Ask 3 future trainees (Magic & Silver Circle, International Elite) ANYTHING! *New TCLA Team Members*

[Holly]

Hey guys,

Would really appreciate your views on this:

I’m a final year law student in my first application cycle. If I don’t get a TC this year I’m not sure what do next.

If I spend the next year/s in a different job (hopefully legal or finance-related) to build up experience and strengthen my position before entering my second application window (Sep 2021), rather than doing the LPC, would this put me at a disadvantage? Would firms still sponsor me if I end up taking the LPC a few years down the line (if I secure a TC with them then)?

Thanks,

Hey If it helps, in my final year I decided to pause applications and complete more once I graduated. It definitely helped as I could focus more on improving my grades and my extra curricular activities. Feel free to dm if you have more questions on this and I’ll be happy to help!

 

[Dheepa]

Hey Dheepa would you apply the same approach (identify legal and commercial issues) if a case study involved advising a client on which project or product to invest in? This is assuming the question did not specify which approach to take

So assuming the question has not told you whether you were a trainee/lawyer/business consultant etc then yes I would be trying to identify both legal and commercial issues.

I think it's important to remember that the two tend to go hand in hand. So the flip side to purely commercial issues is that there are often legal solutions to them. For example, let's say one of the products is doing really well but a potential issue you've identified is there are several competitors in the market with similiar USPs to your product or have similiar branding etc (which evidently cuts your potential profit margins) You could offer legal solutions like looking into any potential IP/trademark infringements by these competitors or looking into negotiating a partnership/JV with some of the competitors on a specific launch.

Hope the example makes sense (let me know if it doesn't) ☺️

 

[Holly]

So assuming the question has not told you whether you were a trainee/lawyer/business consultant etc then yes I would be trying to identify both legal and commercial issues.

I think it's important to remember that the two tend to go hand in hand. So the flip side to purely commercial issues is that there are often legal solutions to them. For example, let's say one of the products is doing really well but a potential issue you've identified is there are several competitors in the market with similiar USPs to your product or have similiar branding etc (which evidently cuts your potential profit margins) You could offer legal solutions like looking into any potential IP/trademark infringements by these competitors or looking into negotiating a partnership/JV with some of the competitors on a specific launch.

Hope the example makes sense (let me know if it doesn't) ☺️

Makes perfect sense, you explained that so well. Really appreciate the example! Thanks

 

[Tarnjeet]

Agree with everything Jacob and Naomi have said! You will definitely not be disadvantaged by choosing to take time out from the process to become a better applicant.

I wanted to link you to this thread where Alice discussed her legal tech role before her TC so you can see for yourself the various routes people take before securing a TC https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/threads/legal-tech-paralegal-job.3351/#post-59387.

Also want to add that you don't have to limit yourself to something legal or finance related. I know people tend to see both as being the most directly applicable to a TC and commercial law but I'd recommend looking into some entry level graduate schemes at FTSE 100 companies (typical law firm clients) and other places as well. They usually have quite a few business analysts and compliance related roles advertised and I think it would be a fantastic way to learn more about how clients of law firms operate and what they really care about. Alternatively lots of law firms also look for business support staff, so maybe that's something you can consider as well.

Thanks for this!

Will definitely look into the wider graduate roles available- are the deadlines for these typically the same as VS/TCs?

 

[Tarnjeet]

Hey If it helps, in my final year I decided to pause applications and complete more once I graduated. It definitely helped as I could focus more on improving my grades and my extra curricular activities. Feel free to dm if you have more questions on this and I’ll be happy to help!

Thank you!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thanks for this!

Will definitely look into the wider graduate roles available- are the deadlines for these typically the same as VS/TCs?

It depends what you are looking for. If you are looking for graduate programme type roles, this will be much earlier than law, typically August - November.

If you are just looking for entry level roles, you should start looking for them around 8 weeks before you are ready to start the job.

 

[Dheepa]

Hi, I hope you are well.

Could I ask if there is any recommended structure to be followed when answering questions that ask me to tell the interviewer more about a particular work experience/extra-curricular activity? I have also found it quite hard to build rapport with interviewers and was hoping to seek your advice on this (I am quite an introvert.. eek!). Thanks a lot in advance !

Hiya!

So for your first question, if the interviewer asks you something quite open ended i.e. "Tell me more about X on your CV", there wouldn't really be a specific structure to follow. They are asking possibly because they find it to be an interesting experience and just want to learn more about it. You could probably explain what motivated you to take up that work experience/extra-curricular, what you enjoyed the most about it and what you learned from it (the highlights basically). I used to get very caught up thinking about what the interviewers were really trying to ask me for every question, but sometimes it's better to take things at face value, they aren't trying to trip you up on purpose! If they feel like they want more information they will ask you follow-up questions or alternatively you could end by saying "Is there anything else you'd like to know about that particular experience".

