TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[floral.tcla]

In the UK, what is the etiquette/culture surrounding sending a thank you email to the graduate recruitment team of a firm you did an AC at?

 

[dednedred]

Has anyone heard back from Simmons & Simmons? I did the VI on Christmas Eve but still haven't heard back - was wondering if anyone has had an AC invite / PFO?

 

[Jessica Booker]

In the UK, what is the etiquette/culture surrounding sending a thank you email to the graduate recruitment team of a firm you did an AC at?

No etiquette as such - many people do it, lots of people don't though. Its really not going to make a difference, so you can do what you feel comfortable doing.

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

In the UK, what is the etiquette/culture surrounding sending a thank you email to the graduate recruitment team of a firm you did an AC at?

Hiya @floral.tcla

I've generally felt comfortable sending a thank you email to lawyers who interviewed me (though I haven’t had a grad recruitment-only interview yet). I don't think it would do any harm and could actually leave a positive impression. Overall, it’s not something that will make or break a decision, but it’s a nice way to express appreciation and can help you be remembered more favourably. If you do decide to send one, I'd just recommend that you keep it brief and genuine. Just a simple note to thank them for their time and insight should do the trick

 

[floral.tcla]

No etiquette as such - many people do it, lots of people don't though. Its really not going to make a difference, so you can do what you feel comfortable doing.

Thank you Jess

 

[floral.tcla]

Hiya @floral.tcla

I've generally felt comfortable sending a thank you email to lawyers who interviewed me (though I haven’t had a grad recruitment-only interview yet). I don't think it would do any harm and could actually leave a positive impression. Overall, it’s not something that will make or break a decision, but it’s a nice way to express appreciation and can help you be remembered more favourably. If you do decide to send one, I'd just recommend that you keep it brief and genuine. Just a simple note to thank them for their time and insight should do the trick

Thank you Ram

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

So I've actually just double checked and theres only one vacation scheme... Do you think it's professional to ask for a direct TC process instead? Im worried it will have an impact on my application

Hiya again @fcac98

Yes, you should definitely ask whether you could be considered for the direct training contract route. I’ve known several candidates who have done this based on similar circumstances, and firms are generally open to discussing it. That said, be prepared for the possibility that they may not be able to accommodate your request. It’s also worth checking whether the firm regularly offers training contracts through the direct route, as some firms tend to recruit primarily via their vacation scheme. You can find a list of firms that tend to offer direct TCs here. It’s always good to explore your options, and I don't think reaching out in a professional and polite way will negatively impact your application.

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

For those who completed an interview at Jones Day, how long did it take to hear back?

Hiya @dm_corporate

From my experience, Jones Day usually gets back to candidates fairly quickly (I've known several applicants this year who heard back within 1-3 days). That said, there are occasionally applicants who hear back a week or two after their interview. Although it can vary, I wouldn't worry yet and I hope you hear back with good news soon!

 

[cjwx]

I was rejected from Withers a few weeks ago, nothing from Debevoise though ...

Was you rejected before the test?

 

[👩🎓]

Hi everyone, does anyone have any advice regarding Foot Anstey's test and VI?

If not, does anyone have any general VI tips - @Andrei Radu @Ram Sabaratnam @Amma Usman would really appreciate any of your insights if you have any top tips.

 

[sapphireoreos]

Hi @sapphireoreos I will list my best tips for each question bellow:

