TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[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).

 

[LawHopeful1]

Oh don’t worry about it at all, you’ll get proper training and it’s normal to make mistakes in your first two-three months. It gets better every month and people are very understanding and will guide you. I made lots of mistakes in my first months and people were super helpful whether it’s other paralegals trainees or associates. I understand the imposter syndrome feeling as I felt it until I started going to work for a few days when I started by first legal job and I’m also an international with a different accent but it’s all in our heads, people are usually very sweet and supportive/welcoming and once you start you will be absolutely fine. You will get comfortable very fast and mistakes will reduce everyday, just focus on getting better and make sure you keep a notepad to note down the mistakes the associates tell you about so you don’t repeat them as it’s very easy to forget the points they make especially if it’s your first law job and they may seem minor but it makes a difference overall (I did this and it was very helpful to go back and refer to them when a similar task was given) Lastly, when you hit the three month mark, you’re already a pro Best of luck to you, you’re gonna ace it!!

Thank you so much!

 

[Andrei Radu]

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 ☺

Hi @ashwright and huge congrats on getting to the interview stage 🥳 🥳 I am sure you will nail it! My best advice for you to avoid sounding robotic is to not memorize your answers during your preparation. Instead, I think you should simply aim to remember how to link key competencies/motivations with aspects of a wide set of your experiences, and then to practice as much as you can coming up with good answers on the spot. This way, you will develop the most important interviewing skill of all: an ability to express your thought in articulate manner even if you have not considered the issue in the past. I believe this is essential because (i) no matter how much you prepare, it is unlikely that every single question you will be asked will be one you have memorized an answer for; (ii) even if they are, it is unlikely the exact form and framing of every question fits the specific phrasing you have memorized; and (iii) even if you are extremely lucky in this regard as well and everything fits perfectly, given the nerves you will naturally be experiencing during the interview, it is likely you will inadvertently deviate from your pre-prepared 'optimal' answer, which might then make you overthink the issue and end up derailing your entire performance.

More generally, to keep calm on the day, I have two central pieces of advice: to focus on doing well, not on being perfect, and to aim to speak at a slower pace. I have explained these two tips in a lot more depth in a previous post, I will quote it bellow:

My top tip would be to focus on doing well and not on being perfect. Many people go to ACs thinking they need to blow away the partners and the recruiters to succeed, but I think this is the wrong attitude to have. First of all, while your achievements and skills might be impressive for this stage, it is quite unlikely you will manage to overly impress anyone no matter how hard you try - you will know a lot less about any given commercial law subject than lawyer in the firm. Secondly, this attitude will make you feel even more stressed than you would normally be and will therefore likely impact your performance. If you will be assessed for a total time of a few hours, it is impossible to be perfect in every moment. When you notice an imperfection in an answer, the right reaction is to acknowledge it but then to move past it and make the best of the rest. Instead, the overly perfectionistic candidates tend to stress about it a lot more than they should, and in attempting to fix the initial mistake they do a lot more harm to their progression chances. People with this mindset thus often end up creating negative feedback loops for themselves: they make a small error, then they begin overthinking it, which decreases their self-confidence, which impacts their next answer, which in turn further intensifies their anxiety; a series of events which can end up completely derailing one's performance.

To avoid this, instead of aiming to excel everywhere, I would simply aim to perform well - to do a good job on every task and score well on every relevant assessment criterion. This boils down to using your preparation to make decent substantive points and communicate them in a clear and confident manner. If you manage to do this you will have performed better than the majority of candidates and in most cases should be enough to get you progressed - it did for me 4/4 times. If you reframe your task in this way, I think you should feel a lot less anxious about it: while perhaps it is difficult to convince yourself that you will pull of an extraordinary performance, you should feel a lot more confident in being able to respond sensibly to tasks and to cover all your bases well.

A final piece of advice I have for calming down on the day and to avoid blanking out is to take your time:

1. Firstly, taking your time before starting your answer. Instead of just jumping into a response the instance the interviewer stops speaking (which is a very natural temptation) take 3-4 seconds to think about and structure your answer. This will significantly decrease the number of times you find yourself blanking out mid-answer or having difficulty finding the right way to end a sentence.
2. Secondly, if you have difficulty with finding sensible points for a question, it is perfectly acceptable to request some thinking time - just say 'May I please take a minute to consider my answer?'. In the unlikely case you do not find anything after that, explain that you are unsure what to say; but also walk the interviewer through your thought process of your best guess.
3. Thirdly, aim to speak more slowly. When you are anxious, your hear rate goes up and you naturally start speaking at a higher pace, which is problematic in that this simply means taking less time to think as you answer. This naturally reduces how articulate and confident you seem, especially since speaking quickly more often leads you to losing your chain of thought or expressing yourself in unclear language. As such, try to slow down. Also, use strategic 2-3 second pauses in your speech to add emphasis to points and to get valuable thinking time as you are moving between the different parts of your answer.

Finally, know that just by getting to the AC you have proven yourself to be one of the very best candidates out of a huge pool, which means you have all it takes to succeed! Best of luck !

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

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

Hiya @Maddy

I’d say it’s definitely worth reaching out to Kilburn & Strode’s graduate recruitment team directly before submitting an application, just to be sure. I’ve had a quick look through the government’s register of licensed sponsors for skilled workers (you can find it here if helpful), and I can't see them listed. That said, the list can be a bit tricky to navigate and things do change (and the mere fact that an organisation is on the list doesn't mean they will automatically sponsor), so I’d still recommend confirming it with the firm directly before making any decisions about applying. Hope that helps and good luck if you do end up applying!

 

[fairbourne]

Does anyone have any insights into the Payne Hicks Beach TC AC? Thanks very much in advance!

 

[abbiewhitlock03]

Paul Hastings first stage interview invite for their PHirst scheme ?!

I've already accepted a summer scheme during their placement - do you think I could ask to be considered for the DTC route for Paul Hastings instead?