TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Chris Brown]

The legal recruitment process is excruciatingly bad. I’ve also yet to secure an offer after 4 assessment centres with different firms the last 2 years.

There’s just too much bias involved in interviews that people are rejected because they weren’t ‘liked’. They shouldn’t allow partners or associates to conduct interviews anymore! It’s awful.

At the end of the day, partners have ownership in the firm and it is of material interest of them to engage in the recruiting process. Partners look for people they can see working alongside, and I've learned that their choice can be a lot more human-centred than grades / scores in an assesment. Being likeable / charismatic / enthusiastic will of course put you in much better stead. This is why it is important to find firms whose culture aligns with your character.

May be a controversial take, but fundamentally law firms are partnerships where people work very closely together, so imo it makes sense for lawyers to be involved in the recruitment process and pick whom they find likeable, because at the end of the day they will be working long hours together
Besides, if two people don’t click it’s usually mutual, so these personality-based rejections are probably just steering you towards an environment that is more suited to you! Best of luck for your remaining apps x

I definitely agree that there is still a lot of bias and prejudice in city law. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea for recruitment processes to not involve partners and/or associates. I feel like since partners have an ownership stake in their firm(s), they will want to ensure the right candidates are selected. For that reason, they will want to be part of the interview and selection process of graduate recruitment. Ultimately, city law and the legal profession is driven on collaboration and teamwork, so I think being likeable matters. 🙂

I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, partners want to ensure future trainees (who will go on to become future partners), share the same values and beliefs as them (i.e., being a good cultural fit for the firm). Secondly, from a business point of view, they want the best talent. This ensures the firm continues to grow in scale, revenue and subsequently, higher PPEP. Finally, it allows partners to assess candidates’ motivations, competency and commercial awareness, all very important things trainees need. 😅

I think the important thing is that interviews should be conducted on a CV-blind basis. That way, things like unconscious bias, prejudice and potential discrimination can be avoided as much as possible. Things like rare recruitment help with this, but more needs to be done to ensure the best candidates are chosen, regardless of their ethnic, religious, educational or socioeconomic background. Unfortunately, it isn’t always the case at present. It does come down to luck and subjective judgment. 🥲

Despite this, please do not lose faith in yourself in this process. I am positive that there is a firm out there that will recognise your value and the things you have to offer! Best of luck with the rest of this application cycle! I am sure you will get that well deserved TC soon! 🙂​

 

[zonnonomo]

I definitely agree that there is still a lot of bias and prejudice in city law. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea for recruitment processes to not involve partners and/or associates. I feel like since partners have an ownership stake in their firm(s), they will want to ensure the right candidates are selected. For that reason, they will want to be part of the interview and selection process of graduate recruitment. Ultimately, city law and the legal profession is driven on collaboration and teamwork, so i think being likeable matters. 🙂

I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, partners want to ensure future trainees (who will go on to become future partners), share the same values and beliefs as them (i.e., being a good cultural fit for the firm). Secondly, from a business point of view, they want the best talent. This ensures the firm continues to grow in scale, revenue and subsequently, higher PPEP. Finally, it allows partners to assess candidates’ motivations, competency and commercial awareness, all very important things trainees need. 😅

I think the important thing is that interviews should be conducted on a CV-blind basis. That way, things like unconscious bias, prejudice and potential discrimination can be avoided as much as possible. Things like rare recruitment help with this, but more needs to be done to ensure the best candidates are chosen, regardless of their ethnic, religious, educational or socioeconomic background. Unfortunately, it isn’t always the case at present. It does come down to luck and subjective judgment. 🥲​

why don't them partners fw me i swear im always about increasing that shareholder value🤧📈💸

 

[A worried graduate]

Anyone else heard nothing from HD Liverpool?

 

[Chris Brown]

why don't them partners fw me i swear im always about increasing that shareholder value🤧📈💸

Take both of these bad boys in to your next partner interview and they will fw you for sure:

 

[ecohorts]

SPB rejection post AC. This was my last law firm application of this cycle so this one really hurt. Feeling very depleted right now. I got through to 3 ACs but failed them all. It’s only my first application cycle but the fact I failed every AC is really upsetting.

 

[James Wakefield]

Anyone heard back about the Macfarlanes dinner?

