News

Daughter of Mishcon de Reya chief operating officer starts training contract at Mishcon de Reya

By on
74

It is understood that she has gone through the same recruitment process as other trainees

Mishcon de Reya’s London office

The daughter of Mishcon de Reya‘s chief operating officer has landed a training contract at Mishcon de Reya.

Bambos Georgiou is a non-lawyer partner and has held the top role at Mishcon since 1996. Now, it has emerged that Georgiou’s daughter has joined the firm’s ranks as a trainee solicitor in its London office. This morning legal blog RollonFriday reported that Georgiou junior is one of around 15 first seat trainees to join the firm this autumn, with the firm since confirming this information to Legal Cheek.

The 2019 Firms Most List

When it comes to selecting new trainees, City law firms implement rigorous multi-stage recruitment processes — and Mishcon is no different. The two-office-outfit recruits exclusively from its annual vacation scheme intake and requires wannabe lawyers to complete, among other things, two online assessments, a video interview, a case study assessment and face-to-face interview.

Legal Cheek understands that the rookie has gone through the same recruitment process as other trainees. Mishcon declined to issue a statement.

Legal Cheek’s Firms Most List 2019 shows that those who successfully navigate the recruitment process start on a salary of £42,000, rising to £45,000 in year two. Mishcon’s newly qualified (NQ) lawyers currently receive a salary of £70,000.

In a bid to avoid accusations of nepotism, many firms now adopt a blanket policy not to recruit partners’ children into trainee roles, while others will ask TC hopefuls to disclose whether they have a personal connection to anyone at the firm.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

74 Comments

BPC

Not an appropriate article. This is like setting the dogs on someone. Shame on you

(184)(40)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

lathampartner1975

I don’t condone naming the trainee but to be frank it’s embarassing that Mishcon and her father allowed this to happen. Most decent law firms don’t allow partners’ children to apply for training contacts for this exact reason.

Yes, she should not be disadvantaged by her father’s professional choices, but competition for a place at Mishcon will be fierce, and there must be over fifty other decent law firms in the City where she could have applied to. There’s no obvious reason why she had to apply to the firm where her father is COO. Of-course that looks nepotistic. In my view, Mishcon (and her father) should have know better.

(120)(12)

Anonymous

Bam.

Just Anonymous

I completely disagree.

No-one should get a position because of their parents. We all agree about that. You however appear to be arguing merely for a different kind of discrimination: that certain positions should actually be closed to people because of their parents.

I fail to see how swapping one kind of unfair discrimination with another constitutes an improvement.

I say that all people should be entitled to apply wherever they like. And provided law firms have appropriate systems in place to ensure that all candidates are objectively and independently assessed by people who do not know them personally, then that is fine.

I accept that some people may still hold irrational perceptions that people appointed under such systems may have been appointed unfairly. However, I fail to see why anyone’s career choice should be restricted by irrational perception.

Anonymous

Shouldn’t be allowed.

Full stop.

Truth serum

It happens at lot though. I benefited from it when looking for a TC, and post nq it really is who you know. I honestly think 75% of applicants via the traditional route are competing for 25% of interview places. It’s not like the old days when you could just walk into a TC and you need the grades (AAA and 2.1 from Bristol/Manchester/Exeter at least) but I know that a partner at X firm calling his buddies at 2 other firms got me two interviews. Also vac schemes are awarded to people who have commercial experience normally via internships which require contacts. Partners are under too much pressure not to help the children of clients when that is a very easy way to get work. So it’s not right but I can’t see it changing tbh.

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

Anonymous

Agreed. They refuse to name a law firm (because of damaging their sponsorship deals) but have no qualms in naming a trainee who has done nothing wrong. Definitely shame on you, LC.

Anonymous

This happens far too much in law. Sometimes to bring about change you need uncomfortable articles like this.

Anonymous

It happens far too much everywhere. Law atleast involves a tangible, intellectually demanding outcome, so the nepotism kids get weeded out eventually. Try media or academia or the arts for real honest to god widespread nepotism

Anonymous

I know of at least three people at my firm whose father is/was a partner here too – and actually lawyers, not the COO. No suggestion they didn’t go through proper channels either, and they didn’t have attack articles written about them. One has to wonder where this story came from – maybe one of her classmates is jealous and passed on the story.

