only two weeks to complete each stage, that would be 12 weeks or 3 months. So it is quite easy to rack up more time than this, especially if they need to be more flexible and provide more time for candidates to complete each stage.

I can't say this is what has happened for sure with Kennedys, but I would also expect that recent economic turmoil could have delayed recruitment decisions. This year, recruitment has been quite late across a number of firms for both vacation schemes and training contracts - the whole of the TCLA team have noted this and found it quite surprising. My theory is the economic disruption since the new year has contributed to this and that many firms have been a little more cautious in progressing candidates and making offers. I think about previous recruitment cycles that I have been involved in where there was similar general economic concerns in the UK and global economy, and in those years we pushed recruitment back by weeks or months because it made sense for us to make a more informed decision when we had a better idea what was going on with the economy.

Waiting two months post final stage could be down to a whole range of factors, including other candidates. Recruiters don't want to turn down candidates in situations where the candidates have done well in the assessments but other candidates are preferred. I have been in situations, especially for specific programmes where I was recruiting for 1-2 roles, where I have been waiting for the first offered candidates to accept and sign contracts etc before turning down other candidates.

Recruiters/HR know that these aspects of having a drawn out recruitment process are not ideal. They know they risk losing candidates if too much time is taken. However, there will be certain things outside of their control and also things that will change that mean their original/expected deadlines cannot be met. I have been in these "shifting goalposts" situations time and time again but it would have been harsh to have been labelled with some of the characteristics you have mentioned above.

Things that ‘just can happen’ is not a valid excuse and it is up to recruitment/early careers teams to adapt effectively to these changes - whether economic, systemic etc.

I think you’re reply is typical of legal recruitment in that they are more than happy to give generic responses and rest on their laurels by blaming external factors instead of actually figuring out what the problem is and acting on it.

You are coming from the perspective of a recruiter, which is fine. However you are looking at it from a top down perspective, you don’t understand the personal experience of someone like myself who has religiously applied for the last 5 years and had no success. So with all due respect, your opinion isn’t that valuable here.

I’m sure if you ask a lot of candidates who made it to final interview and received a rejection, that their opinion/view would be very similar to mine. We are becoming increasingly frustrated with the bottleneck and the failure of law firms to address this issue. Candidates who would have excelled as a trainee 5 years ago, now barely even get a look-in. Law firms have been complacent about this for years and recruitment teams even more so.

Candidates are expected to jump through all kinds of hoops throughout recruitment processes and the fact that recruitment teams can’t demonstrate a fractional amount of that commitment back to candidates (especially final candidates) is disgraceful in my opinion.

You’ve also misunderstood - my issue is not so much about the delays or the length of the process either (I have made it to plenty of final interviews). It is the conduct of the graduate recruitment team in the final stages of the process that is particularly disappointing - namely by not providing proactive updates, ignoring candidates, sending out generic rejection emails to final candidates and failing to apologise or even acknowledge the extensive delays.

Law firms need to be better in terms of candidate recruitment - simple as that.

It’s time to stop making excuses about these things, because candidates certainly do not. Or if they do, like I have, their view gets invalidated by someone who has no personal experience of it themselves.