2025
Should law firms allow candidates to use AI when completing their trainee application forms? Please consider the pros and cons of such an approach and end your answer with a personal decision on the subject. (500 words)
In recent years, advancements within the technological sphere have resulted in abundant widely accessible AI services and chatbots. Being a key tool to further enhance efficiency within contemporary society, it is unsurprising that many university students utilise AI regularly. With universities and graduate recruitment teams being in the early stages of learning how to distinguish between acceptable and plagiaristic use of AI, the current consensus is generally to avoid using AI altogether. It is for this reason that the question of whether law firms should allow candidates to use AI when completing trainee applications forms is an interesting yet controversial one.
Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge the possible benefits of using AI within application forms. For example, chatbots can be extremely useful in getting some initial ideas flowing when presented with an open-ended question. It may present several ways this question could potentially be answered, from which the candidate could evaluate which approach is best to take to effectively showcase their skills and experiences. However, there is a fine line between an AI-inspired and an AI-written application. However, AI cannot match human authenticity or understand all relevant life experiences, making it suitable only as a starting point, not a writing tool.
However, caution is warranted due to AI's potential errors and limitations in sustaining accurate information. AI services have been known to fabricate facts and references that appear valid in the context provided. For example, if a candidate were to ask AI about recent deals or information about a specific firm, this information would need to be properly fact-checked, begging the question as to why AI was necessary in the first place, having minimal impact on time efficiency. Additionally, chatbots often write in American, rather than British English, presenting grammatical errors. With attention to detail and accuracy being key skills a trainee solicitor requires, errors inherent to AI-generated work may be detrimental to a candidate’s success.
A wider issue regarding the use of AI concerns the accessibility of premium services. AI's premium services can create inequalities, favouring those who can afford subscriptions, undermining the aim of assessing candidates fairly. The aim of a trainee application form is to give the firm an initial introduction to the candidate as a person, alongside assessing their written and communication skills. Explicitly allowing AI may result in a battle of the robots, whereby candidates with the ‘best’ AI subscriptions would likely excel.
Nonetheless, my argument that there is a place for AI within trainee application forms withstands. It may be ironic to prohibit candidates’ use of AI when it is undoubtedly utilised in recruitment processes to filter through large volumes of applications. I believe that, where a piece of work is simply inspired, rather than written, by a chatbot, whereby an accurate representation of the candidate and their writing style is maintained, there is room for AI. Technological advancements should not be avoided, but utilised appropriately, especially for individuals entering a legal career where such tools can positively impact employees and clients alike.
" } }