75% of trainees ‘hidden from view’

_"_{The missing 73.6%}_{" Coming soon to Netflix?}

Almost three-quarters of trainees at the UK's top 50 law firms don’t appear on their firms' websites, a report has revealed, which calls for better visibility of trainees.

TBD Marketing has calculated that there are 4,901 trainees at the top 50 UK firms, but "3,605 of them do not appear on their firm’s website" meaning that "73.6% of all trainees are effectively invisible online."

The report discovered that the results were particularly skewed by the largest firms. None of the top ten firms by headcount, include their trainees on their website, while "among firms ranked 36th to 50th, 79% include their trainees on their website." The report noted that Eversheds Sutherland is the largest firm to publish trainee profiles.

Whilst partners and associates are splashed over the websites, when it came to trainees, often "their faces are missing from the story the firm tells about itself," despite being billed to clients at an average between £120 and £150 per hour, stated TBD.

The report sought to rebut the argument that firms might keep trainees off their websites so they won’t be nabbed by recruiters, noting that "every trainee is already on LinkedIn, where, presumably, they can be headhunted."

Simon Marshall, founder of TBD said: "Law firms like to say their people are their greatest asset. Walk into any office or click onto any homepage and you’ll find words about inclusion, belonging, and opportunity. Yet look a little closer and you start to see who’s visible and who isn’t."

"Representation matters. Visibility is the first step towards inclusion," Marshall said. "When people see themselves reflected, they believe they belong. When clients see full teams rather than just partners, they understand that value comes from many hands, not just senior ones, and strong relationships can be built at all levels".

Sarah McColl, a media content lawyer at the BBC, supported the report, particularly when it came to her own experience: “If I want to find out more about a trainee at a firm I am working with (or a trainee on the other side of a matter) I am often forced to use LinkedIn. Firms are missing out on visibility, web traffic and on a consistent brand experience. Instead, people are forced to turn to social media to find out about their junior staff."

Mishcon is one City firm that does include its trainees. Tom Wicksteed, early careers manager, commented: "Visibility for trainees is a fundamental part of inclusion, not a branding extra. When junior lawyers appear on our website, it signals that they belong at the firm, that their contribution is valued, and that their future is being actively invested in. It also matters to our clients, who increasingly expect to have visibility of the real people delivering their work.”

One possible reason for firms not to make their trainees visible, might be that it could be a bit awkward for everyone if they’re not retained.

But what do you think? Cast your vote in the poll below:

Loading…

The RollOnFriday Newsletter

Comments

“Representation matters. Visibility is the first step towards inclusion”.

Grow up. They are trainees earning £50k straight out of university who still need to ask the PAs how to work a printer, not some marginalised group fighting for their lives.

Hard agree with PP. The inclusivity and visibility bleatings are risible. Trainees are changing every six months dd fodder; it would be far more sensible to list the experienced PAs who not only know more than the trainees, but are gateways to the senior lawyers you are trying to reach.

Trainees want to be internet famous? Let them post TikToks.

Will nobody think of the poor children...

I think things are more nuanced

probably depends on who is doing a lot of the work

in a lot of smaller law firms, it is not uncommon actually for trainees to be running a lot of files and claims themselves. technically all under partner supervision, but it is often the case that such supervision is notional and limited and a partner’s name is on the retainer letter for PI purposes, in those cases, the trainers front and centre and effectively the lawyer to the client - they maybe should be on the website. In smaller firms as well, it’s quite common for trainees to stay longer than six months, off the back of prior paralegal experience in that area, and to only ever do two areas of law rather than 4-6 month seats

That’s very different to the situation in big law firms where because of the size of the files and profiles of the clients, the reality is that the role of the trainees is essentially being a cog in the machine under a very close supervision from and directed to do things by associates or partners. in those cases, it’s harder to justify the trainee’s profile on the website especially if they rotate seats frequently

which rationale client looks on a website and thinks let's contact a 23 year old trainee solicitor ??

I agree with 10:06.

Moreover, just from the admin perspective, at the large firms it's hard enough keeping track of associate profiles, given they jump around every year after bonus season. Our marketing team is stretched enough as it is. It's just not feasible to update the profiles of however many trainees every 3-6 months when their seat changes.

For me, it was also part of the process and reward of qualifying. I was officially a lawyer and (while v junior) I felt that I was now properly part of the team and had earned my place.

Poor Simon, he's got to find some old tosh like this to drive LinkedIn Engagement every week.

I pity the poor sod, he's got to get himself out of bed every day to write this kind of dross. I know it's the life he chose and all that, but even a heart as cold as mine feels a bit sorry for him.

Next week: Simon Marshall reveals who has managed to make it into his invented list of neediest attention seeking lawyers on LinkedIn, so that they can jealously compare their numbers against each other while nobody else gives a toss.

I don’t let associates have a web profile until they pass their probation - why should trainees get one?

lol yeah firms should give trainees profiles and change them every few months due to seat changes sure, and say what?

"Alice is a trainee. She graduated from Durham and likes dogs and long walks. She is currently doing her corporate seat and is drafting her first SPA."

"John graduated from Exeter and is a third seat trainee currently in litigation. He has done a first draft of a letter before action."

srsly this is risible

I am over TBD marketing. Not every solicitor with a linkedin profile is an influencer.

"Henry graduated from Manchester, he is currently in his third seat in our litigation department. He likes reading, track cycling, being kept chained to his desk like a gimp for twenty four hours a day while Senior Associates take turns to beast him with tasks that he doesn't understand in order to meet deadlines that don't really matter, and thanking people for the opportunity once they're done with him.

Or at least, that's what he said to us in his application form for an NQ position."

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE TRAINEES!!!

This is a non issue and most probably a publicity stunt to promote the marketing firm itself, and look - it worked.

Next week's report: "Paralegals are people too". Pencilled in for February: "why the work experience kid deserves a press release and a web profile". No doubt ROF will cover both slavishly.

So what's the view when solicitors, associates, senior associates, or partners don't make website? Is that still just "the admin is too hard"?

What utter tosh! A dumb non-story, self-promotional wheeze for the marketing firm involved - and ROF fell for it. For shame. Do better!

@Anonymous 23 January 26 09:25

I am puzzled you hire trainees who don't even know how to operate a printer, in the year of our Lord 2026. Are you sure they are potty trained?? And why on earth would anyone ever hire trainees who are so monumentally inept that they are unable to work a printer?

@10:40 what rational client looks at the firm website cold and decides on that basis to make a cold approach to a lawyer they've picked out? No rational corporate client, that's for sure. They either have a pre-existing relationship with someone else at the firm, a word of mouth recommendation or (at a stretch) look up a lawyer on Chambers or Legal500.

Firm websites are designed to be as bland and inoffensive as possible: you have to have one, and it's a bit weird if someone you've been recommended to isn't on it. But that's it. They're a checklist tick, not a marketing tool.

From an admin perspective, I can't imagine a more high cost, low outcome move than putting trainees on the website.

Almost identical bios, and presumably needing to change details every six months when they change seat, only for them to potentially leave at qualification.

My firm takes a 25+ trainees twice a year, so you'd need some poor marketing person to spend a good chunk of their time editing those.

Just use LinkedIn as your website bio trainees...