• Tell me about yourself: explain in a brief summary what your main interests and activities have consisted of in the past 3-4 years, including both the professional/academic aspect and the extracurricular/personal side. You should not delve too much into any given experience or topic (so do not give full STAR-structured descriptions). Instead, you should focus on throwing as many "hooks" as possible - high level inferences and claims that invite further explanation. Ideally, that will lead to the interviewer asking some follow up questions and will give the interview a more conversational flow. A specific example of a structure that worked well for me for this questions was the following: (i) Mention that I came from Romania and explaining how I came to study law in the UK; (ii) a short description of my extracurricular activities and personal interests during my time in university (iii) a short description of how I have found the academic side of law and explain how that informed my career pursuits; and (iv) a short summary of my main work experiences and and an explanation of how my interest in commercial law developed over time.
• Why me: pick three or four key skills for a commercial solicitor. Give a full STAR-structured breakdown of an experience which demonstrates you possess each of the claimed skills. Remember to quantify each achievement where you can and to explain why exactly the skill is relevant for the day to day work you would do at the firm.
• Why do you want to work in London: ideally, you want this answer to distinguish the work done in London from the work done in other offices of law firms in the UK. Moreover, if you are an international student, you should be able to distinguish work done in London from work done by commercial solicitors in your home country. The most persuasive answers I have seen here either pointed at (i) the fact that London is one of the most important financial and commercial centres in the world and thus that many of the most important and transformational international transactions are led from here (which works particularly well if you can justify an interest in transactional work); and (ii) the fact that English law is the default choice of law for most international transactions and thus that the London Commercial Court normally jurisdiction over the most complex cross-border disputes (which works particularly well if you have an interests in contentious work).
• Why not banking and consulting: I would say the best answers here have to emphasize the legal element in commercial law (as the consultants and bankers usually work for the same types of clients and on the same types of matters). Essentially, you have to give a reason for why you want to be a lawyer independent of the aspects related to business. For instance, you could explain how you are particularly attracted to legal reasoning and advocacy, which you do not find in the other two. Another option would be to focus on your skillset and explain it makes you better fitted for a career in law - if you have stronger textual analysis rather than quantitative skills, you have a better chance to excel if you practice law.

Thank you so much for the detailed response! Really appreciate it and am finding it so helpful! I’m sure other people will find it useful too, so thank you!

 

[👩🎓]

Does anyone know if all of the PMC AC invitations have been sent out? I know they are running ACs until the end of the month - not sure whether to assume a rejection or not.

 

[Chris Brown]

Prestige is a term with a notoriously elusive meaning so I will caveat the following by stipulating that this will just be my personal opinion based on my limited experience in the world of biglaw. Reasonable disagreement can and does exist about almost everything I will comment here.

That being said, the easiest part of the question to deal with is the ranking based on PE expertise:

1. Kirkland: based on their client base, growth, volume of deals, revenue and profitability practice, and the majority of industry rankings, Kirkland is the clear number 1 for PE reputation. While PE is definitely the most important practice area for Latham, PE is part of Kirkland's very identity as a firm. This can be seen from the way the two firms set up their London practice - with Latham going for a more full service and diversified model, whereas Kirkland only has practice areas meant to service PE clients.
2. Latham: Latham definitely has a strong lead over all of the others in PE - them and Kirkland are in a tier of their own.
3. Paul, Weiss/Weil: Whilst among the very best in PE, I would argue Paul, Weiss is in the immediate next category beyond Kirkland and Latham, together with the likes of Simpson Thatcher and Weil. All these firms have PE practitioners that are just as good as Kirkland's and Latham's, and work for equally prestigious clients and on equally high-end matters - in Paul, Weiss' case arguably more so, as their average deal value is higher than that of the two frontrunners. However, everyone else is simply too far away from Kirkland and Latham in terms of volume of mandates and size of PE teams to compete on global PE reputation.
4. Davis Polk/Skadden: Neither of the two has a similar focus on PE as the other firms I listed here, so it is harder to compare them. Based on most Chambers rankings, I would conclude that Davis Polk has the better US/global PE reputation. However, I would similarly conclude that Skadden is more renowned for PE work in London.

For your second question, it is a lot more difficult to come up with any sensible rankings, as general prestige depends on a multitude of factors - history, profitability, quality of practitioners and selectivity, size and growth, reputation in particular jurisdictions, client book, practice area/sector reputation etc. The five firms score differently on these different criteria, and there is no objective way to quantify results or weigh them. As such, I will only make some more general comments on how they compare and will not provide an actual ranking. I will also say that my personal view is that all of these firms are among the best in the world with differences in overall prestige being very slight and generally quite inconsequential for your career. If I were in a position to choose between any on the list, my decision would depend more on strength in the practice areas I am most interested in and on cultural fit.