 

[InterestInPublicLaw]

Ditto except I applied to Bristol

Lol same I applied to Bristol. Got highest for both intellects, and a score of 6,7,7,7! This process is so non-transparent

 

[tea]

SPB rejection post AC. This was my last law firm application of this cycle so this one really hurt. Feeling very depleted right now. I got through to 3 ACs but failed them all. It’s only my first application cycle but the fact I failed every AC is really upsetting.

Your applications, tests and everything before the ACs were obviously great so don’t doubt yourself there – it’s such a struggle to get even 1 AC so 3 is amazing! I did 2 ACs this cycle and 3 final partner interviews – failed one AC and waitlisted for the other, but passed all the interviews somehow. It’s obviously really disheartening, but I guess the silver lining is that you can figure out what you need to work on from feedback. Though, from my own personal experience the feedback wasn’t helpful at all, and it was “you were great, but everyone else was better – though your interviews went really really well”. I ended up focusing on firms with final partner interviews rather than ACs because I just couldn't be bothered with them.

Somewhat lazy way out lol, but maybe just start applying to things with a recruitment process geared towards your strengths. If I’d applied solely to firms with an SJT, my application cycle would’ve ended as soon as it started – I’ve failed every single one I’ve done. It wasn’t even something I’d considered looking into, and I ended up being quite lucky that the majority of the firms I’d applied to didn’t have an SJT. I know everyone says to work on the things you can’t do – obviously great advice! – but alternatively applications to firms with a final partner interview (if that’s something you think you would be better at) or with an AC geared towards interviews. If that’s where you struggle consider firms with an interview earlier on in the process and less focus on interviewing later on!

good luck with all your future applications even if this doesn't help x

 

[Logan1101]

I definitely agree that there is still a lot of bias and prejudice in city law. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea for recruitment processes to not involve partners and/or associates. I feel like since partners have an ownership stake in their firm(s), they will want to ensure the right candidates are selected. For that reason, they will want to be part of the interview and selection process of graduate recruitment. Ultimately, city law and the legal profession is driven on collaboration and teamwork, so I think being likeable matters. 🙂

I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, partners want to ensure future trainees (who will go on to become future partners), share the same values and beliefs as them (i.e., being a good cultural fit for the firm). Secondly, from a business point of view, they want the best talent. This ensures the firm continues to grow in scale, revenue and subsequently, higher PPEP. Finally, it allows partners to assess candidates’ motivations, competency and commercial awareness, all very important things trainees need. 😅

I think the important thing is that interviews should be conducted on a CV-blind basis. That way, things like unconscious bias, prejudice and potential discrimination can be avoided as much as possible. Things like rare recruitment help with this, but more needs to be done to ensure the best candidates are chosen, regardless of their ethnic, religious, educational or socioeconomic background. Unfortunately, it isn’t always the case at present. It does come down to luck and subjective judgment. 🥲

Despite this, please do not lose faith in yourself in this process. I am positive that there is a firm out there that will recognise your value and the things you have to offer! Best of luck with the rest of this application cycle! I am sure you will get that well deserved TC soon! 🙂​

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

 

[Bread]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

It is lottery-based, but a big part of law is dealing with a wide range of personalities, and since it is a highly client-facing profession it is important to be able to make yourself appealing to different kinds of people.
Fundamentally it doesn’t need to be measured objectively, you just have to try to make your best impression on the interviewer that you were assigned, because that too is a skill

 

[xanderlawyer]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

Keep going in with that mentality and you won't get anywhere. I'll give you a crazy thought, if you answer their questions well and try and build a rapport, they are more likely to like you! You are in control of how you are perceived.

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi everyone, I have 2 x 400 application questions which I would like some guidance on. I am unsure of how to fill the word count and the things I should cover.

In light of our service lines, if you could introduce one client to us, who would it be and why? (max 400 words)

I have identified a specific client and how it relates to the firm through similar cases in the past but am unsure on what else to talk about.

AI is rapidly changing how law firms operate and how solicitors interact with clients. How can we embrace AI without sacrificing our value of Human First? (max 400 words)

@Andrei Radu your insight would be much appreciated as I have found your question breakdowns in the past super useful! Also, a side question Andrei do you think you will still be around on TCLA next cycle?

