- Feb 17, 2018
- 4,717
- 8,627
(1) Addleshaw Goddard Interview Experience
When was your Addleshaw Goddard interview?
February 2018
What was it for?
Summer vacation scheme
Please describe the interview process at Addleshaw Goddard.
Interview with two partners, analysis discussion with two partners, group exercise, proof reading exercise
What advice would you give to future applicants for the Addleshaw Goddard interview?
Interview: relatively unstructured - although the obvious 'why us' and 'why law' were asked, it felt more like a discussion in that the next question expanded on your previous answer. Lack of rigidity allows you to steer the interview in a particular direction.
proof reading: read over a document and correct any errors. Many of the errors were obvious: incorrect postcode, names spelt incorrectly, errors in number formatting etc. Other errors were more subjective: some sections were maybe too wordy or superfluous
Analysis discussion: Given a list of documents that referred to a problem (some documents were deliberately useless), and given half an hour to make a note of the key issues. Then had a 'discussion' with two partners about the problem, any causes of action, and any solutions. Note that you were only allowed to take in one side of notes, and not of the documents. Relatively informal - no need to stand up etc
When was your Addleshaw Goddard interview?
February 2018
What was it for?
Summer vacation scheme
Please describe the interview process at Addleshaw Goddard.
Interview with two partners, analysis discussion with two partners, group exercise, proof reading exercise
What advice would you give to future applicants for the Addleshaw Goddard interview?
Interview: relatively unstructured - although the obvious 'why us' and 'why law' were asked, it felt more like a discussion in that the next question expanded on your previous answer. Lack of rigidity allows you to steer the interview in a particular direction.
proof reading: read over a document and correct any errors. Many of the errors were obvious: incorrect postcode, names spelt incorrectly, errors in number formatting etc. Other errors were more subjective: some sections were maybe too wordy or superfluous
Analysis discussion: Given a list of documents that referred to a problem (some documents were deliberately useless), and given half an hour to make a note of the key issues. Then had a 'discussion' with two partners about the problem, any causes of action, and any solutions. Note that you were only allowed to take in one side of notes, and not of the documents. Relatively informal - no need to stand up etc
Last edited:
