TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[j.a55293]

Winston & Strawn WG!

 

[3000to1shoteverytime]

This isn't entirely related but has anyone who has successfully cold emailed for work experience got any insights on this. I've emailed loads of small firms about summer work experience and every response is ur cv is great but we just don't offer formal work experience. Am I setting myself back by classifying it as work experience? I will do anything even admin jobs I just want to get something on my cv for this summer, so should I word it differently? any advice appreciated I'm a bit lost with all this

Maybe ask if you can shadow someone instead?

 

[jfb]

has anyone emailed SH for updates for Summer Vac?

 

[g.cl.2020344]

has anyone emailed SH for updates for Summer Vac?

I did a few weeks ago, and they said the deadline had just closed and they received sm apps it would take a while for them to get back to people

they said this:

Thank you for your email. The application deadline was 28 February and thousands of applications have been received; these are now under review and we expect to be able to update candidates shortly.

 

[SamiyaJ]

Finally PW PFO!

 

[User5678]

Anyone heard back from PHB today? They are supposed to get back to applicants today as stated in their email because the AC is on 8 April

 

[simplyfaith]

Paul Weiss rejection post-test at 11:10. Finally, after 58 days.

Good thing I don't like private equity. At least I won't have to be complicit with their Trump deal now! 🤣

(No comma in the name for you)

 

[Maddy]

Hi everyone! Does anyone know if Kilburn & Strode provide sponsorship for international students?

 

[trainee4u]

Just did the test.

It was pretty easy, but I was spending too much time on the questions and managed to get #17 wrong due to rushing, and ran out of time on #20. Not sure if it let me submit or not, but I just picked randomly and gave the wrong answer anyway. 18/20, not sure what their benchmark is.....

Following your completion of the online test for the Sky Work Placement 2025 we are pleased to confirm that you have been invited to an interview in consideration for this opportunity. Congratulations!

You will be interviewed by someone from the AS team in a group format (3-5 applicants per interview) to determine your interest in the placement, knowledge of Sky including commercial developments, and your motivation to become a lawyer.

Does anyone know how this works, specifically with reference to Aspiring Solicitors' involvement? I am a bit unclear as to why AS would be doing the interviewing rather than Sky?

 

[Andrei Radu]

Do you guys think Trump's crackdown on DEI is going to mean firms begin to move away from or completely cease to use contextual data in considering applications? I don't know what the full extent of things are, but I've seen 20+ law firms changing their DEI policies.

It is quite hard to make any predictions with a high degree of confidence as this is still very much of a developing situation. While the deals struck by Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and now Willkie and Milbank might seem to indicate this, I do think there are some important reasons to consider to the effect that this will not be as impactful as some think:

1. This is primarily a US matter: at least as far as the UK firms are concerned, or at least the UK firms without major operations in the US (although, in my opinion, most of the biggest operations of UK firms are not large enough to become direct targets) this should have no direct impact. Secondly, for US firms themselves, this is primarily a US matter. While their DEI policies are in many cases drafted at a firm-wide level, this used to be the case in a world where it would not be an issue to implement them across the board. Thus, while the language on their webpages and prospectuses may have changed, that does not necessarily imply a policy change across the board. I do not see why they could not in practice keep DEI policies in place in all of their non-US operations - if anything, having them in the UK puts them in a better standing with the current Government. I doubt hiring policies in foreign countries would be a relevant issue for the US Administration to target.
2. The details of the deals and general crackdown of DEI are unclear: while many in the press have reacted to the pro bono donation agreements struck by the aforementioned firms as a capitulation and an abandonment to DEI, it is actually not that clear what the details of the deals are. The firms have stated that, as part of the agreements, they commited to complying with Employment law requirements, but what those requirements are vis a vis specific DEI policies is not certain. Some commentators have been arguing that compliance will only require foregoing a particular set of what the US Administration sees as 'exclusionary' policies - such as having recruitment events and other opportunities open exclusively to a given minority group. However, that would not mean any and all consideration of DEI factors and wider contextual data in recruitment is banned.
3. The issue is being litigated: Thirdly, while it is the case that these three major firms have struck a deal, a number of smaller but prestigious litigation-focused firms (as of now, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie) are are willing to go to court with the Administration over the executive orders. At the moment, it seems like the litigations are going in their favour, as the orders have been temporarily blocked. When the issue inevitably goes to trial at a higher court, should there be a similar result, it might prompt the larger firms to keep their DEI policies.
4. The long-term reaction is unclear: Finally, the current conflict with the Administration is sending shockwaves through the US big law market. Associates at affected firms have expressed discontent and even reigned over the issue, stating that they will not work at an organization which does not share the same values. This could end up causing a problem for recruitment and retention of top talent. Moreover, some argue that this kind of media attention is also bad from a branding perspective, especially on the contentious side of the business, as it might make firms appear insufficiently resilient when in a dispute with the Government. This could potentially have an adverse impact for litigation clients, who could thus be prompted to move the business elsewhere. Whether these predicted long-term consequences come to pass remains to be seen; but if they do, this might once again convince the firms to rethink whether they want to change their DEI policies.