Hi @emma.d so for the first question I think your approach is the right one, in that you need to identify a potential client that has a need for legal services in one of the firm's major practice areas. Importantly, you should make sure that the firm has not represented the client in the past, as the question says you would be introducing them. Ideally, you want to get very specific in your analysis, going beyond something like "this client has a need for litigation/corporate m&a/finance advice and the firm has these departments" - as (i) basically every large company/financial institution has a general need for these services; and (ii) basically every large commercial law firm has sizeable teams in those areas. Thus, you should try to find a more specific "fit": if the firm specializes in a particular type of deal/case, or on deals/cases in a particular industry or in particular jurisdictions, you should look for a potential client who requires that specific type of expertise more than any other. Besides this, to obtain a more detailed analysis, consider integrating some of the following factors:

1. How much business could this client bring in: the number of cases/deals/matters this client would need advice for, and the size of the aforementioned mandates, are some of the most important considerations. The bigger the demand for legal services your client will have, the more revenues will it bring to the firm. For instance, all other things being equal, a PE-focused firm would prefer to be introduced to Blackstone rather than EQT or CVC, as over the long term there is a potential to get a lot more work from the former.
2. Cross selling opportunities: if you can find a client that has a need not just for one of the firm's practice areas, but several, this will provide an opportunity for cross-selling, which can once again drive up revenues.
3. Legal fees: different clients are willing to pay high legal fees to different extents, and you ideally want to introduce the clients that are least resistant towards that. Those would be your blue chip companies and large financial institutions, particularly US based ones.
4. Market share: if you can increase market share in one of the areas that are a strategic priority for the firm, particularly by poaching clients from a major competitor, that will always be a benefit.
5. Relationship to other firms: Finally, consider how difficult it may be for the firm to actually poach that client. If the potential client has deep institutional ties with another firm, like Apollo with Paul, Weiss or Comcast with Davis Polk, this will not be easy.

For the second question, I think the way you go about answering it will depend on the specific way the firm describes its 'Human First' value - so I would firstly advise you to read what the firm has published on that. It will be good to integrate specific phrases and references, as it will show depth of research. Since this is also a question which has no obviously right or wrong answer, the nuances of how you lay out your substantive analysis will likely also depend on the firm's particular conception of this value.

Secondly, it is quite likely that you will need to address at least the following two points (i) what are the reasons for the firm to integrate AI systems, and what are the main areas of its operations where this might be done; and (ii) what are plausible concerns around the Human First value (particularly in relations to clients) and what are plausible ways to address those. For (i), you will likely be able to focus on efficiency gains and costs savings for clients; while for (ii) on measures to ensure transparency around use of AI, that the work involving AI remains error free, and that the main points of client interaction will remain humans.

For the final question, I am happy to say I will likely stay at TCLA for at least the most part of the next cycle

 

[floral.tcla]

Can we just (virtually) frolick in the sunshine and stop arguing

 

[aphelion]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

Unfortunately there is always a possibility that discriminatory attitudes will influence hiring at any stage of the process.

For example, the name on your application will give away whether you are male or female and may also indicate your race. Even if your name is hidden when your application is reviewed, the type of work experience or extracurriculars you have can, for example, indicate your class background. And if we zoom out even further, structural disadvantage makes it harder for people from certain groups to even be in a position to make a competitive application to begin with.

Of course, at an interview, it's easier to spot people's race, sex, disability etc. and take a biased view, but this would be a problem even firms they didn't allow partners or associates to interview you, as you suggested, because any interviewer will have some level of bias. I'm sure every firm evaluates its processes to ensure they are as objective as possible, for example through competency or commercial interviews where candidates are given numerical scores based on the content of their responses.

At the end of the day, though, law is fundamentally a people business, and firms want to hire people who work well with others and can get on with clients. Sometimes someone gets a bad interviewer who makes it impossible to build a rapport with them, and that's the interviewer's fault. But if someone is consistently failing to build a rapport with interviewers, this suggests a need to brush up on people skills. Given that most people can develop people skills with practice, and that these skills are essential to the career, I would argue it's not discrimination to reject someone who lacks such skills.

 

[Logan1101]

Unfortunately there is always a possibility that discriminatory attitudes will influence hiring at any stage of the process.

For example, the name on your application will give away whether you are male or female and may also indicate your race. Even if your name is hidden when your application is reviewed, the type of work experience or extracurriculars you have can, for example, indicate your class background. And if we zoom out even further, structural disadvantage makes it harder for people from certain groups to even be in a position to make a competitive application to begin with.

