Aspiring solicitor claims training contract rejection over ‘political views’

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

7

Reddit post spotlights vac scheme etiquette

Big Ben clock tower and Parliament
An aspiring solicitor has claimed that expressing their support for the Conservative Party during a recent vacation scheme may have cost them a training contract.

Taking to the popular r/uklaw message board on Reddit, the poster says that they completed a vac scheme at “top City firm” and received glowing feedback regarding the work they completed.

Despite this, the aspiring solicitor says they were unsuccessful in converting their VS into a TC, as graduate recruitment felt that other candidates were a “better fit”.

The poster goes on to offer their own assessment of what could have potentially cost them a golden ticket, revealing that they believe it comes down to their “political views”.

 The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

The post continues: “The VS coincided with the general election in July, which led to me and a few others discussing the election prior to a grad recruitment event. I openly vote Conservative, and when people spoke about wanting Labour to win, I said that it would be a disaster for the country and that Tory leadership would provide stability (seems I was right with those winter fuel payments).”

The Reddit user goes on to say that their comments received a “backlash” from fellow vacation schemers and even appeared to attract a “judgmental look” from a member of the grad rec team.

While the aspiring solicitor speculates about the reasons for their rejection, the post has sparked a discussion on whether it’s appropriate or sensible to discuss politics during what is essentially a two-week job interview.

“Isn’t it a pretty common sense rule not to talk about politics at work?” one poster responded. “I feel like the company might have been more put off by the fact that you were talking about it at all than your political opinion itself?”

Another user suggested that this was likely the reason for the rejection, “but not because you vote Conservative, more likely due to arguing with colleagues in a workplace environment”.

Another commenter claimed the whole thing is “troll post” and that everyone falling for it was showing a lack of “critical thinking”.

The original poster concludes by questioning whether there’s anything they can do to challenge the decision. “It doesn’t appear fair if this is the reason,” they say.

7 Comments

Anon

They learned a valuable lesson – never express strong political views at work – especially with people you don’t know well. Same goes in front of clients, you can lose the firm work if you offend them and that includes over cultural sensitivities. Soft skills 101.

Hmmm

Given many law firms openly employ or retain the services of ex cabinet from all political cloth – I doubt this is the sole reason for the lack of offer.

Macs vac scheme explicitly makes a point of having you meet Gauke and discuss his perspectives on tax, party politics etc which lead to some spirited debate afterwards among vac schemers – to my knowledge none of the political chat impacted final offers

Starmer's Personal Shopper

I doubt that expressing his support for the Conservative Party in a level-headed manner cost him a TC. Graduate Recruitment do not care who you vote for. However, being drawn into arguments about your political views at work, whatever they may be, is a bad idea and shows poor judgement.

Anon

Regardless of what the opinion was – I would run a mile if I was at a work mixer and heard the conversation take a heavily opinionated turn.

Sometimes you have to bite your tongue and engage in ‘corporate smarming’.

The author of the reddit post would be wise to separate ‘what was said’ vs ‘how/why it was said’.

Just Anonymous

First, a disclaimer. We do not know the facts here. It is possible that this poster is completely deluded (or otherwise full of the proverbial) and that they failed to get a TC for completely legitimate and fair reasons.

That said, assuming their account accurate (and that is a big assumption) I think that many of the comments, both here and on Reddit, are missing the point.

The point is that this individual was engaged in a discussion with other vac schemers, who were advocating for Labour in the election.

The implication of the post is that these individuals have suffered no adverse consequences at all for expressing their pro-Labour views. (Obviously, if I am wrong and these vac schemers were also not taken on, then that completely destroys the complaint).

It is no answer to this situation to say “don’t express strong political opinions at work” if Labour supporters are free to express their political opinions at work without adverse consequence. That is unfair and discriminatory.

I stress again that this all assumes that this individual is giving an accurate account, which they may very well not be.

Anonymous

You were rejected for low EQ buddy.

Mayjohnsontrusssunakstability

To be fair, saying that a Tory government would provide stability is not a red flag because of political views but a red flag that someone has very little connection with reality.

Join the conversation