Innovative and disruptive digital technologies are driving transformation across all sectors that Osborne Clarke operates in. Generative AI offers great potential for new insights, new efficiencies and new business models. It also raises tough questions and may challenge much of what we do.
The use of generative AI in recruitment is a particularly hot topic amongst candidates and recruitment teams alike. What are your views on candidates using generative AI in recruitment processes? Is it cheating, or being resourceful? Does it level the playing field, or make it harder for some? There is no right or wrong answer to this question (yet!), but we are interested to hear your opinions on this topic.
Max 500 words
With most companies embracing AI to optimise hiring processes, it is unfair and unfounded to prevent candidates from taking advantage of these tools. Firstly, in the dynamic legal landscape, a robust tech-savvy profile is not merely a desirable attribute but a crucial signal of adaptability and progressiveness. As an applicant, I perceive companies that strongly discourage the use of AI as lacking a progressive ethos and consequently, not adequately future facing. A study by Arctic Shores corroborates this viewpoint, revealing a 38% reduction in applications received when AI was prohibited in recruitment processes. This is particularly relevant for applicants with disabilities who rely on natural language processing technologies. These tools help level the playing field by enabling efficient creation and expression of original ideas.
Feedback: This paragraph provides a strong and clear introduction to the candidate’s perspective on the use of AI in recruitment processes. The candidate effectively applies the PEEL structure by stating their point upfront, explaining it with a relevant study, and using evidence. However, the content can be strengthened by providing more context about the study cited to avoid potential fallacies or doubts (that the reduction in applications received might be due to other factors) from recruiters about the candidate’s reasoning skills.
Companies should mirror this shift in the candidates’ perspective. Hiring practices must be reshaped to prioritise evaluating technological acumen, starting with recognising the potential of AI in application writing. This approach serves as a sophisticated gauge of candidates’ readiness to utilise advanced tools in the legal domain. During a recent event, OC Partner Gereon Abendroth emphasised that the role of legal tech at OC extends beyond ChatGPT, exemplified by the tailor-made solution for the OC Belgium office to navigate intricate labour law regulations. Such specialised tools underscore the importance for applicants to not only recognise the potential of AI today but also invest in developing the competence needed to effectively leverage advanced tools in their careers. Therefore, rather than viewing the use of generative AI as a form of cheating, OC should actively seek candidates who utilise this technology strategically and in a forward-thinking manner.
Feedback: The response here starts to integrate specific references to OC, which is excellent for tailoring the answer and demonstrates sufficient understanding and alignment with the firm’s values and directions. The mention of OC Partner and the specific legal tech tools used in the OC Belgium Office are strong examples of understanding. However, the paragraph could benefit from a clearer initial statement of the candidate’s point regarding the evaluation of technological acumen in the hiring processes. Providing more concrete opinions or suggestions would also help strengthen the answer.
Secondly, AI competence is valuable in assessing a key skill: critical thinking. As an applicant, if I fail to discern the inherent limitations of AI-generated content, it indicates my lack of suitability for work that demands robust critical thinking skills. During a discussion with Reed Smith’s graduate recruitment manager, Rebecca Schrod, a strong opposition to candidates using AI in applications emerged. According to her, AI strips applications of personalisation and produces cookie-cutter responses. Despite her reservations, she conceded that candidates who over-rely on AI, effectively failing to recognise its generic responses, inadvertently reveal a potential limitation in their critical thinking abilities. This highlights the growing importance of the ‘human touch’, as discussed by the OC graduate recruitment team at an event aptly named ‘Maintaining The Edge Through Human Capital’. Therefore, as applicants fail to or manage to recognise the need to combine AI with their own creativity and analytical thinking in upcoming cycles, it should be taken as a reflection of their capabilities.
Feedback: This paragraph showcases the candidate’s independent thinking and critical analytical skills. The contrasting views from Reed Smith’s recruitment manager provide a nuanced perspective that indirectly demonstrates the candidate’s ability to engage with complex ideas. It is a very strong response, with a well-detailed explanation of the candidate’s personal opinion.
Lastly, embracing technology as a young professional encourages authentic collaboration across generations. Technologically competent trainees will discover it to be a valuable skill in fostering confidence in their new role as senior lawyers turn to them for help in leveraging these tools. This perspective resonates with the overarching belief that embracing technology, including AI, is crucial for candidates to navigate today’s competitive legal landscape.
Feedback: This final paragraph effectively highlights the importance of embracing technology for young legal professionals and aligns well with the initial point about leveling the playing field. The candidate does well to demonstrate an understanding of the broader implications of technology in legal practice. Although the response is already very strong, it can be further strengthened by more explicitly connecting these ideas to OC’s specific initiatives or cultural attributes regarding technology and innovation. A more direct conclusion that ties all paragraphs together, reaffirming the candidate’s fit and enthusiasm for OC, would enhance the overall response.
" } }