 

[Legalstudies]

has anyone emailed SH for updates for Summer Vac?

I emailed last week and haven't heard anything back I did the online test with them too

 

[Justin]

Was anyone else offered the group interview for the Sky Internship?

 

[TCLA0322]

If the GR said two weeks is their response time post AC, now is three weeks, does that mean silent rej?

 

[Ali2020]

Was anyone else offered the group interview for the Sky Internship?

Yes, just received it!

 

[Apple]

It is quite hard to make any predictions with a high degree of confidence as this is still very much of a developing situation. While the deals struck by Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and now Willkie and Milbank might seem to indicate this, I do think there are some important reasons to consider to the effect that this will not be as impactful as some think:

1. This is primarily a US matter: at least as far as the UK firms are concerned, or at least the UK firms without major operations in the US (although, in my opinion, most of the biggest operations of UK firms are not large enough to become direct targets) this should have no direct impact. Secondly, for US firms themselves, this is primarily a US matter. While their DEI policies are in many cases drafted at a firm-wide level, this used to be the case in a world where it would not be an issue to implement them across the board. Thus, while the language on their webpages and prospectuses may have changed, that does not necessarily imply a policy change across the board. I do not see why they could not in practice keep DEI policies in place in all of their non-US operations - if anything, having them in the UK puts them in a better standing with the current Government. I doubt hiring policies in foreign countries would be a relevant issue for the US Administration to target.
2. The details of the deals and general crackdown of DEI are unclear: while many in the press have reacted to the pro bono donation agreements struck by the aforementioned firms as a capitulation and an abandonment to DEI, it is actually not that clear what the details of the deals are. The firms have stated that, as part of the agreements, they commited to complying with Employment law requirements, but what those requirements are vis a vis specific DEI policies is not certain. Some commentators have been arguing that compliance will only require foregoing a particular set of what the US Administration sees as 'exclusionary' policies - such as having recruitment events and other opportunities open exclusively to a given minority group. However, that would not mean any and all consideration of DEI factors and wider contextual data in recruitment is banned.
3. The issue is being litigated: Thirdly, while it is the case that these three major firms have struck a deal, a number of smaller but prestigious litigation-focused firms (as of now, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie) are are willing to go to court with the Administration over the executive orders. At the moment, it seems like the litigations are going in their favour, as the orders have been temporarily blocked. When the issue inevitably goes to trial at a higher court, should there be a similar result, it might prompt the larger firms to keep their DEI policies.
4. The long-term reaction is unclear: Finally, the current conflict with the Administration is sending shockwaves through the US big law market. Associates at affected firms have expressed discontent and even reigned over the issue, stating that they will not work at an organization which does not share the same values. This could end up causing a problem for recruitment and retention of top talent. Moreover, some argue that this kind of media attention is also bad from a branding perspective, especially on the contentious side of the business, as it might make firms appear insufficiently resilient when in a dispute with the Government. This could potentially have an adverse impact for litigation clients, who could thus be prompted to move the business elsewhere. Whether these predicted long-term consequences come to pass remains to be seen; but if they do, this might once again convince the firms to rethink whether they want to change their DEI policies.

Thanks Andrei, really appreciate the insight.

 

[Hskajab]

Was wondering if anyone has done a Goodwin vac scheme before? Would love insights if anyone's willing to share.

boosting this

 

[Maddy]

For all those who received the invites did you complete the SQE 1? Or about to take it in July?

 

[Andrei Radu]

If the GR said two weeks is their response time post AC, now is three weeks, does that mean silent rej?

