TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Andrei Radu]

Question for those who prefer US firms to UK/international firms:

One stereotype I have heard of US firms is that their leaner teams/more recent establishment in London means that training is not as structured as at MC/other firms.

Having done a little research, I understand that this is an oversimplification, if not a misconception. I understand that US firms might approach training differently in the sense of having a more hands-on approach, perhaps as a result of leaner teams. Having a hands-on approach is not necessarily a bad thing - in fact, it can be very good! Being put in the deep end can sometimes force you to swim.

On the flip side, I do appreciate that having close support from the early stages is very helpful. To continue the metaphor, there is still a chance you'll need some armbands.

My question is as follows: in general (or even in reference to specific firms), how do the US firms provide learning support to trainees? How does the support compare to other firms? I'm guessing that leaner teams means you have greater opportunity to built personal rapport with senior lawyers, but that still depends on the luck of the draw (e.g., senior lawyers having the time/desire to support you).

For @Amma Usman @Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu and anyone else with insight
Thank you

That's a very good question. In my experience, US firms tend to provide a number of introductory sessions at the beginning of the TC and/or at the beginning of each seat to get you to understand the basic as to what the role of a trainee is and how to go about completing your work. Afterwards, a lot of the training and support is indeed provided on an on the job setting. The US firms that tend to do the best in this regard do the following:

1. Encourage practitioners to provide detailed instructions to trainees prior to allocating a tasks (including filling them in as to how their work fits into the broader picture) and detailed feedback post completion.
2. Encourage supervisors to manage the trainee's workload so that they get broad exposure to the range of tasks, workstreams, and matters that will best form their knowledge and skillset.
3. Have an open door policy and a culture in which trainees feel comfortable reaching out to team members and asking them questions.

Different US firms are able to do the aforementioned to different extents, but of course that an element of luck still persists. Even if you are able to identify the US firms that provide the best training (which can often be difficult as you will have access to limited information besides the firm's own marketing), different teams within the firm will have different cultures and expectations. The best you can do is to find a firm where all the signs point to the fact that people there generally care for how their more junior team members progress.

But turning back to the US vs UK training model debate, the fundamental reason why I preferred the former was that I thought I would likely learn and improve my skills more when I had the pressure of actual work to deliver rather than when just attending sessions and presentations. Having conversed on this topic with many MC/SC trainees as well as US firm trainees, they both seemed to agree that you learn most when you actually do something, as opposed to just thinking about how you will go about doing it. The downside of the US model is that you will likely have to deal with a lot more stressful situations when you have to figure out things on your own early on - which is why many US trained associates told me the most difficult year of their career was the year when they started their TC. The upside is that you are significantly better prepared for when you start as an NQ. Here, a number of US-trained associates described the experience as "a rather seamless transition", saying that the last week of the TC was more or less the same as the first week as an NQ. UK-trained solicitors however tended to describe the first year post qualification as the most difficult one, as it involved a significantly greater jump in stress and responsibility.

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi everyone, (@Ram Sabaratnam @Andrei Radu @Amma Usman)

Could anyone help me with some info - for case study interviews, do I need to prepare a powerpoint presentation or a report of sorts? I’ve just been told it’s a case study interview but I’m not sure how to prepare for it or what to expect after I’ve read the info they’ve given me? Any advice would be appreciated!!

Thank you very much

Case study interviews tend to differ significantly from firm to firm. Some require power points, while some do not but will give you an option to have one. Some will require the preparation of a report/brief on a number of reading materials, whereas others will not and will just start directly with a discussion. Finally, some will require producing a written material, whereas others will be assessed only in the interview itself.

To understand how to best prepare, I would advise you to try to get more information about the assessment format. Consider emailing the firm about it or potentially reaching out to some trainees. Furthermore, I would have a look on TCLA's Interview Database to see if there is any information from candidates who did the interview in previous years.