With regards to building rapport, this is truly one of the hardest things to do in an interview I think. In part because rapport is a two-way street and if your interviewer just happens to be incredibly stoic and no-nonsense then it makes creating that conversational flow a lot harder. Some tangible things you can do and have always worked for me:

1. When they inevitably ask you at the beginning of the interview how you're doing - be honest! Tell them something like "I was pretty nervous but spent last night doing X,Y,Z which helped me calm down" Seems silly but it's showing them other sides to your personality.
2. Smile! Always smile. Even if you're struggling to answer a question, show them that there is no other place you'd rather be (even if you're actually feeling the opposite way)
3. Asking questions - when you ask questions at the end of the interview, don't just ask a question that you think will impress (things like COVID or Brexit, just think about how often they have to answer questions like this to clients anyway, why force them to do it again) ask a question that you genuinely want to know the answer to. Personally, I'd always recommend asking them about themselves, their journey to the firm, what made them stay at the firm that kind of thing. People love talking about themselves and I genuinely think it gets people to warm up to you a bit more.

I also think that part of building rapport and making an interview conversational is in not sounding too rehearsed. You need to sound like you're just having a casual (albeit professional) conversation with someone. And for that I'd really recommend talking through your answers (to yourself or to a friend) before the interview. Gonna include an earlier post where I discuss this below.

I hope this helps, and honestly please don't feel like being more introverted is a disadvantage. Law firms aren't trying to hire 80 extremely chatty extroverted people (even as a somewhat extroverted person myself this would be my personal hell 😅 ), they just want people they know they would enjoy working with and that just involves coming across as friendly and pleasant, nothing more!

Good luck with your interview! I'm sure you'll smash it!

I really relate to this. I was completely unconfident in my interviews in my first cycle that I often came across as very robotic and stoic when that's the complete opposite of my actual personality.

The biggest thing I did to increase my confidence was talk to myself. I know it sounds crazy but before an interview I would genuinely try to imagine myself in a room answering questions about myself and my experiences. Not only did this help me become more confident in the things that I was saying (because I'd already repeated them to myself so many times), but it really helped me relax myself because when I did repeat them in an interview context, it felt no different from all the self conversing I'd done on my own.

Another thing I always tried to remind myself of is that partners are ordinary people too. They are there in that room because they genuinely want to know more about you and everything you bring to the table. The best interviews I've had are ones where I've reminded myself of this and managed to just have a good back and forth conversation with the partners. Tangible things you can do to help with that is smiling at things they've said (sounds simple I know but works wonders), posing questions on their views (after you've answered of course) if you're discussing a commercial awareness topic, and maybe even truthfully answering the how are you doing question all interviews tend to start with. I once got asked this and fully mentioned that while I was nervous I managed to relax myself by watching a pretty well known movie last night and the partner and I fully had a five minute conversation on that movie after that before starting the interview. In other words, really let your chatty personality shine through! Small things like this really demonstrate that you are a confident person who can hold your own in a room despite any stumbles you might make during the actual interview.

As Jacob has already said, interviewers will rarely ever see someone as cocky or arrogant if you're simply highlighting the truly impressive things you've done. I imagine behaviour that maybe would come across as arrogant would if you're being loud and brash, rudely disagreeing with your interviewers, or making overly friendly and informal remarks. I think that as long as you avoid doing any of these things, it would be very difficult to perceive you as being cocky. Remember that you are there because they really do want to know about your experiences, and its much better to make a strong impression with by detailing the true extent of everything you've done rather than underselling yourself.

 

[Naomi U]

Hey everyone!

When a question asks how would you describe x firm to somebody? What would you include? I was thinking mentioning their reputation and awards but then thought maybe this might come across as too much legal jargon??

Telling somebody about the firm I always think it depends on who that person is? So I tend to struggle with it? Like my answer to this would vary if I was speaking to a client, my parents or a random person on the bus ect

Hiya!

I would probably approach this question similarly to the way I would approach a why X firm question. I think the only difference here is to perhaps approach the question from a more objective perspective and not focus too much on training (e.g. training contract structure, secondment opportunities etc.)

Therefore, I think that the points you would be likely to mention in your answer to why X firm such as; practice area strength, client/industry focus, culture, approach to working (e.g. a multi-specialist approach vs early specialism) would all still be relevant here.

Hope this helps ☺️

 

[Naomi U]

Hi, I hope you are well.

Could I ask if there is any recommended structure to be followed when answering questions that ask me to tell the interviewer more about a particular work experience/extra-curricular activity? I have also found it quite hard to build rapport with interviewers and was hoping to seek your advice on this (I am quite an introvert.. eek!). Thanks a lot in advance !

Hiya!

