Does anyone have any advice ?
I have an upcoming DTC interview with slaughters.
I also have 3 vac schemes, all with US firms with smaller cohorts.
As part of the interview they ask about application strategy?
- Shall I not mention them and say different firms I applied for but then it seems like I have had an unsuccessful season if they ask how I have got on (such as macfarlances ,
linklaters, etc)
- one of the VS is with a US firm focused on corporate work, and have a trainee intake of about 25. I could mention them for similar work but again training is v different.
- mention all the vac schemes and be totally honest about strategy- wanted firms where I will get to work on high calibre corporate work and firms that I’ve met.
I think the schemes will make me seem like a stronger candidate but also I worry they will not think I WANT slaughters enough because of them.
Also in the event they were to offer me a TC, does anyone know if they extend- I really want to do the schemes and I don’t know what I would pick honestly.
Hi
@Cool pigeon my advice would be to go with the last option and be honest about your approach, although I would perhaps focus a bit more on the US firm with the larger trainee intake when making comparisons. Firstly, that's because I think a
ny disadvantage vis a vis the interviewer's impression as to how much you want a Slaughter and May TC will be offset by the comparatively much greater advantage of showing yourself as a very desirable and successful candidate. To take them one at a time: the disadvantage of you seeming US firm-focused is not likely to be very great, particularly if you mention other UK firms you have applied for. Partners all well aware as to how competitive it is to get a TC nowadays and that it would not make sense to put all your eggs in one basket. Furthermore, my impression from my time spent at the firm is that many partners at
Slaughter and May find it difficult to conceive that anyone would reject them to work for a US rival; and that they are still at the very pinnacle of prestige in the London market. As such, they would likely find it hard to believe you would not sign their TC offer if they were to give you one. At the same time, I cannot imagine many things that can better portray you as an extremely successful and desirable candidate than mentioning 3 VS offers. In my cohort at UCL Law I know of only two people besides me who got 3+ schemes, and across universities and cohorts I have not met more than around 10-15 people in total who had achieved that. Thus, I think you would be doing yourself a huge disservice by not mentioning the accomplishment.
The second reason why I think you should go with this approach is because
(i) the strategy you mentioned sounds plausible; and (ii) if the interviewers believe it, there is a plausible argument you can make as to why Slaughter and May would be your first preference. Firstly, the strategy sounds plausible because there are only so many UK firms that consistently working on the very high end corporate transactions: the Magic Circle, to a lesser extent the Silver Circle, and a couple of the other large international and profitable ones (such as
Hogan Lovells). Outside of that, you are increasingly looking at mid-market transactions with a very occasional high-end one. However, you have a substantial number of US firms operating in this space, which although have comparatively smaller practices, still focus on high value matters (which in many cases originate from their US-based clientele). As such, if you selected firms to apply to with this criterion in mind, it is not so unexpected you could end up with more US firm offers. Moreover, factoring in the firm interaction criterion and being conscious of the fact that US firms have a tendency to be more active on the marketing and events front, it does not look implausible to me that you could end up with these offers without a strong preference for US firms.
As for (ii) -
if top tier corporate work is of central focus that should work out in your favour, as I know Slaughter and May still considers itself to be the best firm in the market for that. Whether that is actually the case is more debatable; the important factor is that if you make a good argument to that effect then it looks plausible that you would choose
Slaughter and May over the others. What could that argument be? Well, firstly, you could focus on the (relatively uncontroversial fact) that
Slaughter and May is considered to be the best firm for UK public M&A work, and then explain why public M&A is more attractive to you than private M&A. Alternatively, you could focus on the idea that
Slaughter and May arguably has the deepest institutional relationships with UK corporations (for a number of years they advertised that they represent more FTSE 100, 250, and 350 clients; and also of being the default 'boardroom advisor' of UK corporates) and then explain why that kind of market position attracts you. However, I would be research and aim to be able to defend the claim that
Slaughter and May will be able to keep its position despite its lack of international offices (particularly in New York, where the other MC firms are heavily investing into) and dwindling best friends network (particularly having increasingly lost its US best friends as they moved into London -
Davis Polk a number of years ago, and now Paul, Weiss, and to an extent Cravath as well).
Finally, I do not think you have anything to worry about regarding an extension of the TC offer. Last year their TC offers only expired in September, as the firm is choosing to follow The Law Society's voluntary trainee recruitment code.