I’m strongly against nepotism but you combat it by making sure there’s proper controls to stop anyone connected to a candidate from having anything to do with their application, including people in their parent’s team. If they go through the same process and come out successfully then fair enough.

Anonymous

Nah, name and shame.

The “proper controls” are pure bullshit as at the end of the day the HR gatekeepers are employees of the equity partners. You get a bunch of buzzwords and virtue signalling galore by recruitment teams and then you wonder why every trainee cohort looks exactly the same.

Hopefully more articles like this come out and clients get wind. If they get offended by it and stop providing instructions THEN the firms will change.

Barry G

So not only does LC suppress information on behalf of its sponsors, it also publishes snide non-stories about its sponsors’ competitors. Classy.

Who gives a shit if the COO’s daughter got a training contract? Way to humiliate a young female trainee who’s done nothing wrong! Cue another dose of fawning guff about women judges to get the moral licensing account back in the black.

Alex's greased up palms

Follow the money.

Anonymous

If she has gone through the same recruitment process then it’s a complete non issue. What’s the point of this article?

Anonymous

I’d be skeptical about this. There’s going through the same interview process and there’s the interviewers knowing about the connection and struggling to give honest negative feedback about the COO’s daughter. Or the graduate recruitment team being under pressure to interview because the COO (or as likely his management colleagues) saying that there’s no harm in offering an interview.

Quite honestly, I wouldn’t want to work in the same firm as one of my parents or relatives. You’d have to work with the knowledge that everyone was speculating about whether you got there on your own merits. If you don’t need help getting through a recruitment process, why not apply and get a role elsewhere?

Anonymous

Your post indicates that you’re either the trainee, wishing to protect the archaic nepotism of the system because you have someone benefited from a similar situation, or just completely naive.

She may have had the same steps as any assessment interview but we all know she wasn’t subjected to the same recruitment process.

Anonymous

No, I think you’ve misinterpreted my post. I’m not agreeing or wishing to protected the system at all – I’m being cynical about the supposed ‘same recruitment process as everyone else’. I’m saying that on paper, I’m sure the HR team can say someone has been through the same process. But in the background, GR teams and interviewers can be put under pressure to make a favourable decision.

Jeez. Now I remember why I can’t be bothered to comment most of the time.

Anonymous

Relax boss, it was meant to be a reply to the original “…what’s the point of this article?” post. I think we can all agree that if that statement is meant to be read at face value as the poster’s true opinion, then the rant is accurate.

Your points are valid too, including the sentiment about not being bothered to post here. We’re all terrible people.

Anonymous

I’m sure she did.

BPC

I also note that no single ” journalist ” had the courage to put its name to the article.

Of course if it had been one of this creep crawl creep articles my learned friend alluded to its byline would have been proudly displayed.

Anonymous

I don’t like LC lifting this story from ROF without doing any further research into her background (see ROF comments).

I hope this young lady has a verifiable CV containing a good degree from a reputable university and relevant work experience at law firms so that she can tell LC she got this on merit and they should shut up.

Anonymous

What do you mean? The arrangement (not necessarily the father or daughter) is getting frowned on in the RoF comments. And there’s nothing else there that offers any greater context.

Anonymous

Sounds like Alex’s sour grapes to me. 😂😂😂😂

Anonymous

Hahaha
Looks like Alex gave that comment a vote down 😂😂😂😂😂PMSL

Just Anonymous

Casting aspersions on the achievements of a young person yet to start their professional career – with absolutely no positive evidence of wrongdoing – is, in my opinion, completely reprehensible.

Anonymous

I do feel for the trainee, but I do know the following:

1. I would feel very uncomfortable if my firm (which is a similarish size) recruited the offspring of any senior members of staff.
2. If my parent worked at a law firm, that firm would be the last place I’d want to start my career.

If you think around these points you can see why it’s important to scrutinise firms (and chambers) for these sorts of decisions. This is an uncomfortable article because it raises uncomfortable questions. I dare say the 16th best applicant for a TC at this firm will certainly be wondering how the firm came to its decision.

Anonymous

Well said.

Alex is a noti boi

NICE STEAL ALEX

Anonymous

Stop the presses! You mean to tell me that the Legal profession has nepotism? Well I’ll be a son of a gun.

Anonymous

What many partners do is get their offspring a training contract at another firm through a buddy and return the favour to the recruiting partner at that other firm.