 

[Tintin06]

That's a very good question. In my experience, US firms tend to provide a number of introductory sessions at the beginning of the TC and/or at the beginning of each seat to get you to understand the basic as to what the role of a trainee is and how to go about completing your work. Afterwards, a lot of the training and support is indeed provided on an on the job setting. The US firms that tend to do the best in this regard do the following:

1. Encourage practitioners to provide detailed instructions to trainees prior to allocating a tasks (including filling them in as to how their work fits into the broader picture) and detailed feedback post completion.
2. Encourage supervisors to manage the trainee's workload so that they get broad exposure to the range of tasks, workstreams, and matters that will best form their knowledge and skillset.
3. Have an open door policy and a culture in which trainees feel comfortable reaching out to team members and asking them questions.

Different US firms are able to do the aforementioned to different extents, but of course that an element of luck still persists. Even if you are able to identify the US firms that provide the best training (which can often be difficult as you will have access to limited information besides the firm's own marketing), different teams within the firm will have different cultures and expectations. The best you can do is to find a firm where all the signs point to the fact that people there generally care for how their more junior team members progress.

But turning back to the US vs UK training model debate, the fundamental reason why I preferred the former was that I thought I would likely learn and improve my skills more when I had the pressure of actual work to deliver rather than when just attending sessions and presentations. Having conversed on this topic with many MC/SC trainees as well as US firm trainees, they both seemed to agree that you learn most when you actually do something, as opposed to just thinking about how you will go about doing it. The downside of the US model is that you will likely have to deal with a lot more stressful situations when you have to figure out things on your own early on - which is why many US trained associates told me the most difficult year of their career was the year when they started their TC. The upside is that you are significantly better prepared for when you start as an NQ. Here, a number of US-trained associates described the experience as "a rather seamless transition", saying that the last week of the TC was more or less the same as the first week as an NQ. UK-trained solicitors however tended to describe the first year post qualification as the most difficult one, as it involved a significantly greater jump in stress and responsibility.

Best US firms here for training? Applying to many US law firms. Is the intake a good guide? Less than 10 a bad sign? Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Paul Jules Steullet]

What a great time to be alive! Trump has definitely hit the ground running and ruffled a few feathers. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the Middle East and Ukraine under his leadership.

 

[Rhohia]

WBD test core 6,4,6,9.

I swear every amberjack assessment I have different scores for each pillar lol I don’t know how to improve! Anybody get consistent scores?

 

[Chris Brown]

WBD test core 6,4,6,9.

I swear every amberjack assessment I have different scores for each pillar lol I don’t know how to improve! Anybody get consistent scores?

I did one for Paul, Weiss recently and I think I got 7566, which is maybe fairly consistent? It’s the only Amberjack I’ve done so far. I might try squeeze a Stephenson Harwood application in before the 28th and I think they use the same test. 🥲​

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi @Ram Sabaratnam @Amma Usman @Andrei Radu ,

If asked in an AC interview:

Why linklaters (both in the middle east and the UK)?
How does linklaters stand out from other firms (or magic circle firms)?

How should I answer it? I got feedback from an AC that my biggest let down was the fact that my reasons for why the firm were not strong. Thank you!

Hi @Reem2024 for the first question, I think you should focus on (i) explaining why you are interested in working both in the Middle East and London, as opposed to any other locations; and (ii) why you are particularly interested in Linklater's work and culture, as opposed to that of any other firm. You should also aim to connect your motivations to examples from your experiences which best illustrate them.

For the second question, I would advise you to take a look at TCLA's Linklaters Firm Profile, which goes into a lot more depth on the following points:

• Achieves great depth without sacrificing depth: Linklaters is arguably the most well-rounded firm in the Magic Circle, but this is not to the detriment of excellence in chosen areas - Linklaters has 25 London departments with a Band 1 Chambers ranking, more than any other firm.
• Energy transactions with a strength in renewables: constantly ranked number one in renewables and energy and projects work both in Europe and global league tables, Linklaters is thought to be the leader in the Magic Circle in this area.
• Multi-sector disputes expertise: The firm has great expertise in almost all fields of disputes, including corporate litigation and investigations, business crime, competition litigation, IP litigation, and ADR.
• Trend leader in capital markets: Linklaters has a particularly strong reputation for innovating in the debt capital markets space, having come up with a number of first of a kind bond offerings, particularly in the green finance space.
• Leading administrative and public law practice: alongside A&O Shearman, Linklaters is know to be a market leader in this area in the UK.