I totally agree with Dheepa's points.
I think my personal approach would be to mimic a STAR type structure so;
Situation: What was the experience? How did such experience come about? (what were my initial motivations, how did I find out about the experience etc.)
Task/action: I think task and action can be merged a bit here. So I would give an explanation of the position/role I played, any tasks/ responsibilities I had in particular. It might be better to give a brief overview of your general responsibilities, then perhaps you can go into a bit more detail if you have any key examples.
Result: I think result here is more about reflection. What did you learn from this experience? How did you feel going into the experience vs coming out of the experience? How has this experience shaped you in regards to your motivations, interests and skills (e.g. were you able to overcome a specific challenge?)

As for building rapport, I would also describe myself as quite introverted so you are not alone!
I think sometimes we put too much pressure on ourselves regarding this and I think it's important to remember rapport is a two way street. You can only do what you can from your own side. That being said, my biggest advice would be to consider your body language. Especially now that everything is virtual, body language is more important than ever. So I completely agree with Dheepa's points- smile, smile, smile!
I personally think that when you are honest and genuine in your responses, this in itself helps to establish rapport because it reveals more of your true personality. This is why I always recommend being as authentic as you can and to never force a response or pretend to have an interest because you feel you are "supposed to do so". Also at the end of the interview when you have the opportunity to ask questions, I think its always quite nice and beneficial to ask a question that relates to your interviewers own experiences at the firm.

Hope this helps & best of luck ☺️​

 

[Legalmel_99]

Hiya!

I would probably approach this question similarly to the way I would approach a why X firm question. I think the only difference here is to perhaps approach the question from a more objective perspective and not focus too much on training (e.g. training contract structure, secondment opportunities etc.)

Therefore, I think that the points you would be likely to mention in your answer to why X firm such as; practice area strength, client/industry focus, culture, approach to working (e.g. a multi-specialist approach vs early specialism) would all still be relevant here.

Hope this helps ☺️

Amazing! Thankyou that’s really helped🙌🏽☺️

 

[Lumree]

@Jacob Miller Hey! Unrelated to law question for you but any tips for getting started in investing in stocks? Apologies if you invest more in coins!

 

[Daniel Boden]

@Jacob Miller Hey! Unrelated to law question for you but any tips for getting started in investing in stocks? Apologies if you invest more in coins!

Do your research! As basic as it is that is literally the golden rule. I'd advise you to research index funds/passive vs actively managed funds etc. There are loads of very good videos on youtube but these ones by Ali Abdaal and Graham Stephan are particularly good.

 

[Lumree]

Do your research! As basic as it is that is literally the golden rule. I'd advise you to research index funds/passive vs actively managed funds etc. There are loads of very good videos on youtube but these ones by Ali Abdaal and Graham Stephan are particularly good.

Awesome, I’ll take a look!

 

[Jacob Miller]

@Jacob Miller Hey! Unrelated to law question for you but any tips for getting started in investing in stocks? Apologies if you invest more in coins!

I've got to be honest, I've zero knowledge of stock/ share trading so feel woefully under-qualified to start advising! Haha. Currencies are way more my wheelhouse

Edit: I should clarify that this is for active investments, I do also keep a passive investment fund which trades ETFs etc, just a Vanguard one

 

[Lumree]

I've got to be honest, I've zero knowledge of stock/ share trading so feel woefully under-qualified to start advising! Haha. Currencies are way more my wheelhouse

No trouble at all!

 

[Holly]

Do your research! As basic as it is that is literally the golden rule. I'd advise you to research index funds/passive vs actively managed funds etc. There are loads of very good videos on youtube but these ones by Ali Abdaal and Graham Stephan are particularly good.

@Lumree
I agree with this! Index funds are a good starting point. Although note - as a warning, Graham’s videos are addictive 😂

 

[Holly]

Thank you very much for your advice. It's incredibly helpful!

Could I also ask if you have any tips on coming across as more confident and assertive? I always think that I am already showcasing the most confident side of myself but apparently that isn't the case Thank you once again

Hey, I think speaking at a controlled pace and maintaining eye contact makes a difference. Avoiding words like “I think” helps too

 

[Jacob Miller]

Could I also ask if you have any tips on coming across as more confident and assertive? I always think that I am already showcasing the most confident side of myself but apparently that isn't the case Thank you once again

I agree with the above. Key things I would do to display confidence/ calmness (I think sometimes calmness is all that's needed) include:
- Firm handshake and eye contact as soon as you meet the interviewer, introduce yourself with a smile and ask how they're doing (obviously the handshake bit is only applicable to an in-person interview)
- Speak slower than you normally would, keep your vocal tone consistent and (highly optional) throw your voice ever so slightly lower than normal
- Don't rush into answering anything, instead take a few seconds to think through the question that's been asked, take a sip of water etc - this helps to calm you down so everything you say afterwards is the proper pace etc
- Avoid adding a raised inflection to your sentences unless you're asking a question as it makes everything seem like a question/ uncertain
- Avoid the use of language which indicates uncertainty (e.g. 'maybe'/ 'might'/ 'possibly'/ 'probably' etc) and sub this for more definitive language

Just worth briefly mentioning, remember that - while confidence is great and really highly important - you never want to cross the line to coming off arrogant etc. Just bear this in mind and you'll be golden

 

[djqb]

Hi @Jacob Miller & the other forum members - hope you're all doing well!