Anonymous

Is the daughter permitted to apply to same firm her father is COO at? Yes.

Has the firm’s trainee recruitment process been followed? Apparently so.

Where’s your story?

Anonymous

So is it hard to breathe with your head buried so far down in the sand?

Anonymous

Nonsense comment – Whilst it may not be agreeable for the firm to permit applications from the COO’s offspring, providing the rules have been followed I don’t see an issue?

Anonymous

REALLY?! Because all of documented history has told us that as long as we follow the rules, be it that of a private company or a state, there won’t be an issue! No rule has ever created a scenario that society decided was perhaps morally repugnant or even just not in tune with the times?

Is that actually a representative statement of critical thinking skills these days?

Anonymous

If your dad is a lawyer, you already have:

– more insider knowledge about the industry than any of your competition at a young age;

– the upper-middle class ‘polish’ and extra-curricular lifestyle that professional services firms have a bias towards (because no matter what graduate recruitment tell you, partners will be more interested in candidate A’s voluntary work and work experience abroad rather than candidate B’s part-time job at Tescos);

– the opportunity to get ‘informal’ work experience using your ‘networks’ during your A-levels, which means you’re miles ahead of others when applying to first and second year opportunities; and

– the likelihood of attending a top school where fees are upwards of £20k+ a year, where more than 50% of students end up going to Oxford or Cambridge.

Isn’t all this… enough? Nope – gotta continue locking out the working class kids at every opportunity. Social mobility and meritocracy in this country is a joke.

Anonymous

What do you expect lawyers to do? Not tell their kids about their work? Refuse to help them get valuable work experience? Send them to Lincoln University? I’m not saying that these kids don’t have advantages but that’s inevitable. The only way you could fix that is through the wholesale implementation of Communism. Or you could create a law that prevents parents from acting like parents and providing their kids with a helping hand

Anonymous

What a retarded argument. “You’re not allowed to make any valid criticisms about systemic inequality in society because that would be believing in communism.”

I’m perfectly allowed to point out that there’s a genuine problem with school funding in the UK and all the problems it brings, without advocating the abolition of private schools.

Get back to writing your essays, first year.

Anonymous

– not tell about their work: near impossible
– don’t help them get work exp: yes
– send them to Lincoln uni: where they go is up to the kids and their achievement; hopefully, they can do the work to get into a good RG and get into a good career on their own merits

Anonymous

First – Their mum could be a lawyer you absolute fool

Second – Your logic is bullshit. So, because I have PARENTS who are mechanics and I knew how to strip an engine at 7, it’s unfair? Boo hoo.

Third – get a life

Anonymous

Stop down voting me Alex

Anonymous

FFS you bunch of miserable socialists.

When I last checked MdR was a privately owned company and therefore can do exactly what they like so long as its legal.

Are you weirdos now going to say that the Diversity Commissars should stomp into any firm/company ending with the name “…and Sons” and arrest them?

If you don’t like the notion of giving your own children a helping hand in life then go and live in some Utopian Marxist Paradise.

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

Anonymous

Publishing this girl’s name is appalling. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You have put a cross on her back for absolutely no reason. For all you know she’s going to be an absolutely fantastic trainee and solicitor.

By publishing this article you have ensured that anyone who Google’s her name for the next ten years will assume that she has not secured her TC on the basis of merit and (as you allude) due to the fact that her relative works there, which is grossly unfair.

I hope you are pleased with yourselves.

Great Directing Professor Royal

She has a right to be forgotten. Maybe.

Anonymous

“For all you know she’s going to be an absolutely fantastic trainee and solicitor”

The whole point of a fair and unbiased recruitment process is to ensure people who receive offers are already known to be a high calibre individual. If the recruiters had your attitude and gave her the benefit of the doubt because of family ties then that process has failed.

Enemies in High Places

Personally I would be concerned if I had anything to do with writing this article (or the one on RoF)

Anonymous

High places ??? It’s only Mischons ffs. Vindicative and litigious, yes; high, hardly.

Anonymous

So Legal Cheek is willing and able to name and shame the daughter of a COO while at the same time protecting the name of a Magic Circle firm who was recently reported on for overworking trainees the day after Mental Health Awareness Day? This is journalism at its finest, clearly. What a joke.

Anonymous

Agreed, but it was not a Magic Circle firm.

Anonymous

Thought it was CC?

