Firms reject candidates on the basis of their accents, research suggests

Top London law firms are hiring graduates with ‘smart’ accents and public school backgrounds because they think they are better for their image than working-class candidates, new research has suggested.

Suitable white working-class applicants are being passed over for jobs in favour of middle-class graduates of all ethnicities from elite universities, according to a study of 130 staff at five prominent London firms by City University’s Centre for Professional Service Firms at Cass Business School.

The five firms all had diversity policies, and had successfully recruited ethnic minority candidates, but rejected able working-class students because their appearance or accent was not thought ‘smart’ enough, the research found.

Dr Louise Ashley, leading the study, said that the firms want to preserve their ‘upmarket brand’.

She said: ‘Focusing on ethnicity enables law firms to boast excellence, or at the very least improve diversity outcomes, despite the fact that they have continued to recruit using precisely the same types of class privilege that have always been in operation.’

Ashley said that one partner told her: ‘There was one guy who came to interviews who was a real Essex barrow boy, and he had a very good CV, he was a clever chap, but we just felt that there’s no way we could employ him. I just thought: putting him in front of a client – you just couldn’t do it. I do know though that if you’re really pursuing a diversity policy you shouldn’t see him as rough round the edges, I should just see him as different.’

Ashley reported that another firm changed its strategy to hire almost exclusively from Oxbridge. A partner in the firm told her: ‘We’re just a much smarter firm now.’

A senior associate in another firm told Ashley: ‘Image is everything in the law – it’s all we’ve got, our product. What’s the point of bringing these people along… to bring your diversity figures up? You’re only going to end up firing them.’

Ashley said that although the firms are publicly committed to diversity in the workplace, almost all of their lawyers came from more privileged backgrounds. At two of the firms, more than 70% of lawyers were privately educated, while more than 90% of lawyers surveyed had fathers who had been managers or senior officials.

Ashley said: ‘Until relatively recently, law firms have tended to focus on ethnicity rather than social inclusion in their recruitment, and they have made some progress in this respect. The strong consensus in this and other research was that middle-class ethnic minority candidates with the right education – and the right accent – would not necessarily experience discrimination, at entry level at least.

‘As it is, on either a personal or collective basis, individuals within the profession have little incentive to introduce a more progressive approach which would genuinely recognise and reward difference on the basis of social class, since the inclusion of lawyers who are visibly working class, or have regional accents, is perceived to threaten both their brand and their bottom line.

‘By not taking well-qualified people with working-class accents and by overlooking candidates with good degrees from new universities, law firms are arguably missing out on the skills and experience different people can bring.

‘They are contributing to the situation outlined in the Milburn Report to government last year which said that the professions have exemplified the old notion that a limited pool of talent was enough to get by on. This is recognised as a problem by some progressive firms, particularly those outside the legal sector, with some acknowledging that their most successful leaders include individuals who would not have gained access to the profession today on the basis of their academic qualifications.

‘A genuine commitment to diversity and inclusion as both a commercial and ethical imperative would mean that many more law firms go much further in opening their doors to a wider pool of talent.’

Ashley’s findings are published tomorrow in the Work, Employment and Society journal.