Many thanks for your insights on this forum Jacob, I've really been enjoying your articles, especially ones regarding law firm assessment centres!

I was wondering if you could shed some light on what you think would be the very specific differences between Travers Smith & Macfarlanes, seeing as the 2 firms have very similar business models, and are truly the only remaining "silver circle" firms (per the definition coined by legal media outlets more than 10 years ago), seeing as they have sought to maintain their exclusively London-based foothold, instead of opting for internationalisation. (I guess Slaughter & May and Mischon de Reya could also be considered to have a similar business model).

But with regards to Travers Smith & Macfarlanes, I've noted the following key similarities:

• Strong PE & corporate focus
• Lack of varied finance practices (e.g.: no project finance practices unlike other more international firms in the city)
• Growing disputes practices
• Best friends networks with firms in international jurisdictions

However, I've also noted the following differences:

• Macfarlanes seems to outperform Travers Smith in a few financial metrics
• Macfarlanes seems to have an edge on disputes (constitutes a larger portion of their revenue, in comparison to Travers Smith) + has a private client practice, which Travers Smith does not
• Travers Smith has a smaller trainee intake (25 vs 33, per Legal Cheek)

But apart from the above, are there any other differences you'd think I'm missing out on? The two firms seem to be obvious competitors in the London legal market, especially for high-end corporate work, with very high-quality training programs!

Furthermore, as a future trainee at Travers Smith, what unique advantages do you think Travers Smith has over a firm like Macfarlanes?

I'd sincerely appreciate your (and anybody else's) insights on the same!

Thank you very much in advance!

 

[Jacob Miller]

Hi @Jacob Miller & the other forum members - hope you're all doing well!

Many thanks for your insights on this forum Jacob, I've really been enjoying your articles, especially ones regarding law firm assessment centres!

I was wondering if you could shed some light on what you think would be the very specific differences between Travers Smith & Macfarlanes, seeing as the 2 firms have very similar business models, and are truly the only remaining "silver circle" firms (per the definition coined by legal media outlets more than 10 years ago), seeing as they have sought to maintain their exclusively London-based foothold, instead of opting for internationalisation. (I guess Slaughter & May and Mischon de Reya could also be considered to have a similar business model).

But with regards to Travers Smith & Macfarlanes, I've noted the following key similarities:

• Strong PE & corporate focus
• Lack of varied finance practices (e.g.: no project finance practices unlike other more international firms in the city)
• Growing disputes practices
• Best friends networks with firms in international jurisdictions

However, I've also noted the following differences:

• Macfarlanes seems to outperform Travers Smith in a few financial metrics
• Macfarlanes seems to have an edge on disputes (constitutes a larger portion of their revenue, in comparison to Travers Smith) + has a private client practice, which Travers Smith does not
• Travers Smith has a smaller trainee intake (25 vs 33, per Legal Cheek)

But apart from the above, are there any other differences you'd think I'm missing out on? The two firms seem to be obvious competitors in the London legal market, especially for high-end corporate work, with very high-quality training programs!

Furthermore, as a future trainee at Travers Smith, what unique advantages do you think Travers Smith has over a firm like Macfarlanes?

I'd sincerely appreciate your (and anybody else's) insights on the same!

Thank you very much in advance!

Hey, thanks for reaching out and glad you've enjoyed the articles!

I've personally not had any experience with Macfarlanes, haven't applied to them before, so I don't know a phenomenal amount about them in terms of really specific information. Suffice to say, based on my knowledge, you're pretty much on point with most of your analysis. Purely speaking on numbers, Macfarlanes PEP is a bit higher than Travers; Travers' NQ basic salary is a bit higher than Macs and I think Travers have a slightly more generous bonus structure too. Travers score higher than Macs on several metrics according to Legal Cheek's 'insider reports', Travers' have a higher trainee retention rate and outperform Macs on several diversity metrics.

In terms of practice areas, Travers' disputes team is still growing at a rate of knots and Travers' outperform Macs on PE work as far as I know. Travers has long since cut off private client work as it was much less profitable but required a lot of man-hours. For me, as someone interested in PE work, Travers was a more obvious choice than Macs. I also like the smaller trainee intake and office-share structure, among other elements. They're both, however, great firms which are very highly-respected and provide excellent opportunities.

Hope this helps