 

[Chris Brown]

Hi @Andrei Radu,

I hope you are keeping well. 🐐

Similar to one of the questions I had asked on the forum previously (for which you gave an amazing answer), how would you describe Willkie Farr & Gallagher in terms of its position in the City of London (apart from it being one of the leading transactions and disputes firms in London)? How would you describe the firm as a whole, taking into account its growth and strategic decisions over the past decade? 🙂

Also, who would you say are the firm’s closest competitors, looking at their key practice areas such as PE and Litigation, but also as a US firm in London more broadly? I believe you did a VS at Willkie and received a TC offer. Is there any advice or insight you could share in relation to the partner interview e.g., how to prepare for it and navigate the different elements? I am nervous as I haven’t actually ever spoken to partners before, not least partners of a leading US law firm in London. 🥲

Please help. 🥲​

 

[Andrei Radu]

Best US firms here for training? Applying to many US law firms. Is the intake a good guide? Less than 10 a bad sign? Thanks in advance for your help.

While sometimes a larger intake can signify a higher likelihood of a higher availability of formal training programmes and organized support structures, this is not always the case (with a firm like White & Case it definitely is, but at a firm like Kirkland a lot less); and furthermore it is definitely not indicative of overall training quality in my view. The risk that comes with a larger cohort size consists of each trainee getting less visibility and becoming more of a "cog in the system", which is exactly what many people who apply at US firms seek to avoid. As such, I would not say a trainee cohort size of under 10 is a bad sign. I would rather just infer that you will likely get a lot of visibility and responsibility (perhaps more than at some US firms with larger cohorts) and that you should also likely not expect much in organized support (perhaps somewhat less than at the US firms with larger cohorts). Whether that is good or bad will just come down to your preferences.

As for the questions about the best US firms for training, I can only comment based on the firms I have had the opportunity to interact with and research, so I will undoubtably miss a number of great ones. The ones I can say I have seen some quite positive reviews for are White & Case (although I have been told it is more similar to MC training than US training in many regards nowadays), Willkie and Davis Polk (who are examples of places with small cohorts but where the cultural elements I mention seem to be working well), and Latham (which I understand comes with a more hands on experience than a White & Case but less so than firms like Willkie and Davis Polk).

 

[xxx]

Everyone asking about links, they said that their last week of AC is next week

Hi @Reem2024 for the first question, I think you should focus on (i) explaining why you are interested in working both in the Middle East and London, as opposed to any other locations; and (ii) why you are particularly interested in Linklater's work and culture, as opposed to that of any other firm. You should also aim to connect your motivations to examples from your experiences which best illustrate them.

For the second question, I would advise you to take a look at TCLA's Linklaters Firm Profile, which goes into a lot more depth on the following points:

• Achieves great depth without sacrificing depth: Linklaters is arguably the most well-rounded firm in the Magic Circle, but this is not to the detriment of excellence in chosen areas - Linklaters has 25 London departments with a Band 1 Chambers ranking, more than any other firm.
• Energy transactions with a strength in renewables: constantly ranked number one in renewables and energy and projects work both in Europe and global league tables, Linklaters is thought to be the leader in the Magic Circle in this area.
• Multi-sector disputes expertise: The firm has great expertise in almost all fields of disputes, including corporate litigation and investigations, business crime, competition litigation, IP litigation, and ADR.
• Trend leader in capital markets: Linklaters has a particularly strong reputation for innovating in the debt capital markets space, having come up with a number of first of a kind bond offerings, particularly in the green finance space.
• Leading administrative and public law practice: alongside A&O Shearman, Linklaters is know to be a market leader in this area in the UK.

thank you so much!