• A first distinction can be made between Kirkland and Latham and the other three. Kirkland and Latham are not part of the New York-based 'white shoe' club associated with a long history of an elite practice. Their reputation has been largely built in the last 20 to 30 years and has been closely tied to the rise of the PE industry that the two have made an early bet on. Paul, Weiss, Davis Polk, and Skadden have been considered elite firms for a significantly longer time, which for some counts as an added factor of prestige. Weil is considered to be one of the top New York firms, but it arguably does not have as much historical prestige as the other three - which can be seen from the fact that it has traditionally been included in the V10 (the list of the 10 most prestigious US firms compiled by Vault each year).
• Kirkland/Latham's main selling point prestige-wise is based on their size and brand - because of the volume of mandates they work on and their astronomical revenues. If you speak to any person in the world of international business, their names will probably be best known. On the other hand, Paul, Weiss and Davis Polk run a smaller but arguably more high-end focused practice, at least judging from their average deal sizes and comparative deal volumes. Some also argue, at least for their US practice, that the two tend to have more selective recruitment than Kirkland/Latham; the size of the latter two means that they have a lot more slots to fill, which means they sometimes cannot only accept the very highest-achieving candidates. Skadden is at the midpoint between the quality-focused and size-focused reputations, as it has a higher volume and revenue than Paul, Weiss/Davis Polk but also tends to be more focused on the high-end segment than Latham and Kirkland.
• For recent profitability, which is arguably the most important factor for prestige, Kirkland comes first (alongside Wachtell and some US litigation boutiques). However, compared to the others, Kirkland also has a significantly more expanded non-equity partner tier, which probably helps in keeping equity ranks lean. Davis Polk and Paul, Weiss (alongside the likes of Sullivan Cromwell and Simpson Thatcher) would follow in the immediate next tier, with an average PEP hovering around $6-7 million in recent years. Latham and Skadden are just bellow that, sitting in the $5.5-6 million region. Weil comes last, around the $4-5 million range.
• Finally, their prestige is very different on a practice-area specific basis. Skadden clearly has the best reputation for corporate M&A - arguably, it is for M&A what Skadden is for PE. Davis Polk probably has the best reputation for capital markets and finance, being the only true "Wall Street firm" in the group. As said before, Latham and Kirkland dominate in the PE space. Weil is among the best for PE and restructuring. Paul, Weiss is amazing for PE and is the best in the group for disputes work in the US (and particularly for white collar crime).

This is actually incredible! I was thinking about how I could structure and articulate an answer to questions like ‘who are Paul, Weiss’ competitors and how does Paul, Weiss compare to them’ or ‘what are Paul, Weiss’ USPs when compared to its competitors’ and then I see this post, which discussed quite similar things. Once again, the GOAT @Andrei Radu has come in clutch! You are an actual superstar! 🐐

I do have a question though. Since Paul, Weiss is relatively new in London, if I were to be asked about Paul, Weiss’ position in the City of London specifically, how could I navigate my approach to this kind of question? Would firms like Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Davis Polk, etc. be considered its close competitors in the UK as well, since Paul, Weiss’ clients in London are mainly PE firms? Or would it be more likely that Paul, Weiss wants to target other US law firms in the city? I guess this part of the question is asking about Paul, Weiss’ strategy and future plans in London.​

 

[Jamil Max]

Hi, I applied to Dechert on 28th December for the summer vac scheme and haven't heard anything back since. How long do they usually take to send a PFO or WE?

 

[lolololol]

hi, who are slaughter's main competitors and how can I structure an answer following this in an interview?

 

[wannabe_lawyer_]

Hey guys,

Wondering if anyone who selected only the PW summer VS (not both) has received an invitation for the AC?

I haven’t gotten a PFO yet so I’m wondering if anyone else is in the same boat?

 

[sapphireoreos]

Does anyone know if all of the PMC AC invitations have been sent out? I know they are running ACs until the end of the month - not sure whether to assume a rejection or not.

I applied for PMC and haven’t heard anything back either

 

[bbbbbb]

Hi everyone! This is shot in the dark but I wanted to get advice. After facing three rejections following assessment centres, I would really appreciate any advice on the AC process. I have an upcoming AC with Shepherd and Wedderburn (including presentation and panel interview) this week and would be incredibly grateful for any insights if you interviewed with the firm/ or general AC tips.

 

[LawJ]

I applied for PMC and haven’t heard anything back either

Same

 

[vschemer]

Currently facing a dilemma and would really appreciate any insight.

Between Cleary, Weil, Davis Polk, and Sullivan & Cromwell where would it be best to accept a training contract. Thinking in terms of quality of work, ability to lateral in the future if need be, and calibre of training.

Thank you in advance!