Anonymous

It was Bakers

Anonymous

It’s a relief to know that neither of my parents is likely to be accused by the press of nepotism on my behalf but, nevertheless, I do wish they were both alive, so I could reassure them.

Anonymous

Heh

Anonymous

“while others will ask TC hopefuls to disclose whether they have a personal connection to anyone at the firm”

This is nothing to do with avoiding nepotism. It is purely so HR can quiz the individual at the firm about the applicant.

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

Anonymous

Then that deserves an article too. Put them on the spot.

Anonymous

I work there and don’t believe that’s true…who is it? I can’t think of anyone from the recent trainee cohorts. Which office?

Anonymous

London office. Not going to name the person on here.

Anonymous

Still don’t think this is true. When did this person join?

Anonymous

She is the daughter of the managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office. I’m starting to wonder if you actually work at the London office as everyone knows about this…

Law student

This is a disgusting article! Not only do you have to work hard to get there but you have to work harder to stay there! How dare you try and ruin a trainees career before it’s begun for NO reason.

Shame on you!!

Anonymous

Appalling article. This is a young person, most like around 21 years old setting out on their career. As if it isn’t hard enough starting work in a competitive London law firm, to have multiple national legal articles published about you at such a young age, without warning and without doing anything wrong is outrageous. As you said, this person has gone through the exact same recruitment as all other candidates and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they were employed because of their father.

Imagine going into work on Friday morning, looking forward to the weekend when suddenly you get a call out of the blue from HR or worse, your colleagues and seeing this article. Especially at a time when the mental health and well-being of junior lawyers is supposed to be high on the agenda – especially with Legal Cheek publishing multiple articles on the topic and condoning better mental health practices at law firms, this stinks of hypocrisy. If you want to support the mental health of young lawyers then you shouldn’t post such articles which are clearly damaging to an individuals health and well-being. SHAME

Anonymous

You don’t have the stomach for the legal profession.

Baronness Diane Abbott QC FRSA

This may be a young person, but she’s old enough to make her own choices of where to start her career, yet she chose the one firm out of thousands where her father is COO and therefore where she will undoubtedly get preferential treatment over her peers – this does not simply relate to recruitment. (Perhaps she went through the “same” recruitment process, but who other than HR can tell?) What I am saying however is: will her supervising partner/associate think twice before chewing her out/giving bad feedback? Yes. No doubt.

The fact of the matter is even without the article, there will be the whispers and looks from her colleagues at the firm because of the shared last name. This article merely makes it known to people outside the firm. As for mental health, that is no defense at all to.

Anonymous

It’s a shame that the identity of the trainee has effectively been revealed. This is a person at the start of their career and a junior employee. The COO is hardly going to be line managing her in any meaningful sense. Mischons are obviously happy with the decision and don’t have an issue with it. It’s really an issue for the firm.

Anonymous

Where did ROF get the story from?

Anonymous

Just because someone has gone through the same process does not mean they have been held to the same standard as other applicants.

It is likely that those giving feedback on the vacation scheme are probably constrained in providing negative feedback because of her father. Mishcon is an ABS and the COO is a partner.

Deed U No

Neopotism

Shame – Protection of the public and the profession’s reputation must be safeguarded

Random passer-by

She is a trainee. There is almost zero expectation from the clients regarding her work, you don’t do anything as a trainee other than send emails. There is zero risk for a firm taking on trainees when there are other commercial reasons for doing so. The only issue is that it is patently unfair, but then again life isn’t fair.

Also those saying she got outed, i’m pretty sure the rumor mills at her firm have been doing the rounds since she set foot there. People love to gossip and make up rumors so the fact she set foot in that firm would have started stories (true or untrue) from the main gossip merchants. She just needs to complete her training and then move on.

Anonymous

This website is a disgrace. This article is a disgrace. This happens at almost every firm – why not do some real research and find out a percentage of trainees with familial contacts at firms – you love ‘most lists’.

I wonder if you’ve reduced Mishcon’s standing in the eyes of applicants here.. do you have any substantive evidence the process was unfair?

Fuck off LC you c*nts

Hear hear. LC is such a bunch of paid-up shysters it beggars belief. The practice of hiring mates’ kids goes part and parcel with City law firms, and always has. Law firms big and small continue to do so every year.

Anonymous

Lols so why are you here and writing a comment about it. Grow up.

Join the conversation

Related Stories