 

[B101]

Does anyone know if Stephenson takes a healthy amount from their DTC?

 

[badmintonflyinginsect]

While sometimes a larger intake can signify a higher likelihood of a higher availability of formal training programmes and organized support structures, this is not always the case (with a firm like White & Case it definitely is, but at a firm like Kirkland a lot less); and furthermore it is definitely not indicative of overall training quality in my view. The risk that comes with a larger cohort size consists of each trainee getting less visibility and becoming more of a "cog in the system", which is exactly what many people who apply at US firms seek to avoid. As such, I would not say a trainee cohort size of under 10 is a bad sign. I would rather just infer that you will likely get a lot of visibility and responsibility (perhaps more than at some US firms with larger cohorts) and that you should also likely not expect much in organized support (perhaps somewhat less than at the US firms with larger cohorts). Whether that is good or bad will just come down to your preferences.

As for the questions about the best US firms for training, I can only comment based on the firms I have had the opportunity to interact with and research, so I will undoubtably miss a number of great ones. The ones I can say I have seen some quite positive reviews for are White & Case (although I have been told it is more similar to MC training than US training in many regards nowadays), Willkie and Davis Polk (who are examples of places with small cohorts but where the cultural elements I mention seem to be working well), and Latham (which I understand comes with a more hands on experience than a White & Case but less so than firms like Willkie and Davis Polk).

Hi Andrei, do you have any insight on the TC at Weil in comparison to firms like DPW?

 

[xere]

Hi guys, just did my WBD assessment. Scores 7,6,7,7 any idea on how this score is for WBD?

 

[trainee4u]

Hi guys, just did my WBD assessment. Scores 7,6,7,7 any idea on how this score is for WBD?

this is an extremely high score.

 

[Chris Brown]

Does anyone know if Stephenson takes a healthy amount from their DTC?

From what I have seen on the TCLA forums, it seems like they recruit 50:50 from VS and DTC, but I’m unsure if that will change for this recruitment cycle. It might be worthwhile asking them via email tbh, just to get a solid answer. 🙂​

 

[Nine]

Case study interviews tend to differ significantly from firm to firm. Some require power points, while some do not but will give you an option to have one. Some will require the preparation of a report/brief on a number of reading materials, whereas others will not and will just start directly with a discussion. Finally, some will require producing a written material, whereas others will be assessed only in the interview itself.

To understand how to best prepare, I would advise you to try to get more information about the assessment format. Consider emailing the firm about it or potentially reaching out to some trainees. Furthermore, I would have a look on TCLA's Interview Database to see if there is any information from candidates who did the interview in previous years.

Hi Andrei, thanks for your reply — I’ve had a word with some trainees and they say it’s a verbal presentation so I’m assuming that I won’t have to write/draw a presentation. My email says that the AC will be 3 hours long with a case study interview and then a HR interview, however, the firm website says there’s a written exercise as well - do you think it’ll reflect badly on me if I email GR to clarify?

 

[legallady123]

6,4,7,6 excelled at verbal and mid numerical for WBD 🙃🙁

 

[BillSikes]

What is the deal with these SJTs? So often the answer options do not align with what the question is saying.

for the questions on the WBD SJT about the 0.5% of revenue and giving out bonuses - only 1 of the 4 options actually mentioned 0.5%. 2 of the options stated 5% and the other 1%. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[BillSikes]

genuinely that question might have had a typo.... there were errors in other parts of the test

Bro too many of the questions have typos for it to be a mistake. It's gotta be intentional.

 

[3000to1shoteverytime]

genuinely that question might have had a typo.... there were errors in other parts of the test

My 2 theories:

They timed your response to the one with the error in. How long did you take to end up guessing?

They were testing resilience and how well you performed after that question or did it throw you off kilter 😭🤣