Aspiring solicitor claims training contract rejection over ‘political views’

Reddit post spotlights vac scheme etiquette

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 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.