Of course, at an interview, it's easier to spot people's race, sex, disability etc. and take a biased view, but this would be a problem even firms they didn't allow partners or associates to interview you, as you suggested, because any interviewer will have some level of bias. I'm sure every firm evaluates its processes to ensure they are as objective as possible, for example through competency or commercial interviews where candidates are given numerical scores based on the content of their responses.

At the end of the day, though, law is fundamentally a people business, and firms want to hire people who work well with others and can get on with clients. Sometimes someone gets a bad interviewer who makes it impossible to build a rapport with them, and that's the interviewer's fault. But if someone is consistently failing to build a rapport with interviewers, this suggests a need to brush up on people skills. Given that most people can develop people skills with practice, and that these skills are essential to the career, I would argue it's not discrimination to reject someone who lacks such skills.

Define ‘people skills’ then?

 

[Andrei Radu]

@Ram Sabaratnam @jessicabooker @Amma Usman @Andrei Radu Could you please provide some tips on completing a candidate profile ahead of a vacation scheme. What sort of things would you put in Work experience, Interests and activities section?

Hi @summerk27 I think this will depend on word count limits and the general expectations you think the firm has for the profile, but normally it will just be a short description containing educational background, significant achievements, career interests, and one-two extracurriculars/hobbies. I have quoted bellow posts form @Ram Sabaratnam and @Jessica Booker on this issue, and also one where I give one of my own VS profile as an example.

Hiya @KBanana


Not a silly question at all. In my experience, the structure of your bio will usually depend on how formal the firm expects it to be and whether they've provided specific instructions. For example, during my vacation schemes, some firms included clear prompts in their emails, asking us to mention specific details such as university attended, interesting facts about ourselves, or even our favourite movie or hobby. If the tone is intended to be more casual or friendly, you might want to introduce yourself in the first person, saying something along the lines of: "Hi! I'm Ram, a recent LLB graduate from UCL. I was born and raised in Canada, and in my spare time, I really enjoy pro bono volunteer work at my university's legal clinic, travelling, and visiting museums and galleries."

If the bio is expected to be more formal or professional, I find that writing it in the third person usually is helpful. In that case, I'd say something like: "Ram Sabaratnam is a recent LLB graduate from University College London. In his spare time, he enjoys writing for the Justice Gap and volunteering at his university’s refugee law clinic." It may be worth clarifying with graduate recruitment team directly, just to make sure you write the bio in a way that matches the firm's expectations. You can just confirm with them how formal the tone should be and if there is any particular word count they have in mind.

Hope that helps!

Has the firm given you an example or any guidance on how to write it? A lot of firms do so that your writing is going to be fairly consistent with other vacation scheme students. If they have given this to you, then always follow their structure and guidance first.

If they haven't provided anything to you, then something like the following length would be appropriate:

Jess studied Economics and Social Studies at the University of Manchester, graduating with a first-class honours in 2004. Since then, she has worked in the Early Careers sector for a range of companies across the legal, professional services, investment and FMCG sectors. Before her career, Jess was a Chef, working in various pubs and also as a Chalet host in the French Alps. She continues to love both cooking and skiing, as well as trying to keep up with her hyperactive dog, Dennis. Jess looks forward to understanding more about the firm's clients during the vacation scheme, as well as learning more about the firm's diversity initiatives.

It might be that they want you to write in the first person though - I have just written in the third person due to habit!

Ultimately try to include:

- Key and relevant facts about your background
- 1 or 2 key achievements (I included my degree classification)
- Something about your interests - what you do outside of work/study
- Something interesting about you - maybe something more unique (why I always throw in the fact I was a chef)
- If you feel comfortable doing so, something slightly light-hearted or that could be a conversation starter (why I reference my dog. Dennis!).
- Adding some kind of reference as to what you hope to gain by attending the scheme

I do not have much to add to what @Jessica Booker said here, just thought to give you an example of a bio I wrote which the firm said was good:

Andrei is a second-year law student at University College London. He has developed an interest in commercial law through his studies, having been awarded the Simon Wallace Memorial Prize for the highest Year 1 grade in Contract Law. He went on to complete a one-month legal internship at DLA Piper, an experience which confirmed his desire to become a solicitor.