I think in the majority of cases the firm would inform you if you were straight up rejected. I think a lack of response over a longer than expected post AC generally means either that: (i) for whatever reason, the firm has not finalized its decision-making process; or (ii) that you have been place on a waitlist/reserve list, and your acceptance/rejection will be contingent on whether all people who have already received offers accept them/actually attend the schemes.

 

[ashwright]

Hi guys! Didn't expect to be returning so soon but I am happy to say I am back with some questions

I am happy to report that I have been invited to my first ever(!!!!) interview. It's for an in-house legal internship - perfect for me as I need to build up my practical experience. I'm expecting why us/you/this internship questions, as well as 'talk about a relevant news story'. I'm pretty prepared, but am still working on what to say for a strong 'why this internship' answer.

Nerves are kicking in but I am trying to keep calm by keeping prepared. I'd appreciate any advice on approaching interviews - I worry about staying calm, remembering what to say, and not sounding like a scared parrot! As always, I would really appreciate any advice ☺

 

[Andrei Radu]

here you go!

Kingsley Napley is considering setting up a new office overseas. Which location would you suggest, given our broad range of practice areas and client base? (Feel free to use any research tool or AI platform to help you with your answer) (250)
Please critique the answer above in your own words and without the use of AI. What problems, if any, do you see with this location for Kingsley Napley specifically? (250)

I think the approach suggested by @trainee4u is the right one. To add to his points, I have made a list bellow of crucial aspects to consider. Essentially, I think you should choose a new office location that seems to you to best fit the criteria you deem most important from those listed bellow; and then in the second part explain how reasons against it consist of the criteria the new location would not score so well in. This should be relatively unproblematic, as it is hard to think of any potential jurisdiction in which the different considerations would not pull in different directions. For instance, if clients in a given location are willing to pay high legal fees, the legal market is likely to be more saturated than other places and costs of setting up shop will also likely be higher.

Now, to list the factors I would consider most important:

1. Projected growth: Which regions in the world are projected to see significant growth in their legal markets? Here, there's many that come to mind, such as Singapore, Brussels, Sao Paolo, Boston, and Texas. You can further research this topic to determine what regions are likely to see the most growth and which regions have the highest potential legal fees.
2. Practice area and sector expertise: In which regions in the world would the firm's most well-known practices have the most demand? If your firm is transactional-focused Singapore might make sense, whereas if the the firm does a lot of competition/competition litigation work, Brussels might be the better choice.
3. Legal market conditions: A relevant factor for consideration is also how difficult it will be for the firm to establish itself as a serious player in a new region. Establishing an elite office in New York might be substantially more difficult than doing so in Sao Paolo, as seen by the struggles the Magic Circle firms have faced there.
4. Firm strategy and current network of offices: Does the firm prioritize revenue growth or retaining profitability? What is its current geographical reach, and what is its general international expansion strategy? A firm like Sullivan & Cromwell will normally focus on the highly-profitable legal markets in developed economies, while a firm like DLA Piper will have to ensure coverage of developing economies as well.
5. Legal fees: as indicated above, another crucial consideration is the range of billing rates clients in that jurisdiction are willing to accept. In developing countries companies expect to pay significantly lower fees than in the US and Western Europe. Thus, setting up shop there can result in a dilutive effect on profit pools.
6. Current client demand: for many firms who consider expanding a crucial point is whether current clients have any operations or need for legal services in that foreign jurisdiction. If you already have an established relationship in London or the US, it is a lot easier to win mandates from a given client in the new jurisdiction rather than winning mandates from new clients (where the firm would have to impress in a pitch to convince them to leave the firm they were previously working with). Furthermore, expanding in the main jurisdictions where your current clients need advice is a way of reducing the risk of them being won over by other firms (as a firm who advises a firm for a mandate in, say, Spain, might as well impress them and then persuade them to give them UK mandates as well). These two factors were central in Brad Karp's decision to invest as much as he did in Paul, Weiss' unprecedented expansion in the City- the firm was reportedly facing increasing demands to have a top London practice form Apollo, one of its most important PE clients.
7. Cost of setting up shop: depending on the state of the legal market in the jurisdiction and the method of expansion chosen (acquisition/merger of a local firm, lateral hiring, organic growth or a combination of the three), the costs of investing in a new office can differ immensely. Establishing a top office in New York for instance is a herculean task, as the combination of sky-high associate and partner salaries and the size of competitors requires a huge amount of invested capital (which, among other things, explains why the Magic Circle firms have found it so difficult to compete with the US firms on their home turf).