Reddit post sparks heated debate over LinkedIn etiquette among aspiring lawyers
A Reddit user claiming to be a future trainee solicitor at a top US law firm in London has published a detailed list of “ground rules” aimed at aspiring lawyers who contact them on LinkedIn for application help. Posting under the username WorryBackground7075, the user said they were usually willing to assist but found that “the way some approach it is incredibly grating”.
In the post, the user set out several dos and don’ts for those seeking informal guidance. They began by discouraging applicants from expecting free proofreading. The poster said they would not review full applications for people they did not know, noting that such requests were something they would “probably only do” for close friends. They added that the lack of an existing relationship meant they were not prepared to commit the time required to read detailed submissions.
Another concern involved candidates seeking insider information on assessments. The user said applicants should not ask for previous video interview questions, arguing that the request was “dishonest” and did not reflect how interview cycles typically change. They also pointed out that they could not recall specific questions from an interview completed more than a year earlier.
Embed from Getty Images
The user also criticised messages requesting ready-made answers to motivation questions. They reported being asked why they personally wanted to join their future firm, emphasising that such answers “should be personal” and tailored to an individual’s own interests. The poster said that relying on someone else’s motivations would not make an application “sound genuine and effective”.
However, the user said that the behaviour they found most frustrating was a lack of courtesy from some applicants. They described instances in which they had responded to questions and received no acknowledgement in return. “If you ask someone for help and they respond, thank them,” they wrote, adding that providing advice was optional and that failing to reply was “rude and inconsiderate”.
Concluding the post, the user wrote that they would consider the effort successful if “at least one person” took the advice on board.
The comments section quickly became active. One user responded with deliberate sarcasm, imitating the LinkedIn behaviour criticised in the original post by asking why the poster had applied to their firm and which qualities had made them stand out. They also asked about experiences of teamwork under pressure, insisting that their questions were purely for “personal interest”.
Other commenters focused on the broader culture surrounding trainee recruitment. One questioned the growing trend of adding “future trainee” to LinkedIn profiles, describing it as “a damn weird flex” and suggesting that keeping one’s existing job title might reduce unsolicited messages. Another commenter said they were surprised by how bold some applicants had become, while others discussed the frequency of connection requests without personalised notes. Several users said they were keen to help but preferred to receive at least a brief message with an invitation.