Family connection unknown
Linklaters has defended its approach to trainee recruitment after it emerged that the child of a member of the firm’s senior leadership team secured a training contract with the Magic Circle giant, with no one realising the family connection.
The unusual situation arose because the unnamed child, who has since started their training contract with the firm, goes by a different surname to their high-ranking parent.
An anonymous source who spoke to RollOnFriday, which first reported on the family connection, appeared to accept that the rookie in question might be Magic Circle material regardless, claiming that they went through the process “largely anonymously” and “perform[ed] exceptionally well”.
A Linklaters spokesperson assured Legal Cheek that everything was above board, stressing that “no one involved in assessing the candidate knew of the connection.”
“They applied through our standard graduate recruitment track and were assessed against the same criteria by the same panel as every other candidate in their intake,” the spokesperson continued. “They were offered a training contract on merit.”
City firms take differing approaches to recruiting the children of partners or other senior figures. Some impose a strict ban, keen to avoid situations accusations of nepotism and bias during the recruitment process. Others are more relaxed, focusing on an individual’s skills and attributes as a potential trainee, irrespective of who their mum or dad is.
Linklaters appears to fall into the latter. “We don’t exclude candidates because of who they’re related to,” the spokesperson continued. “We aim to recruit and develop the best people, and that only works if our recruitment process is open to everyone.”
While this isn’t the first time a law firm has hit headlines for recruiting the family member of a senior figure within it, the Linklaters situation stands out given that nobody involved in the recruitment process was aware of the connection.
This is perhaps understandable given the change of surname and the fact that the firm handles thousands of applications each year and is one of the biggest trainee recruiters in the City, with The Legal Cheek Firms Most List 2026 showing it joint top for TC numbers at around 100 a year, level with fellow Magic Circle player Clifford Chance.
Nepotism is rife in the legal profession. Of course they knew. They just didn’t think it would be detected.
surprised that they didn’t just get a partner friend in another law firm to employ their kid and employ theirs in return. This is what happens in most law firms.
As a lawyer with no family ties in law and parents who did not go to university, I’m not really against this.
I’m not surprised that the child of a senior leadership team at a magic circle firm has performed well enough to secure a TC. They have almost certainly been raised to be a high performer.
It would be more of an issue if a senior leadership’s child was rubbish and got in through the back door.
There will still be bias. Lots of top performers apply. The only way to avoid this is to just straight up not accept family hires. There’s hundreds of other firms to apply to
I agree on a matter of merit and performance they obtained the TC by going through the normal procedure. I doubt HR really knew. In saying that, I think it should be mandatory to disclose whether a candidate is indeed related to a senior member of the firm. And in instances where such individuals succeed, I think this should be clearly offset by employing a candidate who simply doesn’t come from the same background – e.g. state school educated, first generation at uni, someone who doesn’t have a week’s work experience with mum or dad.
I appreciate the sentiment but I’m not sure firms should “offset” hiring a partner’s child by hiring non-privileged candidate.
That feels insincere and almost performative like the firm is only hiring a non-privileged candidate to make up for nepotism rather than actual merit.
I think the problem is to remove any reference to where people went to schools and university. I was shocked when I discovered how many people in my cohort were privately educated. Your parent’s wealth should not have an impact on your ability to get a TC in my book.
Fair points indeed. I don’t mind if it is performative in some way as at least the outcome of representation will be there. It was a very finger in the air suggestion. I just want to see council estate kids get in the door and receive mentorship.
I think blind CVs etc help, but ultimately the nepo babies still have a level of access to the profession that gives them the edge regardless. I think that’s why positive action is needed in some respect to get to a better place. I do think HR should be given some credit that, unless the partners enforce a policy of oxbridge/private educated only, they do stick to the recruitment mechanics and take what’s on paper out of it. I don’t work in graduate recruitment so I really don’t know. But I guess your point about private educated etc is telling.
Do you not have to declare connections/contacts at the firm, familial or otherwise, during the application process? Seems sus…
Nepotism by way of hiring a partner’s kid isn’t really a thing in large firms. Grad rec teams tend to actively dissuade that practice. Those who’ve been around long enough will have heard stories of FBD giving TCs to Slaughter’s partners’ kids and vice versa.
Way more prevalent is giving work experience to individuals that ‘just happen to be’ a major client’s kid. Or, within firms, partners pushing for favourable treatment of juniors they know outside of work (e.g. secondments).
Both still extremely unfair but not quite the same. We’re better off focusing on these very real issues rather than the nepotistic hiring bogeyman.
That’s what happens. No point moaning about it. The do-gooder leftists’ answer to everything they perceive as social injustice is a raft of statutes and regulations that achieve nothing and cost the nation dearly.
I wouldn’t really care about this except for the fact that Linklaters’ TC application process is incredibly opaque.
I recall time spent at Withers in the early 2010s when every other trainee could be identified to be the son or daughter of either a partner or a client!
It will all be irrelevant as AI gathers pace in law and other over regulated professions.