Besides law, Andrei has a passion for philosophy. In 2022, he represented Romania in the International Philosophy Olympiad was awarded an honorary mention. In his free time, he also enjoys watching football – his favourite team is FC Barcelona.

 

[aphelion]

Define ‘people skills’ then?

Sure! I've actually been working on this myself recently as it's a huge weak point of mine, and I really like how Vanessa Van Edwards deals with the topic. She's written a few books and has a website/YouTube channel - her interview on Diary of a CEO was fantastic and I'd highly recommend.

She argues that being successful socially involves projecting the correct levels of 1) warmth and 2) competence. People who come across as warm but not competent are overlooked and respected less than they should be, people who come across as competent but not warm may find it tough to emotionally connect with people, and people who come across as neither struggle the most.

Understanding where you fall on the spectrum and how to develop your own warmth and competence can really help. VVE discusses 'cues', i.e. body language signals which help convey these qualities. These are really effective. She also discusses how to carry conversations with people, which is another key element of connecting with others.

There are lots of different 'gurus' in this area and this model might not resonate with you - if so, keep looking for one that does! My key point is that there are concrete steps you can take to improve how well you come across to others. This requires a lot of practice and sometimes embarrassing yourself as you figure it out, but that's the nature of getting better at anything, particularly something inherently social.

 

[Chris Brown]

Here's the thing I've already screwed up assessment centres with Freshfields and Hogan Lovells so I'm not so confident here. I need to get polished like the other candidates by getting interview prep otherwise nothing changes.😅

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

I can understand why you feel that the partner interview can be slightly discriminatory. There is definitely an element of luck involved. There is also still a lot of bias and prejudice against people that are visibly ethnic minority or poc, and people that come from socially mobile backgrounds. Even at application stage, as @aphelion has explained, there are so many different ways bias and prejudice could affect our chances of success. Seeing as though you got past the application stage and got AC invites for Hogan Lovells and Freshfields, it is safe to say that the firms’ saw a lot of potential in you. We do not get to control who we get in interviews, which is why I think you believe it comes down to luck. 🥲

Ultimately however, most of the ‘luck’ comes from us. How well we prepare for these interviews is what makes the difference between a successful interview and an unsuccessful interview. I can’t speak on every firm, but I believe there are many firms out there that ensure the partner interview is as fair and objective as possible (e.g., Willkie), whose partner interview is fully CV-blind. The only thing(s) the partner(s) know in advance of the interview is our name and whether we studied a law or non-law degree. The stage before it (written exercise), is also CV-blind. The associates that mark them do not know who they belong to, which ensures that the best talent get to interview. 🙂

At the point we reach the interview, the ball is entirely in our court. The direction of the partner interview is in our control, based on the answers we give. I have seen your question (above) on what people skills are. To give some examples, you need effective communication (the ability to speak clearly and concisely) and a willingness and ability to showcase your personality (a sense of humour, charisma and enthusiasm). These are crucial qualities that every aspiring trainee associate needs. The legal profession is a client facing, people-driven industry. If someone lacks the ‘people skills’, it is likely they will not have a successful interview. 🥲

There is an element of accountability that does need to be taken. It is not right to assume there was definitive bias, prejudice or discrimination in the interview, which was the sole deciding factor in the partner choosing not to proceed with your application post interview. Partners are assessing a range of things, such as our motivation for a career in (city) law, their firm, a particular practice area or industry sector, our range of competencies and our commercial awareness. If any of these things are deemed to need further improvement, the partner can and will decide to not make an offer. That is not necessarily the same as the partner deciding to not make an offer because the interviewee had an accent, was a poc or went to a state school (obvious discrimination). 🫤

Ultimately, there needs to be a balance between being competent and being a person with character. It can be hard to work out what that balance should look like, but that is where preparation comes into play. I am positive you can and will succeed in your applications, with a bit more targeted preparation! Best of luck in the rest of your applications. If you have any questions about interview preparation, you can always ask on the forum or PM people, who will be happy to help! 🙂​

 

[jacksollaf]

King & Spalding training contract AC!!!! Does anyone know what the application process is? im trying to determine if its worth it or not cuz im doing my year abroad and they want me to come to their London office next week

 

[BillSikes]

Anything from Winckworth?